by anna at 06:56 PM on May 09, 2005
You have to hand it to the hairdressers, trainers, makeup people and plastic surgeons of Hollywood. These are the underpaid, workaday sorts who can transform this frumpy mess into this glamourpuss. Or this housefrau into this gracious looking lady.
Celebrities. You can't live with them because they won't let you past their gates and velvet ropes. And judging by the infinite resources that are sunk into chronicling their every move, you can't live without them. The other day two middle-aged women at my office were discussing the Brad-Angelina-Jennifer situation. One said she thought Brad wanted a more exotic looking beauty. She felt that Jen was more of a girl next door cutie. The other, seemingly bitter about men in general, said guys always dump the older gal for something younger and sleeker. I volunteered that maybe he'd just grown sick of waking up next to someone who looks like a man. Then a younger guy chimed in with this ill-advised observation: "Guys dump old chicks for young chicks because they are looking for a tighter fit." It hung in the air like a lingering fart. Like "I've got to go feed my hostages," there just isn't any rejoinder for that.
Nobody up in their world will admit any interest in these icons. But somebody is snapping up all those copies of People, Us and InStyle. Somebody watches Access Hollywood. In many ways, celebs are like our caged pets. We peer at them from time to time. We take note of their promiscuous breeding habits. We laugh when they overdose.
They exist in a parallel universe vastly different from our own. They seem to always have flashbulbs going off in their faces as they stand there on display, doing that fluttery actress wave or flashing that million-dollar smile on cue.
I have a theory about this non-acknowledged but all too real international obsession. Deep down we're all still stuck in the gossipy high school phase. We're still standing around speculating about why the hot cheerleader who was dating the fresh-faced white quarterback slunk across town to bang the studly black tailback. As our own lives settled down into routines of humdrum monogamy, child-rearing and work, we turned to these carefree sorts and their drug-addled antics. We live vicariously through them. We will sit and listen to them prattle on endlessly about themselves and how all their colleagues are Creative Geniuses and how grueling shooting the action or sex scenes turned out to be.
I won't. I am up in my world. Though I will say there is no way Tom Cruise would despoil Natalie Portman. She's a virgin, you know.
I tried to add a comment to Blank's post above. But I was led to that 404 page with MG's original menacing thumbnail. I wanted to say that local radio personalities have tapes of a screaming Rosie in this awful movie on loops. It is driving me insane. Also, what are the odds of the seldom-used word "frumpy" appearing in two posts in the same day?
by anna at May 10, 2005 7:45 AM
But... but... Tom Cruise is dating Katie Holmes, not Nathalie Portman...
by Jen at May 10, 2005 7:59 AM
Aren't they pretty much the same persons, like Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman? Or Marlon Brando and Orson Welles?
by anna at May 10, 2005 6:05 PM
I like how there was no rejoinder after that younger fellows crass remark...
by Lockheed at May 10, 2005 10:27 PM
Anna, Natalie Portman is a more established actress who's had big roles in several dramatic movies. Katie Holmes is still mostly known for being in the TV show "Dawson's Creek."
I claim immunity from celebrity obsession because I used to work in the industry. Professional license, you know. ;)
by jean at May 11, 2005 3:18 AM
So did I. I live for awkward, tense moments. Jean that is what they all say. But I still maintain that Portman and Holmes are both basically the young twenties, fresh-faced brunette type. Niether has displayed any particular talent.
It must be strange to be like, Tara Reid. You are an actress with a career spanning in front of you and yet you absolutely know no awards or nominations are coming your way.
by anna at May 11, 2005 7:52 AM
Tara Reid could get a nomination or even an award if she did really well in a film. Movie awards aren't quite as awful as, for example, music awards. Movie awards still reward good work, more or less. And they're not going to brush you off if you have a bad track record.
About Tara Reid... I don't know that much about her, but this makes me think of Christina Applegate. She's not critically acclaimed or a big star, but she works hard, and I totally respect her. She's probably pretty well off, too.
by jean at May 12, 2005 2:31 AM
I disagree. If Reid were to turn in a stellar performance like the Scarlett O'Hara character in Gone With the Wind, they'd probably say she grew up in similar circumstances and was just being herself. Whereas Meryl Streep can phone in any manner of crap and it is ART.
by anna at May 22, 2005 8:36 AM
Maybe. On the other hand, I don't like Meryl Streep either. I think she overacts.
by jean at May 23, 2005 12:36 AM