Shave your beards already
August 25, 2011 5:53 PM
It's no longer the 1950s out there. Why are celebrities as obsessed as politicians with managing their public family lives?
I was reading Gawker today and -- look shut up it was my lunch break -- it struck me that the amount of ink and effort expended on the Smiths' divorce, not only by the media but by the parties, was absurd.
I can understand why, for example, a leading man would never have wanted to leave the closet twenty years ago, and I can understand why actors who are couples would want to be visibly adorable in public together for the publicity. But why is immaculate family image so important today? Is there a recent, proven example of someone's personal behavior damaging their box office? Tom Cruise is still opening movies, isn't he? Hell, Roman Polanski hasn't suffered too much. Is there still a real cause-and-effect out there?
(Note that I'm not talking about a Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears situation, in which the actor is an unreliable worker and/or drowning in legal trouble -- just a matter of their family lives.)
I was reading Gawker today and -- look shut up it was my lunch break -- it struck me that the amount of ink and effort expended on the Smiths' divorce, not only by the media but by the parties, was absurd.
I can understand why, for example, a leading man would never have wanted to leave the closet twenty years ago, and I can understand why actors who are couples would want to be visibly adorable in public together for the publicity. But why is immaculate family image so important today? Is there a recent, proven example of someone's personal behavior damaging their box office? Tom Cruise is still opening movies, isn't he? Hell, Roman Polanski hasn't suffered too much. Is there still a real cause-and-effect out there?
(Note that I'm not talking about a Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears situation, in which the actor is an unreliable worker and/or drowning in legal trouble -- just a matter of their family lives.)
Is there a recent, proven example of someone's personal behavior damaging their box office?
Mel Gibson. Look at his IMDB page--he's got a few things in production now but he hasn't worked seriously in almost ten years. He had credits in 2004 on a TV series I've never heard of, and his last movie part before that Beaver movie was an uncredited bit part.
I don't know that all of it can be laid at the feet of his anti-Semitism, sexism, racism, and anger issues (I'm guessing some of it's age, given that he wasn't pulled over for that famous traffic stop until 2006 and the work slowed down before then) but there's at least some basis for that.
posted by librarylis at 6:01 PM on August 25, 2011
Mel Gibson. Look at his IMDB page--he's got a few things in production now but he hasn't worked seriously in almost ten years. He had credits in 2004 on a TV series I've never heard of, and his last movie part before that Beaver movie was an uncredited bit part.
I don't know that all of it can be laid at the feet of his anti-Semitism, sexism, racism, and anger issues (I'm guessing some of it's age, given that he wasn't pulled over for that famous traffic stop until 2006 and the work slowed down before then) but there's at least some basis for that.
posted by librarylis at 6:01 PM on August 25, 2011
Talking about not getting a divorce gets people talking about Will/Jada which turns into free publicity for them.
Jada has a new movie coming out. Just sayin'.
posted by littlesq at 6:02 PM on August 25, 2011
Jada has a new movie coming out. Just sayin'.
posted by littlesq at 6:02 PM on August 25, 2011
I think you might have things a bit backward.
The media is driving the perception that the Smiths are spinning the hell out of this. The Smiths have denied the rumors, likely because they have young children.
Media, in general, write about what sells. I remember when the HuffPost was new and actually wrote about things that were vaguely interesting. Now it seems that half the front page is about the latest celebrigossip or something equally scintillating.
All that being said - sure it impacts careers, but the biggest stars have the most leeway. And if no offer is made to someone how would that possibly be reported?
posted by FlamingBore at 6:03 PM on August 25, 2011
The media is driving the perception that the Smiths are spinning the hell out of this. The Smiths have denied the rumors, likely because they have young children.
Media, in general, write about what sells. I remember when the HuffPost was new and actually wrote about things that were vaguely interesting. Now it seems that half the front page is about the latest celebrigossip or something equally scintillating.
All that being said - sure it impacts careers, but the biggest stars have the most leeway. And if no offer is made to someone how would that possibly be reported?
posted by FlamingBore at 6:03 PM on August 25, 2011
I think to a certain extent it's about fantasy as well as a fear of losing the suburban dollar. I don't think that fear is necessarily from the stars themselves, but all the people who work for them. The stars themselves (and their families) are essentially disposable props that are used by a range of people to make money. The easiest way to do this is to cater to the largest audience possible. By deviating from the 'norm' you run the risk of losing money/jobs - so presenting the family fantasy is easier and safer, but also, more exploitable in the long run.
Polanski is untouchable because he had a) success and b) significant personal trauma as well as his nefarious activities which are held in the different light today (condemned by some) to what they were then (part and parcel of the times). Many in the old guard, no doubt, do not have squeaky clean behaviors themselves so are not going to play hypocrite and enough people are just, well it's not rape-rape, is it?
Anyway, the answer is basically always money.
posted by mleigh at 6:20 PM on August 25, 2011
Polanski is untouchable because he had a) success and b) significant personal trauma as well as his nefarious activities which are held in the different light today (condemned by some) to what they were then (part and parcel of the times). Many in the old guard, no doubt, do not have squeaky clean behaviors themselves so are not going to play hypocrite and enough people are just, well it's not rape-rape, is it?
Anyway, the answer is basically always money.
posted by mleigh at 6:20 PM on August 25, 2011
I think Kevin Spacey dropped off the A list just after some photos were published of him enjoying the sunset and the company of a handsome young man.
posted by bonobothegreat at 6:20 PM on August 25, 2011
posted by bonobothegreat at 6:20 PM on August 25, 2011
To be fair, Kevin Spacey was never on the A-List. He was well respected and a hot commodity after American Beauty, but A-List?
And he's still doing lots of film work on top of his passion for theatre in London at The Old Vic.
posted by FlamingBore at 7:01 PM on August 25, 2011
And he's still doing lots of film work on top of his passion for theatre in London at The Old Vic.
posted by FlamingBore at 7:01 PM on August 25, 2011
The answer is money, or really capital. Who puts up the money to make the movies? In many cases boring East Coast bankers. In 2008 (for example) hedge funds alone invested $13 billion in a total of 150 movies. 20 years ago it would have been bank loans against studio assets. In either case the film industry is a high risk/high reward asset class.
The capital holders understand that going in. As a business decision there is at least a little more risk in making an out gay man the star, and there's no upside. it's a bad bet.
And of course it's not really the bankers' capital! It belongs to pools of wealthy individuals, pension plans, etc. which are even less likely to want to add risk.
Short version: the people who hold the capital necessary to make movies are risk adverse and movies are already a risky business (no pun intended).
posted by 2bucksplus at 7:15 PM on August 25, 2011
The capital holders understand that going in. As a business decision there is at least a little more risk in making an out gay man the star, and there's no upside. it's a bad bet.
And of course it's not really the bankers' capital! It belongs to pools of wealthy individuals, pension plans, etc. which are even less likely to want to add risk.
Short version: the people who hold the capital necessary to make movies are risk adverse and movies are already a risky business (no pun intended).
posted by 2bucksplus at 7:15 PM on August 25, 2011
Paul Reubens was caught masturbating, and it cost him dearly.
posted by Houstonian at 7:19 PM on August 25, 2011
posted by Houstonian at 7:19 PM on August 25, 2011
It's not just business. It's about privacy. If you give the tabloids a thread, they'll try to pull it so hard it will rip your sweater off.
posted by smackfu at 7:38 PM on August 25, 2011
posted by smackfu at 7:38 PM on August 25, 2011
There was quite a commotion on IMDB's White Collar message boards when it became widely known a few weeks ago that the lead actor is gay. I have no idea if the threads are still up. Heck, certain people were objecting strenuously to the fact that one of the characters on the show is gay.
posted by sardonyx at 7:45 PM on August 25, 2011
posted by sardonyx at 7:45 PM on August 25, 2011
I think that it matters for Will Smith, because he's a very particular kind of movie star. He always plays versions of his public persona, and he appears in the kind of movies that don't expend any time or effort on characterization. Instead of establishing the hero of the movie as a sympathetic character, his movies rely on his charm and on the goodwill that the audience already has towards Will Smith. His characters can then do all sorts of violent stuff, but it's ok, because the audience knows that he's a good guy, since he's Will Smith, and Will Smith is a good guy. And a big part of Will Smith's good guy image is that he known as a dedicated family man.
Other actors have a clearer line between their public persona and their roles. For those actors, it's not as big a deal to maintain an image that matches the roles they want to play.
So basically, if Will Smith turned out to be a sleaze in his personal life, then it would affect how people perceived the "Will Smith" characters he plays in movies. On the other hand, if Johnny Depp ended up being a complete jerk to his wife, it probably wouldn't matter, because the characters Johnny Depp plays aren't dependent on Johnny Depp's persona.
posted by craichead at 7:56 PM on August 25, 2011
Other actors have a clearer line between their public persona and their roles. For those actors, it's not as big a deal to maintain an image that matches the roles they want to play.
So basically, if Will Smith turned out to be a sleaze in his personal life, then it would affect how people perceived the "Will Smith" characters he plays in movies. On the other hand, if Johnny Depp ended up being a complete jerk to his wife, it probably wouldn't matter, because the characters Johnny Depp plays aren't dependent on Johnny Depp's persona.
posted by craichead at 7:56 PM on August 25, 2011
Craichead has it. Tiger Woods fell so dramatically because as an endorser he had the same good-guy appeal, which appealed to many more people than those who cared about golf.
posted by pH Indicating Socks at 8:02 PM on August 25, 2011
posted by pH Indicating Socks at 8:02 PM on August 25, 2011
Thirding craichead, with an addendum. Will Smith is connected to Scientology, and one of their tenets is something about creating your own reality. Perhaps it is confirmation bias, but it seems like Scientologist celebrities are very careful about managing their public persona and repeating what they *want* to be true, rather than what may or may not be true.
posted by gjc at 8:10 PM on August 25, 2011
posted by gjc at 8:10 PM on August 25, 2011
Craichead seems to have hit the nail on the head (although, I would love to see Will Smith play an evil maniac).
I think there is also a perception, accurate or not, that Middle America really cares about "traditional family values." And, Middle America is who Hollywood is selling movies to. Even if it doesn't actually make a difference, there's still a strong perception that it does.
posted by asnider at 8:24 PM on August 25, 2011
I think there is also a perception, accurate or not, that Middle America really cares about "traditional family values." And, Middle America is who Hollywood is selling movies to. Even if it doesn't actually make a difference, there's still a strong perception that it does.
posted by asnider at 8:24 PM on August 25, 2011
People don't like it when we feel like we've been sold a fake bill of goods on someone's persona vs. real life. Tiger Woods is a big time example of this. Also, Gwyneth Paltrow usually plays down to earth, friendly people in movies/TV but in real life seems like a rich snob. People who notice this generally find her irritating for that reason. If Joan Collins acts like a snob, who'd bat an eyelash?
I know it's Acting!, but we still do it.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:40 PM on August 25, 2011
I know it's Acting!, but we still do it.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:40 PM on August 25, 2011
Yeah, its all about image and perception and branding. Charlie Sheen's brand is 'wild drug fueled sex with pornstars' guy. He'll get condemned, but he's living out lots of people's not so secret fantasy. Will Smith is bland, friendly, super nice guy - Tom Hanks style.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 11:06 PM on August 25, 2011
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 11:06 PM on August 25, 2011
You just made me look at Gawker. The things I do for AskMe.
If Mrs. Smith is a beard (and a friend of mine has insisted this for years) you have only to count the number of out summer blockbuster megastars to get a sense of your answer. Someone has to go first, but somehow the industry hasn't made it happen, and if you've managed to make a very profitable, workable life for yourself while keeping it on the down-low, then maybe you don't really feel like being a trailblazer. Also, as noted above, Scientology.
posted by mumkin at 12:55 AM on August 26, 2011
If Mrs. Smith is a beard (and a friend of mine has insisted this for years) you have only to count the number of out summer blockbuster megastars to get a sense of your answer. Someone has to go first, but somehow the industry hasn't made it happen, and if you've managed to make a very profitable, workable life for yourself while keeping it on the down-low, then maybe you don't really feel like being a trailblazer. Also, as noted above, Scientology.
posted by mumkin at 12:55 AM on August 26, 2011
A combination of a few above comments - re: White Collar and being a "brand" - I've read in more than one place comments by the lead actor along the lines of "Not wanting to talk about if he's gay or not because he has an entire network show riding on his shoulders." I'm sure a lot of actors feel the pressure of keeping a show running so people from craft services on up still have jobs (save for Charlie Sheen perhaps), but when you can easily pinpoint it to one singular reason that the show got cut, then it's easier to keep it quiet.
posted by librarianamy at 4:37 AM on August 26, 2011
posted by librarianamy at 4:37 AM on August 26, 2011
Don't forget, people like Will Smith also have children they are trying to protect. Their kids don't know EVERYTHING. A good example is Madonna. She cleaned her image once she had Lourdes. It's not just about money.
posted by InterestedInKnowing at 5:07 AM on August 26, 2011
posted by InterestedInKnowing at 5:07 AM on August 26, 2011
A counter-example is George Michael - always painted as a ladies' man, then outed dramatically. He came out of it well, and further revelations about his drug use have just come across as his being honest. Of course his outing was before Heat/the Daily Mail becoming essentially a tabloid for US showbiz news, though, so things could be different now.
There's a lot of rumours about various celebrity marriages being lavender, and if they are, it's probably for the reasons mumkin gives. Even Will Young, who is an out gay popstar, sings songs about women and has sexy ladies in his videos - the studios, or the labels, feel that the audience can't relate if that person turns out not to be the virile, red-blooded male, or the sweet family man, or the woman who just wants a baby.
posted by mippy at 5:57 AM on August 26, 2011
There's a lot of rumours about various celebrity marriages being lavender, and if they are, it's probably for the reasons mumkin gives. Even Will Young, who is an out gay popstar, sings songs about women and has sexy ladies in his videos - the studios, or the labels, feel that the audience can't relate if that person turns out not to be the virile, red-blooded male, or the sweet family man, or the woman who just wants a baby.
posted by mippy at 5:57 AM on August 26, 2011
Sometimes you do hear about the parts people don't get. Mel Gibson was originally all lined up to do the Mike Tyson-style cameo in The Hangover 2. The lead actors banded together and insisted that he not be allowed to participate in the production.
The public/private line is paper thin, though. From what I have read, a lot of celebrities have 'handlers' whose job it is to keep them out of trouble and out of the limelight when they want to pursue their vices. Try reading the blind items on celeb dirt websites some time--there's some horrific stuff in there every now and then. It's easy to dismiss it all, but plenty of parties (especially in Hollywood) have guests who need money, know their scene, and have no investment in privacy. And if blind items are indeed primarily used for blackmail, keeping your image clean is probably a major concern.
Obviously there's also a big market for rumors and photos of dirty deeds in more mainstream press. Some stars can't even go out to lunch without being followed and photographed. You may recall that while Nicole Kidman was married to Tom Cruise, her house was literally bugged. I suspect that like in any other business, news of participants' bad behavior travels far and wide inside the relevant circles before it's heard of--if ever--by the public, which would imply that personal problems may be affecting their careers even when we little people never hear of them. Celebrities have good reason to be paranoid. Thanks to the gossip rags and the criminal underbelly, they often don't have private lives to begin with. Can you imagine living like that?
On the flip side, I think it's quite interesting when this sort of problem does not affect their careers. It was news a few years ago when that whole thing came out about Owen Wilson's sex and heroin addiction and subsequent suicide attempt... and he quietly stepped out of doing Tropic Thunder, made a sad movie, and now he's back to the same exact roles--including family movies--that he was doing before. I was a fan, but reading about all that stuff was just ugly and depressing. So that situation in particular is indicative to me that some people follow celeb news and some don't.
But you better believe that the guys holding the pursestrings in Hollywood do.
posted by heatvision at 9:23 AM on August 26, 2011
The public/private line is paper thin, though. From what I have read, a lot of celebrities have 'handlers' whose job it is to keep them out of trouble and out of the limelight when they want to pursue their vices. Try reading the blind items on celeb dirt websites some time--there's some horrific stuff in there every now and then. It's easy to dismiss it all, but plenty of parties (especially in Hollywood) have guests who need money, know their scene, and have no investment in privacy. And if blind items are indeed primarily used for blackmail, keeping your image clean is probably a major concern.
Obviously there's also a big market for rumors and photos of dirty deeds in more mainstream press. Some stars can't even go out to lunch without being followed and photographed. You may recall that while Nicole Kidman was married to Tom Cruise, her house was literally bugged. I suspect that like in any other business, news of participants' bad behavior travels far and wide inside the relevant circles before it's heard of--if ever--by the public, which would imply that personal problems may be affecting their careers even when we little people never hear of them. Celebrities have good reason to be paranoid. Thanks to the gossip rags and the criminal underbelly, they often don't have private lives to begin with. Can you imagine living like that?
On the flip side, I think it's quite interesting when this sort of problem does not affect their careers. It was news a few years ago when that whole thing came out about Owen Wilson's sex and heroin addiction and subsequent suicide attempt... and he quietly stepped out of doing Tropic Thunder, made a sad movie, and now he's back to the same exact roles--including family movies--that he was doing before. I was a fan, but reading about all that stuff was just ugly and depressing. So that situation in particular is indicative to me that some people follow celeb news and some don't.
But you better believe that the guys holding the pursestrings in Hollywood do.
posted by heatvision at 9:23 AM on August 26, 2011
Unfortunately, a lot of people still believe that homosexuality is wrong, and that gay people are gross and icky and Abominations Before The Lord.
It's easy to forget that, when we spend a lot of time with awesome people like here on Metafilter. But unfortunately the rest of the world isn't nearly as forgiving.
posted by ErikaB at 10:36 AM on August 26, 2011
It's easy to forget that, when we spend a lot of time with awesome people like here on Metafilter. But unfortunately the rest of the world isn't nearly as forgiving.
posted by ErikaB at 10:36 AM on August 26, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by smackfu at 5:59 PM on August 25, 2011