Saturday, February 10, 2007

OK, just a brief one this time - I write my blog entries late at night and generally post around midnight - so I've got to get to sleep so I'm not bone-tired in class all day tomorrow. I hope I don't have that same teacher - fingers crossed. I'd rather watch paint dry.

This is not a fully-formed rant yet, but I'm just going to put a few more thoughts down and I may flesh it out later on, or I may never give it another thought. But I'm fickle like that.

I keep thinking of the contrast of Anna-Nicole Smith's public struggle with substance abuse and Paris Hilton's nasty (but far from surprising) behavior revealed in the Paris Exposed brouhaha recently. ANS, while remedial and pathetic in her communication skills, seemed like a sweet person, at heart. Paris Hilton, on the other hand, seems like a revolting bitch - the emodiment of vileness. The difference is that ANS was of low birth and PH will eternally be insulated from consequences for her actions by vast familial wealth. [ Well, against everything but herpes, obviously. Apparently the herpe what jumped on Paris didn't know who she was and who her family is. Who would have thunk that something smaller than bacteria would be the great equalizer?]

The question is - who would you rather use the toilet after? Of course, the correct answer is "I'd just wait till I got home."

There was the case of Donald Trump talking about what an incredibly intelligent and classy young lady Paris Hilton is, lauding her for getting her "brand" out there, and yet a mere commoner like Miss USA is publicly shamed and made to confess her transgression of being 20 and partying with NYC celebrities? A bit contradictory, I'd say. This to me boils down to a commoner being made to sing for her supper whilst the acting-out rich girl gets the free ride. I don't know which is worse - the fact that such lopsided issuance of comeuppance happens at all, or that the public in general doesn't even notice the contradiction.

And along those same lines, Roman Polanski is lauded by many to be a genius, and yet he did some things for which many a dirtbag is doing hard time in federal penitetiaries. For that matter, so did Woody Allen. But it's different when the person is already established as acclaimed or as some sort of oracle of our age - the annointed are entitled to carte blanche and seem to enjoy some sort of royal immunity from answering for their transgressions.

No matter how many times this drama is re-cast and played out, it remains a startling double-standard.

8 comments:

DogMa said...

Hey pretty lady!
I missed the way you think!

Leazwell said...

If you haven't read Perfume by Patrick Suskind, please treat yourself - a fascinating fantasy about what incites the masses to become adulators.

Barbara Bruederlin said...

It's our fault, of course, for even paying any attention to those people in the first place. Maybe if we all agree to completely ignore them, they will just go away.

G Bro said...

PF,

I'm of the opinion that papparazzi are criminals. Socially (not financially), they are the pimps and celebrities are the whores.

Regarding the others:
Miss USA was hired to do a job - it's a perverse contract but it is one that she signed.

ANS was a train wreck from day one. Your prophecy was eerie, as was Jon Stuart's a couple of years ago when he said of her son, "Having ANS as your mother is not something you recover from."

Paris Hilton = pond scum.

Where I have trouble is with the men you mentioned. Polanski and Allen are hugely talented - unlike the 3 women you named. But Polanski is a pedophile, and Allen violated what should be a sacred trust when he accepted that girl as his stepchild. Unlike the women, they actually acted against others instead of themselves. So is the double standard gender, talent or money?

G

phlegmfatale said...

Wow - dogMa - you really fell off the map - I'm so pleased to know you are alright! I missed you too!

leazwell - sounds intriguing - I'll put it on my list

barbara - I think you are wiser and have more self-control than I. No, scratch that - I think you have more of a LIFE than I and you don't indulge that baloney as much as I do

g bro - lots to think about, there.

I agree - the papparazzi are vile and that goes doubly so for celebrities like Paris Hilton who clearly have courted them.

Yes, I agree about Miss USA that she was contractually obligated, but I still maintain that a woman who comes from "nowhere" will be put "in her place" should she in any way deviate from her role of smiling, perfect automaton.

Yes, Polanski and Allen are tremendously talented. Gender, talent or money? Maybe it's all three. Or two of the three. It's conditional in every case, isn't it?

This is making my brain hurt.

Tickersoid said...

Firstly, Hi to Dogma. Great to see you around.

I totally agree with this post on all counts.

I'm currently reading Paris Hiltons' book entitled,
'Paris Hilton, My Struggle.'

Fathairybastard said...

What ever happened to Nobles Oblige?

LJ said...

Amen, Phlegmy.