Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

when we know too much about the stars


ennisdelmar2
 Share

Recommended Posts

After reading some posts in some recent threads, I got to thinking about a particular problem(?) some of us have when watching movies. How do we separate the ACTOR from the performance? What I mean is, the actor's personal life? There is an actor that I have always loved. His movies are among my favorites of all time. Recently I have read that he was quite a racist among other things . How do I not let this affect my viewings of his films? Some people cannot watch Joan Crawford any more. Some people will never watch a Jane Fonda movie. Some people have now written off Mel Gibson. You get the point. Is is even possible to watch their movies without being affected by what we know about them personally? Maybe it was better in the "old days', when movie goers only knew what the studios wanted them to know. Yeah, that's crazy, I guess. Just wonder what other people think about this. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie Sheen's antics, do we need to be kept up to date by CNN gossip? NO!

I'm sick of Lindsey Lohen, spoiled brat!

 

And the topper, Whoopi Goldberg in that "Poise" commercial stating so boldly, *I leak.* Do we *want* to know that and do we *need* to know that? I know what Ted Danson would say (yes I haven't forgot that Ted)..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think knowing too many intimate details about a performer's life can affect my enjoyment of a movie. They are still people with all the good and bad that entails.

 

I have read a few biographies of my favourites but now I stay away from them.

 

I almost bought Esther Williams' book once. I really like her and for not being an "actress" she was perfectly natural and comfortable on screen. I seem to have read or heard a little bit about her and I gather that she was not as sweet as she appeared. But I don't need to dig up any dirt about her.

 

I like hot dogs but I'd just as soon not know what all's in them.

 

Hollywood is a land of survivors and sometimes you do things that you aren't very proud of. I want to enjoy the performance on the screen without thinking about what a heel he or she might have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie Sheen is a waste and an idiot.....along with a LOT of other celebrities these days. I get sick of hearing about the same people every other day, and hearing one thing after another these days about Oprah....who IMHO should just shut up. Along with Rosie O'Donnell and Elton John and Cher and (etc).....there's several celebrities who I now wish would just shut the hell up. The media also needs to shut the hell up and stop reporting all this crapola they THINK is news and that people want to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't heard anything at all about Elton John since that 2007 child porn scandal in the UK, I thought he went into hiding. Why did they ever gave him the title *Sir* is beyond me.

Under-a-rock-763364.jpg

 

Opray Winfrey now has her own channel on Directv. What really bugs me is that Directv gave it to me and I didn't ask for it and lost G4 Tech TV! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It?s only natural for many fans to get caught up in the aura and style of a certain movie star or celebrity. If anything can be said about motion pictures, it can be this issue of false imagery created that becomes related to the actor or actress on the screen. Some fans get so attached to a star, not ever knowing or experiencing who they really are, they will or can never accept the hardcore reality of their frailties and faults; they will make whatever possible excuse and never see beyond the cloudiness that comes with revealed misdeeds. Certainly, it?s logical to surmise that a motion picture star has to be two different people. Take a great star like Jimmy Stewart; he was so beloved and idolized by millions as his imagery from motion pictures became the main focal point of an honest, sincere and dependable person. In private, Jimmy was shy, introverted and while really a nice guy, he wasn?t so prone as to be receptive to a fan who might want an autograph or take up so much of his time, listening to their admiration of him. Gregg Peck was somewhat the same; he hated to go out in public and then be recognized; he knew all too well, people in general didn?t see him for who he really was and this I think can become a burden that has to be controlled and dealt with, until a routine can be accomplished in handling the whole ordeal of being a celebrity.

 

There has always been a reason to feel that we have to accept the simple notion on what we see in the movies isn?t who these people might really be. This isn?t to say that movie stars are under a constant form of emotional pressure due to their fame, but that some stars will never learn how to juggle their careers as opposed to their personal lives. To my estimation of thinking, the best or greatest movie stars are the ones who understand what?s at stake and that they have been given in a technical way of understanding, a huge privilege that allows them to live forever from the imagery they have created on the motion picture screen. Some will live recklessly and never accept those simple and rational attitudes we might not take for granted, but fame and glory have a way of intoxicating a person?s mind towards a distorted view of being under the spotlight. They then begin to believe, the power of their celebrity will give them a leeway or exception to certain rules of life and thus the immortality they have achieved corrupts them or makes them not see clearly beyond it. The worst movie stars are the ones that are spoiled to the point that they exploit their fame to get what they want or use it to save themselves from facing the pain of reality. There?s a sort of other side to the whole issue of being famous, in that whether or not one can play by the rules or morals, we on the outside must deal with and accept from day to day.

 

Perhaps the strangest thing about motion picture stars, centers around this duality they must perform or play in their daily lives. Some of them end up constantly acting, trapped in this imagery or symbol they have created. The best example of this was Marilyn Monroe. She never felt so compelled as to remember Norma Jean Baker. Perhaps Marilyn had too much emotional distress from her past and childhood to remember who she really was and where she came from. But, the huge mistake she made was thinking that the movie star she became would quell what insecurities had tarnished her soul. In time, she became irrational and felt so suspicious of everyone around her. There came this game of concealing the basic facts of her eventual tyrannical personality that most fans would never know of and some might not want to ever accept. The same could be said of Joan Crawford, but in her case, Joan managed somehow to at times identify and distinguish herself from the anarchy that fame can bring. Joan in a sensible way did not forget she was and would always remain, Lucille Fay Le Sueur. It was this other, true person that reminded Joan to stay as solid and determined as she could, in order to achieve the best of what might be offered. The whole ?Momma Dearest? syndrome that has been equated with Joan has in some ways changed the outlook to her stardom. But, for those who knew Joan well enough, she was after all is said and done, true to her cause of being an accomplished movie star. Joan wasn?t really evil; she was just tough as nails and in the entertainment world, being this way is far more reliable than exhibiting a flamboyant and carefree disposition that gets you lots of publicity, but nowhere to achieving your professional goals.

 

Nobody is perfect, least of all a movie star. Everyone has their personal hidden tensions and emotional agendas to deal with. The trick to all of this is just how well one can come to grips with certain dispositions and the challenges that come with being famous. I have always admired a few things said about fame by some great celebrities . . .

 

Katherine Hepburn once said: ?My work comes first and is the most precious of all things in my life.?

 

Bogie: ?All I owe the public is a good performance and live a decent as possible life.?

 

The Duke: ?It?s a hard job, but I?ll be damned if I want to lose it!?

 

Gable: ?I didn?t come this far to not be taken serious.?

 

Ginger Rogers: ?You work hard and respect what you come to represent.?

 

Bette Davis: ?I can be difficult and demanding in my work, but not when I?m outside of it.

 

Sinatra: ?It?s great to be in show business, but I don?t make a habit of taking it around with me everywhere I go!?

 

Sir Laurence Olivier: ?There are great actors and then there are great stars . . . The best are one in the same.?

 

And, the great writer of the 20th Century, George Bernard Shaw said: ?If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=MovieProfessor wrote:}{quote}

> Its only natural for many fans to get caught up in the aura and style of a certain movie star or celebrity. If anything can be said about motion pictures, it can be this issue of false imagery created that becomes related to the actor or actress on the screen. Some fans get so attached to a star, not ever knowing or experiencing who they really are, they will or can never accept the hardcore reality of their frailties and faults; they will make whatever possible excuse and never see beyond the cloudiness that comes with revealed misdeeds. Certainly, its logical to surmise that a motion picture star has to be two different people. Take a great star like Jimmy Stewart; he was so beloved and idolized by millions as his imagery from motion pictures became the main focal point of an honest, sincere and dependable person. In private, Jimmy was shy, introverted and while really a nice guy, he wasnt so prone as to be receptive to a fan who might want an autograph or take up so much of his time, listening to their admiration of him. Gregg Peck was somewhat the same; he hated to go out in public and then be recognized; he knew all too well, people in general didnt see him for who he really was and this I think can become a burden that has to be controled and dealt with, until a routine can be accomplished in handling the whole ordeal of being a celebrity.

>

> There has always been a reason to feel that we have to accept the simple notion on what we see in the movies isnt who these people might really be. This isnt to say that movie stars are under a constant form of emotional pressure due to their fame, but that some stars will never learn how to juggle their careers as opposed to their personal lives. To my estimation of thinking, the best or greatest movie stars are the ones who understand whats at stake and that they have been given in a technical way of understanding, a huge privilege that allows them to live forever from the imagery they have created on the motion picture screen. Some will live recklessly and never accept those simple and rational attitudes we might not take for granted, but fame and glory have a way of intoxicating a persons mind towards a distorted view of being under the spotlight. They then begin to believe, the power of their celebrity will give them a leeway or exception to certain rules of life and thus the immortality they have achieved corrupts them or makes them not see clearly beyond it. The worst movie stars are the ones that are spoiled to the point that they exploit their fame to get what they want or use it to save themselves from facing the pain of reality. Theres a sort of other side to the whole issue of being famous, in that whether or not one can play by the rules or morals, we on the outside must deal with and accept from day to day.

>

> Perhaps the strangest thing about motion picture stars, centers around this duality they must perform or play in their daily lives. Some of them end up constantly acting, trapped in this imagery or symbol they have created. The best example of this was Marilyn Monroe. She never felt so compelled as to remember Norma Jean Baker. Perhaps Marilyn had too much emotional distress from her past and childhood to remember who she really was and where she came from. But, the huge mistake she made was thinking that the movie star she became would quell what insecurities had tarnished her soul. In time, she became irrational and felt so suspicious of everyone around her. There came this game of concealing the basic facts of her eventual tyrannical personality that most fans would never know of and some might not want to ever accept. The same could be said of Joan Crawford, but in her case, Joan managed somehow to at times identify and distinguish herself from the anarchy that fame can bring. Joan in a sensible way did not forget she was and would always remain, Lucille Fay Le Sueur. It was this other, true person that reminded Joan to stay as solid and determined as she could, in order to achieve the best of what might be offered. The whole Momma Dearest syndrome that has been equated with Joan has in some ways changed the outlook to her stardom. But, for those who knew Joan well enough, she was after all is said and done, true to her cause of being an accomplished movie star. Joan wasnt really evil; she was just tough as nails and in the entertainment world, being this way is far more reliable than exhibiting a flamboyant and carefree disposition that gets you lots of publicity, but nowhere to achieving your professional goals.

>

> Nobody is perfect, least of all a movie star. Everyone has their personal hidden tensions and emotional agendas to deal with. The trick to all of this is just how well one can come to grips with certain dispositions and the challenges that come with being famous. I have always admired a few things said about fame by some great celebrities . . .

>

> Katherine Hepburn once said: My work comes first and is the most precious of all things in my life.

>

> Bogie: All I owe the public is a good performance and live a decent as possible life.

>

> The Duke: Its a hard job, but Ill be damned if I want to lose it!

>

> Gable: I didnt come this far to not be taken serious.

>

> Ginger Rogers: You work hard and respect what you come to represent.

>

> Bette Davis: I can be difficult and demanding in my work, but not when Im outside of it.

>

> Sinatra: Its great to be in show business, but I dont make a habit of taking it around with me everywhere I go!

>

> Sir Laurence Olivier: There are great actors and then there are great stars . . . The best are one in the same.

>

> And, the great writer of the 20th Century, George Bernard Shaw said: If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance.

 

Some very perceptive observations. I think for the most part, celebrities are like the rest of us -- there are great people, and there also are jerks -- but being in the public spotlight amplifies those qualities one way or the other. Those who realize that fame doesn't magically transform them into giant supermen or superwomen -- that they're still part of the human community -- are the ones who stay ahead of the game, and ultimately win at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can say that again. :P

 

This I just saw this on CNN news -

*Charlie Sheen's Rant Kills Sitcom Season - CBS Pulls Plug on "Two and a Half Men".*

 

Well one mystery is solved, who is the half.

 

Question: What does Charlie Sheen and Moammar Gadhafi have in common?

Answer: Besides the constant ranting, they are food for squirrels!

 

squirrels.jpg

 

Edited by: hamradio on Feb 25, 2011 11:10 AM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try to separate the art from the artist. This isn't always easy to do; it's hard not to be disillusioned when one hears about bad behaviour on the part of some celebrated person one admires ( whether it be an actor, director, writer, musician, or whoever.)

But I do usually forget about the negative baggage the talented one may be carrying when I'm watching a movie; if the film is good, I get lost in the world of the film and give no thought to the personal lives of those involved in the making of said film.

Same with music - if I were to boycott or ignore all the music that has been made by people who have led less than stellar lives, I'd be missing out on an awful lot of good music. When I am listening to music, I never think about the foibles of that music's creator. What would be the point?

The bad behaviour of the star/ singer/admired one has no direct bearing on their acting, song, or whatever it is that you like them for.

 

Another example: I do not follow golf, and am not a Tiger Woods fan. Nor am I a Tiger Woods " hater"; I'm indifferent to golf, and indifferent to Mr. Woods. However, when all the brou-hah-hah broke out a year and a half ago, concerning Tiger Woods' private life, I could not understand how his personal life choices, immoral or not, had anything to do with his ability to play golf. If I were a fan of the game of golf, the only performance of his about which I'd have had an opinion would have been his performance on the green. Why was he famous? Because of his talent in the game of golf, not because he claimed to live a morally perfect life.

I kind of apply the same thinking to arts and entertainment: as long as the individual delivers in the area for which they became famous in the first place, and for which I expect them to deliver -ie, good acting, memorable film-making, great music - I don't care about their private lives.

 

There might be some point at which I'd draw the line on this -especially if the artist specifically presents some kind of moral message in their work which directly contradicts their own actions-in other words, hypocrisy - but this would be the exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole discussion reminds me of some conversations I had with my dad when we used to watch old movies together on the tube. My dad, who is in his 80s, talked about how he felt when he found out his boyhood idol, Errol Flynn, had what he called "feet of clay." My dad and his pals in the late 30s played Robin Hood in the woods, loved Dodge City, etc., and Flynn was voted the Boy Scouts' favorite actor in 38 or 39. Then, the rape scandal broke in the early 40s. It didn't hurt Flynn's immediate career as much as people thought it would, and of course led to a whole new aspect of his image, that of the womanizer, but perhaps the scandal did ultimately doom his chances of ever being taken seriously as an actor. I remember watching "Dawn Patrol" with my dad once, and he said, "Who would think anyone who could look and speak so nobly could do anything really bad?" The truth is that the image that we see on the screen is often not the real person; it is just that --- an image. That being said, Flynn to me and my beloved Dad is still the best Robin Hood ever, despite whatever mess he may have made of his life. I think we can separate the talent of the performer or creator from what he or she does in his personal life. However, I would not disgrace Flynn's memory by comparing him with a lesser light like Charlie Sheen, whom I don't think will be remembered for much 70 years from now besides the headlines he's generated.

 

Edited by: rosebette on Feb 25, 2011 11:33 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It?s interesting that in the history of Hollywood and this subject of imagery vs. reality, Errol?s name is usually first on the list. Certainly, there was during Errol?s lifetime, defiance on his part to not take the tabloids and the general press seriously. In a practical sense, Errol believed that as long as the public came to see his films and Warner Brothers was satisfied, this wouldn?t warrant any precaution on his part. He drank, took drugs, created hassles at parties and was very much like the character Peter O?Toole portrayed in ?My Favorite Year? that was obviously something of a patronage to being ?In Like Flynn.? The worse for Errol would come those years before his death in 1959. He was simply burnt out and by that time didn?t care at all what anyone thought about his brazen activities. This was especially the case, when he took up residence with an under aged girl of 17!! This girl Beverly Aadland, who Errol said was his prot?g?, became the last, fiery, reckless symbol to his lifestyle that pretty much signified his career would never recuperate to its former glory.

 

Errol was by 1959, a bad joke amid the crazy press coverage he would receive that last year of his life. He made a last public appearance on the popular Red Skelton television show. This was considered a reflection of himself when the skit he performed with Red was that of a drunken bum. How ironic this was for anyone who was a fan of his or the public that came to see him in those last years as an overzealous drinking nuisance. He died as he had lived, when Miss Aadland found him dead in their Vancouver hotel room of a massive heart attack. It was no real surprise how he died, but there was an enormous sadness to those who came to admire his once proud and shimmering stardom. The late 1950s would be a time that several noted movie stars died unexpectedly. Yet, Errol would be the only exception or the one many knew that time and the circumstance of his lifestyle would finally run out on him.

 

What Errol does have in his favor are the numerous wonderful films he will be remembered for. He did work seriously along the lines of his professional life. There?s enough good press for Errol and from those who worked with him to say that despite his personal life and its many misgivings, he was for the most part a great movie star. He was actually considered a nice guy when he wasn?t drinking or just plain drunk. So, we do have what is essentially a duality here or the expected two sides of the coin that is the norm for a celebrity. After so many passing years, I?ve often wondered if the majority of the fans see Errol as who he was on screen or do they think about his personal life that was shrouded in so many clamors. Or, can it all be placed into one of the same? It all probably doesn?t really matter, because a movie star can have a spiritual power that lives on to the point of being symbolic of what someone sitting in a darken theater might want to be. It?s the unblushing wish they could be that person, regardless of the falsehoods or any of the reality that lies hidden behind the imagery. Errol was after all is said and done, an inspirational motion picture star and this just might be enough to make most everyone forget about his reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with today's information that we all learn about the current batch of Hollywood participants is one simple fact:

 

The information we receive is often an hour or a couple of hours old. We get updates per hour via the internet. Because the way we get our news and in many cases the "trash" we hear about stars and their troubles would not have been the case fifty years ago.

 

Back then they had Hedda Hopper and arch-rival Louella Parsons as a gossip columnists, who could literally destroy people's careers. Today we have a host of media outlets that can pretty much do the same thing. The only difference is that today we know so much more about the stars than the public knew fifty years ago.

 

Their stories about the Hollywood elite would often be close to truth, but in many cases the upper echelons of the elite she could never touch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eloquently put, MovieProfessor, and something to ponder as I tune in Robin Hood in about 15 minutes. I do believe that the image of the romantic hero crusading for justice does carry some spiritual and symbolic weight. I must admit the Rusell Crowe version doesn't have the same "moral weight" as Flynn telling Prince John that he speaks treason "fluently" or wooing Marian by showing her the suffering of the Saxon people.

 

I also agree with the other post. We have so much news now, and so much trash news, via Internet and TV, that focuses on the seamiest side of celebrities, and even celebrities now who are known primarily for bad behavior, such as Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, et al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the expression goes, "Here's the thing" :

 

Errol Flynn will not be remembered for his alcoholism or other mistakes he made as a person. he will be remembered for his renditions of larger-than -life characters in his films, the beloved '"swashbucklers" in particular: *Captain Blood, The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Sea Hawk*, just to name a few.

Maybe it's got something to do with that "suspension of disbelief" concept: when you're watching *The Adventures of Robin Hood*, you are not watching Errol Flynn doing and saying all those wonderful things; you are watching the character of Robin Hood, as played by Errol Flynn, doing and saying those things. This is fiction; Flynn is speaking dialogue written for the Robin Hood character by a screenwriter. Therefore, whatever the person of Errol Flynn had done or would do in his private life has no connection to the man on the screen. Robin Hood a fictional character, Flynn a man playing Robin Hood.

 

I only singled out Errol Flynn because he was given as an example of someone whose life off the screen was a bit of a train wreck, but you could apply what I said above to any actor who has "messed up" their lives in some way (Marilyn Monroe comes to mind, but there are so many). Look at it this way: if you knew nothing whatsoever about the actor's private life or beliefs in the movie you are watching, you would simply enjoy the performance, the character that actor is playing. We need to just leave all those outside considerations at the door when we watch a movie.

 

So to return to what I said at the beginning of this post: If an actor is good, if they leave behind them memorable work, then that is what counts, and that is what they will be remembered for. Not their "bad behaviour" outside the world of the films they made.

 

Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 26, 2011 11:51 AM

 

Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 26, 2011 12:18 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be horribly distracting. After reading about the brief Norma Shearer/Mickey Rooney affair, I cannot watch either of their films without having to visualize that truly bizarre sexual pairing--and wondering what the hell Norma was thinking. (its in Rooney's autobiography, and also in Gavin Lambert's book on Shearer)

 

In some cases, knowing the dirty laundry actually ADDS to my respect for the actor. Jean Harlow was filming *Red Dust* when her husband committed suicide. You would never know it from her hilarious performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will always regret that I will never be able to go up to Katharine Hepburn on the street and ask for an autograph. If she didn't tell me to p*ss off, I think I'd be disappointed! If she did, I'd be like "Yes! That's just how you're supposed to be!" Too bad it will never happen now. Sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=annelovestcm wrote:}{quote}

> I am more disturbed by celebrities doing commercials than anything else

> after that I cannot stand them anymore

> they should do what they are famous for

> they are already paid too much money why do they have to do commercials???

> let some unknown get their shot

 

 

They've been doing them since there were stars and commercials, beginning with magazine ads. Nothing's changed that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ChorusGirl wrote:}{quote}

> It can be horribly distracting. After reading about the brief Norma Shearer/Mickey Rooney affair, I cannot watch either of their films without having to visualize that truly bizarre sexual pairing--and wondering what the hell Norma was thinking. (its in Rooney's autobiography, and also in Gavin Lambert's book on Shearer)

>

Ewww. Of course, maybe ole Mickey has something going for him that we'd never suspect--he did manage to get Ava Gardner to marry him (along with 7 others women) plus he was linked (maybe by studio publicity?) to Lana, Carol Landis, Betty Hutton Gloria deHaven and a host of others.

 

"Sure, I love the chicks. I love 'em all. But when you're nuts about too many, how can a guy settle down to one?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Becoming a star is an age-old fantasy but thankfully something I'll never have to go through. It's a double-edged sword that plays out constantly whether it's film, music or sports or whatever.

 

It seems the script is often repetitious only the names are different.

 

Someone with talent has a dream to make it and willing to see anybody and make themselves available in order to climb up the ladder. With a lot of luck and hard work success comes and then the inevitable happens. High living and hanger-ons start making demands that overwhelm the person and suddenly the dream becomes a nightmare.

 

How many movies have we seen that scenario play out in.

 

In retrospect it makes you wonder if it was worth it. They've certainly enriched our llives and left us with wonderful memories but would I want to trade places?

 

Not on your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an experience along these lines last week but it was a good one. While watching an early episode of Wagon Train Ward Bond?s left hand appeared very prominently in a scene and I was startled to see a wedding band on it. I knew nothing about him personally except that he was close a friend of Johns Ford and Wayne. I guess I just thought of him as the tough on the outside but often a marshmallow inside-much like Major Adams-characters he played. I never thought of him as married. I researched his bio and found we was-twice in fact-including the final years of his life when he starred on the show. I always thought I was mature enough to differentiate between the performer and the role but got shown up good.

 

I watched The Bravados this afternoon which included a performance by Albert Salmi as one of a hardcore outlaw gang. It was hard to watch knowing how his life-and those of his family-ended. I guess some roles hit closer to reality than others.

 

As for Charlie Sheen, I really thought he had gotten his life back as Robert Downey, Jr. seems to have and am sorry for his family?s sake-epically his children-that he hasn?t. It?s always sad to see a talented person waste it and their life. For the media vultures that are making a killing off this because ?we have a right to know? there are not words vile enough to say what I think of them. This is not ?news? but enabling people like him for greed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...