Kidman is Smokin'

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: But on a more serious note, what about celebrities who get tattoos or extravagant piercings? Are they also treated as if its their body and they can do what they want with it?

Again, there's not a right or wrong, but a consequence. A model or an actor HIRES their body to others to use to sell a story or a product. All the tattoo will do is limit the celebrity's ability to hire themself, and the extent of hiring their person. The more tattoos, the less they are a "blank canvass".

[ 05-23-2003, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: Timber/Magik, ******* Smoking is not innate in human nature. It is seen, considered, learned, and applied behaviour. Monkey see monkey do.

Well, I agree generally. However, someone came up with the bright idea to inhale burning leaves. And, it's been around for millenia. Probably the same guy who decided to strain water through various leaves and drink it.

A person who has influence over others has a responsibility. That's an inescapable fact.

My point here is that a moral responsibility or obligation is one you can choose to ignore. It is not mandated except by your own conscience. Mine would mandate it, Nicole's does not. I don't judge her for it.

I'll point to Eminem again, and the portions I quoted, where he derides people for this kind of idolization - as well as the very presumption that it will always be this way. His efforts to attack the presumption are worthy of good note, I think. Plus, if you go shoot a cop because Slim Shady tells you to, maybe we're better off without you in the gene pool.

Have you ever bared your soul in public? Ever had your image or personality or creations criticised, critiqued and "owned" by people you have no contact with? It's a wierd feeling. There's no right or wrong with it, it's just a consequence of putting yourself in the public eye. A consequence of "selling yourself" or "giving of yourself".

Well, I wish it didn't have to be this way for you, Yorick. IMO, the artist and his work are extricable to a degree. You should not have to make yourself a spotlight-model all the time just because people like your art. While you will of course come under some scrutiny, the extreme scrutiny people in the midst of their 15 minutes suffer is silly. I'd like to return to the days when it wasn't so intrusive -- when a Kennedy president could be so ill he had his last rights read to him on 3 different occassions before entering office, yet no one knew. Of course, on the other hand Jackio O was never allowed to smoke in public -- the Kennedys made her hide it.

Nicole is hardly a young girl thrust into the spotlight unwillingly. This is her life. She has all the perks and seemingly accepts the drawbacks. There is a scaled loss in civil liberties the higher the profile.

Losing privacy and losing civil liberties are related but distinct. To an extent, you're right. But, paparazzi-madness is outta hand. Look at Lady Di's last few paparazzi-infested moments of life.

I don't see how you can argue that point, when an incredibly famous person cannot have a meal in a resteraunt in certain cities without being stared at, asked for autographs or photographed without permission.

Well, just because others are rude does not mean we should not demand better. I try not to do this when I see a celebrity. The most I'd do is offer a polite "love your work." I ran into John Malkovich at the theater, Kid Rock in a strip club, Busta Rhymes in a bar, Joan Cusak on the street, Joe Montana in a Casino, and many more, and I can't recall a single one I asked for an autograph or even spoke to. They have their lives, let them be. Again, Eminem comes to mind:

but at least have the decency in you
to leave me alone, when you freaks see me out
in the streets when I'm eatin or feedin my daughter
to not come and speak to me (speak to me)..
I don't know you and no,
I don't owe you a mo-therf***-in thing
I'm not Mr. N'Sync, I'm not what your friends think
I'm not Mr. Friendly, I can be a prick
if you tempt me my tank is on empty (is on empty)..
No patience is in me and if you offend me
I'm liftin you 10 feet (liftin you 10 feet).. in the air
I don't care who is there and who saw me destroy you
Go call you a lawyer, file you a lawsuit
I'll smile in the courtroom and buy you a wardrobe
I'm tired of all you (of all you)..
I don't mean to be mean but that's all I can be is just me

Whether Nicole smokes or not is her choice. If she smokes in public she is influencing the choices of others. If she can live with contributing to female cancer and health problems then fine. It is a consequence.

Right. It is her choice. There is a consequence. I vote we re-analyze how much fame and famous folks influence us. Then, maybe one day, her decision will only really hurt her.

The same is true of parenting. A man without a child can do whatever he wants. If he has a son, his behaviour no longer affects just him, but also the child who is taking in his bahaviour, modelling himself on him, becoming like him.

This is different. Your obligation to your children is a stronger ethical obligation than one you have to the general masses in society (in the common view, that is). It is also a legal obligation in many instances.

Role modelling exists. Mentoring exists. Influence exists. Learned behaviour exists. To deny such things is to deny the very nature of an ever learning, imitative species.

Hmmm.... Yes, and no. I think what I am advocating here is the overcoming of role-modeling through proper mentoring.

[ 05-23-2003, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by pritchke: The Dixie Chicks rock, they stood by their beliefs and principals, and didn't give in to peer pressure. Because of them I have a reason to love Texas. I am sure they do, they wouldn't have so many fans if they sucked at singing. And kudos to them for sticking to their guns (so to speak) I however believe them to be empty headed bimbo's and choose to not reward their use of their fame to promote things I do not support....they have rights, so do I [img]smile.gif[/img] Never did like Clooney. While I do agree that it is up to the parents to control both their children and what they view on TV and at the theatre it is very difficult to do with all the crap that comes on these days including commercials. The beer commercials seem to be directed at teens. Can't argue with ya here. But it really isn't all that hard to control your childs Television time....at least not for me and my ex.

[pritchke]

Originally posted by MagiK: Can't argue with ya here. But it really isn't all that hard to control your childs Television time....at least not for me and my ex.

Controlling TV time is probably key. When I was a tiny tot my parents allowed me to watch 3 shows. Friendly Giant, Mr. Dressup, and Sesame Street. Later on I suspect they manuipulated me by saying I should go study, as well having only one TV meant that if the News, or a hockey game was on that is what had to be on.

Oh! I do find your choice of font a little hard on my eyes. I think it could be the font in bold.

[ 05-23-2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Cloudbringer]

Elric! LOLOLOL! Hello dear! I'd quote you but you chopped up my quote in there and it'd be a big mess if I did!

Besides, I think I'm going out to paint cigars and look at chickens or something!

Sorry about the font Pritchke [img]smile.gif[/img] It isn't normally bolded, it only gets that way when I post inside a quote...so guess I better stop that [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-23-2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[AzRaeL StoRmBlaDe]

I just think its funny that the same people that make celebrities what they are, are also the first ones to get ticked off when a celebrity doesn't live up to whatever persona they built them up to in their own mind.

Originally posted by AzRaeL StoRmBlaDe: I just think its funny that the same people that make celebrities what they are, are also the first ones to get ticked off when a celebrity doesn't live up to whatever persona they built them up to in their own mind.

Hmmm thats an interesting take on things...I didn't see anyone doing this...or at least that isn't how I took it. Personally I thought this was about freedoms and rights/responsibilities and ethics and morals...not shattered images and or dreams.....Will have to reread some of the posts in this context.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I'll point to Eminem again, and the portions I quoted, where he derides people for this kind of idolization - as well as the very presumption that it will always be this way. His efforts to attack the presumption are worthy of good note, I think. Plus, if you go shoot a cop because Slim Shady tells you to, maybe we're better off without you in the gene pool.

To be honost, my vote would be to remove Eminem from the gene pool. I don't see his songs as bold sociological anthems, I see them as vulgar, hate-filled diatribes...but hey, that's just my opinion. [img]smile.gif[/img]

As far as him saying it's wrong for others to want to idolize or imitate him, I couldn't agree more. But despite Mr. Slim Shady's protests, thousands of kids DO want to be "just like him". Whether he likes it or not, kids ARE imitating his behavior. Same thing for Dennis Rodman. His tattooes and multi-hued hair were personal statements and a way of dealing with much of the pain he has had in his life...but the fact remains that thousands of kids still thought it was cool and wanted to do the same thing. Rodman became immensely popular right before the end of his career. Teens admired his "rebel" attitude and younger kids loved the fact that he would throw his jersey in the crowd after each game.

Whether Eminem, Dennis Rodman, Michael Jackson (too many idolizers to even mention), or any other celebrity likes the fact or not....some young people WILL want to imitate their behavior.

Personally, I have no problem with Nicole Kidman smoking in public. I don't see that this one incident will add significantly to the pressures young teen girls face to start smoking. Many of them have chosen to do it long before this week, so Kidman didn't affect their decision at all. I also think it was a bit hypocritical of her publicist, or directer, or whoever was with her to chastise her about her action. Just take a look at how many movies targeted at teens have either the lead character or the "exciting rogue" character smoking.

Cloudy - You are wrong that smoking isn't considered "cool" anymore. Just look at the students at your school or the teenagers at the mall...then tell me they don't think it makes them look "cool". I know us older, wiser members don't see it that way, but the movie and tobacco industry isn't targeting us...it is targeting teens.

{Final Quibble}
Pritchke - I disagree with your statement about the Dixie Chicks. They didn't "stand up for their principles" in any shape, form or fashion. When had they EVER objected to the war or criticized President Bush before March?? They hadn't. Natalie Maines just got "swept up in the moment" and made an impulsive remark based on the "overwhelming anti-American" sentiment they were seeing in Europe. As soon as the feces hit the fan from her remark, the Dixie Chicks immediately retracted the statement and offered a complete apology on their official website. When they found out that several thousand former fans didn't accept their apology - they started playing the role of "wounded diva".

To be honost, I have more respect for Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. At least they HAVE consistently opposed Republicans and most conservative ideals for as long as they have been in the public eye. And they were very vocal about their opposition to the War loooooong before it started. I don't agree with their statements, but at least I can respect them for being consistent and not sacrificing their values in the face of criticism.

BTW, this does bring up an interesting question for Yorick. Should Natalie Maines accept the fact that she has sacrificed certain civil liberties by becoming famous and should therefore refrain from criticizing her country or President while visiting another country?

[Mouse]

Just a couple of thoughts.

When it’s claimed a celebrity has a moral obligation to demonstrate a particular behaviour, those who criticise really mean (imho) that the celebrity in question has a moral obligation to reinforce the moral stance of the critic. Morals are a moveable feast, and apart from some baseline taboos that reinforce the survival of humankind, the minutia of moral codes are a personal matter.

Also, when did it become acceptable to remove the right of celebrities to live their lives within the law? It’s easy to talk about their obligations, but does anyone stop to consider their rights to live their lives as they see fit within the bounds of the law proscribed by the country they inhabit? Anyway, as far as I'm aware, it's the job of the Surgeon General in the US to make the public aware of the dangers of smoking. Miss Kidman is neither elected nor qualified to be a leading player in the debate.

Finally, it seems to me that this sort of attack is just another excuse to deny personal responsibility. I almost sound like a right-wing libertarian here (heaven help me ), but to constantly blame others for society’s evils only ends up with everyone pointing the finger of blame at everyone else. We were all born with a certain capacity to make reasoned and informed choices. To abdicate that responsibility diminishes us all.

[ 05-23-2003, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Mouse ]