In a world where so much of private life doubles as public performance, the boundary that separates social media influencers from Hollywood stars can be difficult to distinguish. Both make their living by playing pretend, creating a character who audiences can love (or at least, love to hate.)
But where actors flit from role to role, influencers can only ever be one person: themselves. Or rather, their Best Self. The influencer’s outward-facing persona is a carefully curated costume, a highlights reel of personhood that feels authentic without being too real. A proper influencer has to be messy but not sloppy, open but not extra. Weeping is allowed; ugly crying is not. Done right, this complex alchemy adds up to the greatest asset an influencer can possess: a sense that you could, with just a little effort, be just like her.
It’s called relatability. And it’s harder than it looks.
In retrospect, the “Imagine” video might have been the first, worst lesson to celebrities everywhere about how tricky the job of an influencer actually is. It happened exactly one year ago, as countries all over the world started locking down. Trapped at home, their work deemed “inessential,” a group of a dozen A-list actors could think of nothing better to do than contribute to an ensemble performance of John Lennon’s “Imagine”. The resulting video was posted to Instagram by Wonder Woman star Gal Gadot — packaged as a show of solidarity, a declaration that we’re all in it together. As for whether it had the intended result, well, Gadot herself said it best. “I can only say that I meant to do something good and pure, and it didn’t transcend,” she told Vanity Fair in October of last year.
The desperation of the “Imagine” video is uncomfortable but also understandable, a response to the upheaval of celebrity culture writ large amid a global pandemic. Before 2020, the fascination with celebs was sustained by their ubiquity; there was always a new film to anticipate, a new show to check out, and the entertainment industry was the sun around which our culture and cultural discourse revolved. But with cinemas shuttered and concert venues closed, the stars were suddenly out of sight, and, increasingly, out of mind. Without the Hollywood hype machine constantly reminding us to care about what celebs were up to, it turned out that we didn’t think much about them at all.
And even as restrictions loosen and certain parts of the machine fire up again, it’s not clear that the spark of public interest will be so easily reignited. In a world where people were supposedly aching for the flash song-and-dance spectacle of a pre-pandemic awards show, the Grammys should have been a major TV event. Instead, almost nobody watched them.
And if the “Imagine” video didn’t transcend, it might be because the hierarchies had flipped. While the rich and famous languished without a spotlight, the worshipful applause and cheers that once rained down on them now took the form of a nightly standing ovation for our Healthcare Heroes — the only people worth clapping for in these unprecedented times. Certainly, we were not going to applaud the inspirational warbling of celebrities whose up-close-and-personal camerawork and wan, un-painted faces couldn’t hide the fact that their quarantine was not just like ours. These stars were riding out the pandemic in lush gated communities, comfortable inside their multimillion dollar homes with athleisure-stuffed walk-in closets.
What’s an old-school star to do? Their audience was right there, on the internet, separated from the entertainer by nothing but a screen and a few lines of code. But without a scripted story to facilitate the connection, no producers or editors or PR people to give it that Hollywood sparkle, it’s easy to see how actors like the ones in the “Imagine” video thought they could perhaps assume a different sort of role in the pandemic. If not cheerleaders, then thought leaders, even moral authorities (and here, witness the second-most cringeworthy celebrity ensemble effort to emerge during Covid: the “I take responsibility” video centred on last summer’s Black Lives Matter protests). They could get down with the people. They could connect directly with their fans! They were already pros at pretending to be someone else; how hard could it be to play the role of yourself? They could be, yes, relatable.
Remember: it’s harder than it looks.
The job of an actor is to tell a story. The influencer, on the other hand, tells us how to live. The person is the product, forever walking a tightrope between the attainable and the aspirational, knowing that to veer too far in either direction means losing everything. Unlike Hollywood stardom, influencers are the rare profession in which too much success can trigger failure. That up-close-and-personal iPhone camera confession about your struggles with low self-esteem and chronic dandruff won’t fly when viewers spot your champagne fountain and pet albino tiger lurking at the edges of the frame.
So when Jennifer Lopez wrote, “We can’t go out to any restaurants or anything but the service and entertainment here is pretty good… #StaySafe” above a video of her family hanging out on the manicured lawns of boyfriend Alex Rodriguez’s Miami home — a property so large that it deserves its own zip code — nobody was buying that hashtagged sense of faux-solidarity. Instead, the comments filled up with reply guys making barbed jokes about Parasite, Bong Joon Ho’s Oscar-winning and scathing class satire set in the home of an absurdly rich and unselfconscious family. Lopez didn’t transcend her celebrity.
Applied carefully, though, a veneer of relatability — of fancy-but-not-too — can turn a D-list celeb into an A-grade influencer. Chrissy Teigen is perhaps the best example of this, a celebrity who wasn’t that famous in real life, but who, on social media, was so fun, so real, that she genuinely seemed like she might just become your best friend if you hung around long enough. Teigen maintained a brand that was at once self-deprecating, aspirational and vulnerable: relatability was an art form.
And like all good art, it made people feel. At the start of the pandemic, Teigen had a Twitter fanbase whose loyalty rivalled that of much bigger stars, spurred not by hero worship but rather by the sense of intimacy cultivated by her posts. Last May, she claimed to be so wounded by some intemperate comments from New York Times food writer Alison Roman that she could barely look at a shallot without weeping (and we believed her, notwithstanding that said shallots were presumably sat upon the counter of a $500,000 bespoke kitchen in a very swank part of Malibu). But when Roman lost her job over the controversy, Teigen claimed also to be wounded by this, which was certainly not what she wanted, and we believed that, too. This was the influencer at her best: expertly unguarded, so willing to share the good and the bad, that people forgot how much better her “good” was than everyone else’s. (Teigen and her husband, musician John Legend, have a net worth of $75 million between them.)
And yet, as the pandemic wore on, even Teigen overstepped: when she opened up on Twitter about the embarrassing moment when she and Legend “accidentally” ordered a $13,000 bottle of wine, even her most dedicated fans revolted. The veil had slipped. We’d seen too much.
We have, generally, seen too much.
This doesn’t mean that we’re done with celebrities, even as the pandemic isolation passes its one-year anniversary. But what we want from them seems to have shifted, and there may be no going back. It’s a different breed of famous person — the older ones, the less-online, the ones who seem to view social media with some combination of amusement and bewilderment and who couldn’t care less about being inspirational or on brand — who have become our best sources of joy, entertainment and even comfort for their contributions to the landscape. Sam Neill’s delightfully unselfconscious video dispatches from his New Zealand vineyard were a particular bright spot, at least until we were wrecked by the death of his beloved pet duck, Charlie Pickering. Ditto the celebs like Jon Krasinski, who chose to keep telling stories as best they could, like charitable performers offering a wholesome morale boost in difficult times, rather than join the less-fortunate masses in moaning over lockdown.
If Covid has killed celebrity culture — or at least permanently altered it — then these stars are the ones we’ll turn to when the world opens up again. The ones who embraced their role as entertainers, instead of pivoting toward influence; the ones who rose to the occasion instead of trying to stoop to connect with the common man.
About a year ago, Madonna released her own quarantine dispatch, confessing that the lockdown had left her at a loose end. “Covid-19 is the great equaliser,” she said, gazing into the camera, her body submerged in a luxurious bath strewn with rose petals, her neck draped with elaborate jewelry. It was meant to be relatable; instead, it was only an infuriating illustration of the uncomfortable, unspoken truth. The middle of a pandemic is a bad time to remind us: celebrities have never been more distant, more separate. We’ve never been more aware that some of us are more equal than others.
Kat Rosenfield is an UnHerd columnist and co-host of the Feminine Chaos podcast. Her latest novel is You Must Remember This.
katrosenfield 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe trouble is what Theodore Dalyrymple calls “the toxic cult of sentimentality”
The ugly residue of an over-feminized society – where feelings trump all else, and emotional incontinence is worn like a badge of honour.
The over reaction/hysteria to covid exemplifies the situation perfectly and latterly the hysteria to the murder of Sarah Everard, sad as it is.
There’s a reason society has been traditionally been male run across cultures – because good decisions are made with the head, not the heart (women are much more neurotic statistically)
Celebs have been tapping into this weepy culture for a generation. As long as we keep denigrating men with infantile monikers like “toxic masculinity” nothing is going to change. The stoicism that men bring to counterbalance female emotionality, will be gone – together with the entire culture.
For an insight into the media driven murder hysteria check out https://youtu.be/HFpQqdfiChe
The video is ‘unavailable’, presumably because it communicates some truth and is not sufficiently woke.
Yes it’s Nigel Farage getting to the root of the problem. Talking about the murder of Lorraine Cox last year.
I saw his video on that this morning, on my normal YT feed. The media didn’t cover that murder for two reasons:
1: It was in Exeter and not London
2: The person charge with the murder in an Iraqi asylum seeker.
Just another example of the evil of the MSM.
An accompanying increase in low quality “kneejerk” legislation is another major drawback to be carefully avoided.
Fighting talk! Well said.
It’s been happening for some time – even at a young age I remember being baffled by the overly-emotional public outpouring over the death of Lady Diana.
To quote every non-conservative’s favourite pin-up Baroness T:
That was the day this country died. I had a colleague who admitted who admitted that he and his wife to KP to lay flowers. It remains the only time I have ever called a colleague a c**t.
LD was a sanctimonious, self-obsessed and dishonest individual who almost single handedly made it acceptable to sanctimonious, self-obsessed and dishonest.
I agree Ian with your first 3 sentences.
However, from then on when you say “There’s a reason society has been traditionally been male run across cultures – because good decisions are made with the head, not the heart (women are much more neurotic statistically)” I have to disagree with your thinking on 4 counts.
Count 1: I am not aware of any evidence that supports the notion that “good decisions are made with the head. Not the heart”. But I am aware of lots of evidence that contradicts this.
It is entirely proven that ALL human decision making (i.e. men & women) is driven far more by emotion than by rationality.
Men tend to be less aware of it because it’s generally more subconscious in males; but its there and driving their decisions nonetheless far more than the rational part of their brains.
Additionally, the art of influencing others (which is certainly one of the most important facets of leadership) is dominated by the ability to trigger emotional rather than rational buy in from those one is trying to influence. Leaders who grasp this concept will succeed far more than those who continually attempt to purely make rational arguments. Both skills are needed.
There is an excellent book on this topic which explains both how emotion plays such a huge part in our own decision making and also in terms of our effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) at influencing others exists. Its called “Switch” by Chip & Dan Heath – super interesting and informative.
Count 2: You appear to be implying that women are less able in leadership roles than men to make good decisions – due to increased trait neuroticism in women. Again, I am unaware of any evidence that supports this, but am aware of plenty that contradicts it.
The average female does have higher trait neuroticism than the average male but this means only 1 thing; that the average female will be more neurotic than the average male.
It is simply not relevant when assessing males vs females in terms of their potential as leaders.
Neuroticism, like the other big 5 traits, are net neutral in terms of human potential i.e. they are neither positive or negative.
In any given leadership situation a good dose of neuroticism could be good or bad. You are assuming I think that neuroticism is always bad and always associated with females which is simply not the case. There will be plenty of occasions where a female leaders potentially higher neuroticism will have led to poor decisions of course….but there will be an equal number of occasions where a male leaders potentially lower level of neuroticism will have led to poor decisions. And vice versa.
Count 3) Neuroticism manifests, like many other traits, differently at home from at work; and it’s a big mistake to judge a woman’s leadership potential based on how emotionally she may behave at home
Its well documented (and probably everyone reading this will inherently know this anyway from their own personal experience) that people have the capacity to behave very differently at work (e.g. leadership positions) to how they behave at home (intimate, personal, safe space environments).
When emotions rise at home my experience is that women DO seem to act more overtly emotionally and lose the ability to debate rationally far more often than men. Why this happens is another question….but what I do know is that this phenomenon does not transfer into the work place where women are quite clearly equally as capable as men to make “good sensible decisions”.
I see no evidence anywhere, either from my personal career experience or from observing political or business leaders, that once a woman crosses the daily threshold from “home life mode” to “work life” mode that they are any less credible or pragmatic than their male counterparts.
Count 4) Higher female neuroticism is a median measurement.
Even if higher neuroticism was a negative leadership indicator (which it isn’t) then all it would mean is that the average female had higher levels than the average male. That would still mean that millions of women across the world had levels which were lower than the average male….and thus capable, via your theory, of making sound decisions.
As I said at the beginning I agree that some aspects of society have been horribly overly feminised and I agree with you totally that the Sarah Everard situation is definitely one such example.
But I don’t think sweeping statements that imply that women can’t make good leaders because of slightly higher trait neuroticism will help to solve this; in fact I think they will have the opposite impact.
writing anecdotally, in my long work history I’ve had bad bosses both male and female but the majority of them were female. also, societally we have been making fewer ‘hard decisions for the good of the majority of people’ decisions since women got the vote. I’m not claiming expertise in the area but from observation.
Best workplaces for me were a female head ( who balanced logic and empathy) with mixed teams. Stereotypically blokes who could focus boldly on tasks without the need for endless discussion with women who, often rightly, picked over details and counselled some caution and double checking. All these are tendencies only of course. Blokes can be cautious and careful too. What you don’t want is the stereotyped reckless bullying male boss or the endless talk no action female.
Hi Jamie.
If I may land somewhere in the middle of your and Ian’s points of view, my experience is that good decisions are almost always a combination of head and heart. My observation on the objections you list are that they all focus on leadership whereas Ian didn’t mention leadership at all in his post. Most of the key decisions in developed democracies are formulated and refined by consensus, often over years or decades and can rarely be attributed to a single individual.
I imagine that you and he have a similar point to make, namely that the increasing influence of female voices in the public sphere has shifted the focus on the emotional at the expense of the logical argument, in some cases so far as to eradicate logical thought altogether. A case in point would be the “Defund the P0lice” slogan which although it makes no logical sense at all is not only taken seriously by some people but has actually been implemented in certain US districts with predictably disastrous results.
I really liked your hypothesis in yesterday’s post regarding the feminisation of society and look forward to hearing it developed in future comments if you have the time and inclination.
Regards, Stephen
Thanks Stephen. You are right that I focussed on leadership and that Ian didn’t explicitly mention the word “leadership”. However, he did use the phrase “there’s a reason society has traditionally been male run” and then gave the implied reason for this as being that men can make better decisions than women (due to women being more neurotic). I just don’t think that’s true.
In my experience almost all people who lead are bad at it regardless of gender.
The WORST legislation ”Hate bill;Male” will lead to diminishing freedoms..how come there isn’t a law for ‘Misandry’ the Evil has migrated down from Scotland,where you can be prosecuted for taking the U**** out of lying sturgeon!
Slebs have little purchase because they are imposed, not chosen. They are imposed on grounds other than talent, and the media which touts them has become a closed shop, hectoring the rest of us according to a loopy ideology we don’t really share. That we continue to see the kaleidoscope of transient performers disfiguring our papers and our screens is purely and simply because the old state broadcasters – which once responded to the public – have been captured by PC and Woke. The others are an elite cartel, subject to the same influence. Lockdown has merely accelerated the process of disenchantment. Real celebrity arises from a living culture. Ours is paralysed and putrescent. Plays, newspapers, books – all expressions of thought and art – are now policed; jokes are banned and punished – witness the miserable tale of the man who taught his dog a certain salute. And under cover of this blanket of ideological darkness, abominations go unpunished and society is wrecked. It is quite simple: twenty more years along this path and life will once again be nasty, brutish and short.
Yes. This is why people like Alex Belfield, Steven Crowder, Cutie Pie (or whatever he’s called) and various others are so popular. They are authentic and not chosen and imposed on us by the entertainment industry.
To Hell in a handcart with all of them for all I care. Useless, overpaid, pampered prima donnas. Megan Markle front wheelbarrow please.
I don’t much care how people like Sarah Silverman and Will Ferrell “became” (as if they were not always) irrelevant. As long as they remain so. I don’t know who Gal Gadot is but if singing Imagine to people who lost their jobs in the pandemic is considered a great idea, yeah, irrelevant is probably too kind. Meghan and Harry picked a bad time to try to make a career as celebrities.
“Teigen maintained a brand that was at once self-deprecating, aspirational and vulnerable: relatability was an art form.”
LOL there is no one more absorbed and foul mouthed than Teigen. There is nothing even vaguely self-deprecating or vulnerable about her, but aspirational? oh yeah. Hillary Baldwin x 2.
Yes when H & M said they wanted to leave I thought they meant for a quieter professional life-she as an actress, him as an outward bound sort , but it seems they just want to be celebrities-famous for being famous-their own story being they are related to someone famous ( who is also discreet) who the media want to find out about.
Trump V MeAgain markle look forward to the punchup in 2024 & Me Agains presidential Campaign,with privacy..will she stay in a cellar like Senile joe??
Yes that would be fun. Though trouble with Markle is that for an actress she misses the opportunities. Her half-sister has MS and is confined to a wheelchair-if Meghan had made her her chief bridesmaid and wheeled her into the church to be met by both her parents who gave her away -or failing that her mother walk her up the aisle-how theatrical is that? ‘Caring Meghan shows her loving nature’ and that sort of thing-missed all that.
Just when you thought the world of celebrity couldn’t get more vacuous, along came the “influencer”! What on earth is this? How on earth do they make a living and what or rather who are they influencing?
The west is finished. Our culture destroyed and our values trivial.
Yes, the good news is that their influence does seem to be declining – witness the 53% collapse in ratings for the uber-woke grammies/Grammys or whatever they’re called.
Further evidence came from one of the Walk Away From The Democrats videos a few months ago. The girl in her early 20s delivered all the usual stuff about having seen through the Democrats etc and then said ‘And I no longer believe in celebrities’. I thought this was quite significant, coming from one so young.
And probably Oscars ,tonys & Golden Globes,without the excellent Ricky Gervais..will Also Tank…..in ratings
People have gotten tired of being hectored by over-indulged, plastic, bimbos on environment, correct speech, BLM, gender, etc. Talking more won’t fix their “problem”. Shutting up may help.
Except in Canada – we made one of those over-indulged plastic bimbos our PM.
Sad but true.
Trudeau thinks Imagine is actual government policy.
Canada’s harsh climate makes its ‘wokeness’ rather surprising. A lot of people I thought were American turn out to be Canadian ( just as a lot of famous French people turn out to be Belgian), so maybe they left to get away from it?
imo the reason the vast majority of people stopped watching award shows is that most of the celebs are trying to outwoke themselves and lecture the rest of us on how terrible our country is. they see themselves as rebels but we see them as conformists and frankly it’s insulting and boring.
The climate Is changing..Geddit?…
You have perfectly described the Guardian and NYT!
Yes, I will admit to a certain devastation that my lifelong hometown paper, the NYT has destroyed itself and I can get no pleasure or even schadenfreude from it’s downfall but the Guardian is a true jewel of entertainment. Every article is more bizarre and off base than the next. It’s like it’s a competition to see who can’t write the most inane pieces. I particularly love the women writers, angry AND off base. It’s an unbeatable combo for pure entertainment. I’d never pay for it but love to lurk in the comments for the pure joy of it. I would not be surprised to find out if it has all been a huge practical joke for many years.
The Guardian used to be half-decent newspaper (in the 90s). Coming from a background that read the Sun and Mirror, the Guardian was a breath of fresh air that actually did investigative journalism. Now, it seems to be opinion and nothing more. It is nothing more than a mouthpiece for people who don’t actually live in the real world. Take the Merkle’s ‘interview’ with Opera Winfrey; was there any analysis of the claims made by Mr Merkle and his wife Harry? And Afua Hirsch who spends all her time finding new and dastardly things to say about how racist Britain is. And interview she did on NPR was a gem. The Guardian sees the world only through the spectacles of white men bad and everyone else good. Although I must admit, it does have some nice recipes, sometimes. And don’t even get me started on the ‘Independent.’
If your life revolves or is influenced by celebrity’s and/or influencers you have not got a life and need to get one.
Super rich celebs bemoaning their fate and pseudo celebs called influencer’s, who are just advertiser’s are not anything to pay attention to.
What a world when you give these people your attention, live your own life at least it’s reality
“Imagine no possessions”… and you see all these people singing in their multi dollar houses and gardens. Don’t they have any sense of shame left in their shallow life?
News outlets who want to be taken seriously should ignore the whinings of celebs and avoid writing about them.
The cults of modern celebrity and social media ‘influencers’ are always worthy of derision, but ultimately would fade into insignificance if the majority of consumers chose to ignore.
Actors are paid to read out loud words that other people have written.
No original thought there!
Who are the people in the photo?
We have our heroes, people you admire and would love to emulate, but there is a danger that with so much access to the lives of these celebrities/heroes, you just end up always on the outside of what you think is the perfect life – peering in through the window.
I do think celebrities are good for society as they entertain and provide an escape, but it’s probably better to “follow” the lives of your friends and family if you want to be happy.
Stark contrast to what celebrities did during WW2. Some actively served, some gave their lives, some provided an escape though entertaining and others offered support through public service ads and war bond drives.
I don’t recall seeing any tearful “I know what you’re going through, I’ve just lost my chauffeur” sharing.
Perhaps it was just a different time and it would certainly be naïve to think that all celebrities of the day were paragons of virtue but there did seem to be an understanding that while celebrity does much to insulate oneself from the troubles of the world it certainly doesn’t preclude one from pitching in.
I’m sure it’s not lost on many of us that the pandemic has rendered much of what we fill our lives with is meaningless. Shopping for things, wanting more things, spending more money. Sometimes money we don’t even have. Aspirations that mirror celebrity life styles that we’re bombarded with across the media. Maybe many celebrities are waking up to the fact that much of what they have and do is meaningless in the scheme of things.
Bread and Circuses, “Occ est vivere”- that is too LIVE!
Absolutely! I won’t be too dissapointed as I know this is how it has to be… The world’s ever descending spiral of man thinking he has all the answers. As we read in scripture… “I say unto you, watch” that’s all.
Out of curiosity, are the three people at the top celebrities? If so, who are they? (I don`t live in the UK.)
I live in the UK, and I have no idea either
Gal Gadot, Sarah Silverman and Ron Burgundy, sorry Will Ferrell. An Israeli and 2 Americans. I do live in the UK and I despise celebrity culture.
Thanks. Oh, that
s Silverman? Shes got even uglier than she was.If you have a strong stomach and have not just eaten, watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSrhJGGDqx0
Put simply, vacuous cretins!
They are Americans.
The late night :influencers” Colbert, Kimmel, etc have all been broadcasting from home for the past year and it has become clear to me, that none of them are even remotely amusing. Without their writers, make-up artists and most importantly their adoring audiences, there is nothing to keep me up late at night. They have all fixated on racism, sexism, homophobia, hatred of Trump and now Cuomo, in an attempt to be Woke I guess. I still miss Jon Stewart and Johnny Carson but I best get over it since there is no one out there like either of them.
Andrew cuomo’s Fall from Woke ”Pin up boy” to Sexual predator, would require A heart of stone, Not to Guffaw for ten minutes?..Similar to Scotland,Salmond,sturgeon and SNP Fascists look set for small voter rejections,so not all bad..750,000 New Yorkers have fled New York since Blm riots..
The lovely looking lady on the left is Gal Gadot.
So where does Meghan fit? She owes her celebrity to the Royal Family and to the title and wealth it gave her. Wow! She married a prince, every girl’s dream, and now she is a duchess. So she now seeks to be an influencer by claiming victimhood – at the hands of the people who welcomed her into that Royal Family and who made it plain to her she could not just waltz into a family and expect it to discard its traditions and practices, not to mention those of the monarchy the family represents and upholds just on her arrogant say so. No wonder she found it stressful. No doubt the family did too. And she thinks that makes her a victim! Hers is not an influence a decent, fair minded and strong society should welcome.
My favourite comment on the “I Take Responsibility” video is right at the top and has 10,315 likes: “I take responsibility for clicking the dislike button.”
Perhaps there is hope after all, that sanity will prevail one day.
“How celebrities became irrelevant”
if this is true why would anyone bother to read your writing led alone pay you for writing it?
Long article and discussion today- obsessed over folk who are obsessed with slebs? We should all disobsess from this.
Further down, discussing the Guardian and its woke credentials. It always seems contradictory to embrace things like homosexuality or trans from which the huge straight majority sighs and moves on. Yet ray§cism is also a ‘thing’ which must be natural if it exists. It’s quite obvious the likes of Lammy, Abbott and Khan are utterly racist in their dislike of white people. Society has become a diode, a one way set up. Most, upon finding they don’t fit in to whatever local society, a job, a club where they feel unwelcome, move on to fresh pastures.
Anybody from whichever creed who admires, is thrilled by Hollywood away from the screen, must be as shallow as their off duty heroes. Meghan and Diana’s situations? A vom fest like Red Nose Day.
The best celebrity output I have seen over the lockdown period has been Toyah & Robert’s Sunday Lunch (Wilcox and Fripp) and of course the ever inventive and brilliant BBC’s Staged (a play set on Zoom) starring Michael Sheen & David Tennant and countless others.
Yes, but Sheen and Tennant are both typical lefty luvvies and completely up themselves, are they not?