I’m always impressed–amazed might be more accurate–at Mary Harrington’s ability as a writer. She seems to brim with words and ideas on any subject related to popular culture.
The internet has doubtless exacerbated celebrity exploitation (although the author doesn’t consider the extent to which some celebrities are complicit in their own exploitation, for example with strategically timed ‘breakdowns’), but it’s far from a new phenomenon.
Google the sad lives and careers of the massively talented Judy Garland and her fellow child star Mickey Rooney. They started their careers in the 1940s as teenage performers in the popular ‘Andy Hardy’ movies. To keep them at peak efficiency, studio doctors prescribed uppers (amphetamines) then downers (barbiturates) so they could work long hours then sleep. These were licensed physicians (“First, do no harm”) prescribing addictive drugs to children for commercial gain. Garland became a lifelong drug addict and died before the age of fifty. Rooney lived longer but with a troubled life.
We’re all complicit in the public treatment of media stars, and in our own treatment if we agree to be part of the social media circus.
it’s already becoming clear that a culture willing to replace private life with neverending public carnival will be governed as Britney Spears is governed. It will be run as a therapeutic conservatorship by those who know best, whether we like it or not.
I agree with you about the quality of the writing. This is the most important point that I have read all year: yes, those who are public commodities have always been exploited. But with a movie studio, marketing department and GPS tracker in our pockets, we in our own way risk becoming public commodities as well.
It is perfectly constructive to suggest avoiding lazy generalisations like “We all ..” and “ Why did nobody foresee … “ etc.
What follows statements like this is often poorly thought out.
Fortunately Mary seldom uses these structures …
Clickbait titles like the one given to this article are pretty moronic … and it’s important to discourage them.
Last edited 2 years ago by Ian Barton
David Simpson
2 years ago
When I rule the world, or at least the UK, if it still exists (yes, I have been driven mad) I will ban Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Tiktok, Instagram and Amazon, and nationalise Google. There will be howls of outrage, and then everyone will go back to using their phones for talking to friends, pubs for meeting them, and maps for working out where they are. Simples.
A Spetzari
2 years ago
Really good article – as always Mary.
My one criticism though is that the ‘music’ has always been part of the whole charade.
Many of the songs on Blackout, the 2007 album Spears released shortly before her breakdown, convey a sense of relentless exposure
The music as fake as the hair extensions and over-produced videos. She is not a musician in the traditional sense and her songs are written by others as part of a committee – like most pop music in the past 15-20 years. They are deliberately written to reflect whatever hell she may or may not have been going through as it’s all part of the same marketing. Boom or bust they will try and sell it and her product.
I don’t say it to be a music snob – each to their own – but this is the undeniable truth. It’s not the artist revealing her true feelings, it’s part of the marketing machine to sell out tours and sell records. Capitalising on her misfortune as if she wasn’t a real person but a character in a soap opera.
Last edited 2 years ago by A Spetzari
Peter LR
2 years ago
I was intrigued this week that Facebook was deemed not to be a monopoly because the definition only applies financially. But what I think they were going after with Big Tech was their ‘monopoly of efficiency’. These tech behemoths provide whatever you need in the quickest and most effective way possible.
This suits our time-poor life experience and effectively hooks you in. I wanted to look at a brand new website but DuckDuckGo (which I use to keep some privacy) couldn’t find it. Google had it instantly. It’s tough for humans to break out of the addiction of instant response or gratification. It’s actually hard work supporting local shops or taking the trouble to buy a card, write it and post it in good time instead of messaging HBD! I don’t want to give up on this unequal struggle.
Eddie Johnson
2 years ago
Mary at her very best. Always worth a second read.
Arild Brock
2 years ago
TRY TANGO!
Like other comments to the article I find the author’s description of “The End” accurate- the disastrous breakdown of privacy (and authenticity) with Britney Spears as the obvious example.
The fact that Spears’ story can take place shows the crudeness of the “cultural movement” behind – a celebrity person cuts her hair off in order to become ugly – a desperate attempt to save remnants of personhood – leading, however, to no change.
I am not sure if I agree with the article’s conclusion, though. Or is the conclusion just “We are all Britney Spears now”? I agree that we are all surrounded by this “culture”, but do we have to join it? Can’t we fight against it and at the same time find some fragments of real life to take part in? E. g. to endorse Harrington’s article verbally or even with a “like” I hold for resistance – not joining.
Regarding fragments of real life – let me tell about an improvised tango scene I visited last night here in Berlin, outdoor in rainy weather under the corona restrictions. That little scene has its “likes” and its vanities like other human arenas. But the people you meet are not dead! You can seek contact aiming at friendship, a relationship or just a dance. It takes time and it is a bit awkward. Being somewhat open and authentic is now more risky than ever thanks to the circumstances so accurately described by Harris, but people are not dead! You can always try to reach out.
Terry Needham
2 years ago
Mary Harrington goes into this, and more, in an interview on Triggernometry broadcast a couple of days ago, Well worth a listen.
I’m always impressed–amazed might be more accurate–at Mary Harrington’s ability as a writer. She seems to brim with words and ideas on any subject related to popular culture.
The internet has doubtless exacerbated celebrity exploitation (although the author doesn’t consider the extent to which some celebrities are complicit in their own exploitation, for example with strategically timed ‘breakdowns’), but it’s far from a new phenomenon.
Google the sad lives and careers of the massively talented Judy Garland and her fellow child star Mickey Rooney. They started their careers in the 1940s as teenage performers in the popular ‘Andy Hardy’ movies. To keep them at peak efficiency, studio doctors prescribed uppers (amphetamines) then downers (barbiturates) so they could work long hours then sleep. These were licensed physicians (“First, do no harm”) prescribing addictive drugs to children for commercial gain. Garland became a lifelong drug addict and died before the age of fifty. Rooney lived longer but with a troubled life.
We’re all complicit in the public treatment of media stars, and in our own treatment if we agree to be part of the social media circus.
I agree with you about the quality of the writing. This is the most important point that I have read all year: yes, those who are public commodities have always been exploited. But with a movie studio, marketing department and GPS tracker in our pockets, we in our own way risk becoming public commodities as well.
Don’t Google anything ever.
“We’re all complicit in the public treatment of media stars,”
No we are not.
I am always amazed at silly things people say.
Thanks for your Constructive contribution to this discussion…
It is perfectly constructive to suggest avoiding lazy generalisations like “We all ..” and “ Why did nobody foresee … “ etc.
What follows statements like this is often poorly thought out.
Fortunately Mary seldom uses these structures …
Clickbait titles like the one given to this article are pretty moronic … and it’s important to discourage them.
When I rule the world, or at least the UK, if it still exists (yes, I have been driven mad) I will ban Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Tiktok, Instagram and Amazon, and nationalise Google. There will be howls of outrage, and then everyone will go back to using their phones for talking to friends, pubs for meeting them, and maps for working out where they are. Simples.
Really good article – as always Mary.
My one criticism though is that the ‘music’ has always been part of the whole charade.
The music as fake as the hair extensions and over-produced videos. She is not a musician in the traditional sense and her songs are written by others as part of a committee – like most pop music in the past 15-20 years. They are deliberately written to reflect whatever hell she may or may not have been going through as it’s all part of the same marketing. Boom or bust they will try and sell it and her product.
I don’t say it to be a music snob – each to their own – but this is the undeniable truth. It’s not the artist revealing her true feelings, it’s part of the marketing machine to sell out tours and sell records. Capitalising on her misfortune as if she wasn’t a real person but a character in a soap opera.
I was intrigued this week that Facebook was deemed not to be a monopoly because the definition only applies financially. But what I think they were going after with Big Tech was their ‘monopoly of efficiency’. These tech behemoths provide whatever you need in the quickest and most effective way possible.
This suits our time-poor life experience and effectively hooks you in. I wanted to look at a brand new website but DuckDuckGo (which I use to keep some privacy) couldn’t find it. Google had it instantly. It’s tough for humans to break out of the addiction of instant response or gratification. It’s actually hard work supporting local shops or taking the trouble to buy a card, write it and post it in good time instead of messaging HBD! I don’t want to give up on this unequal struggle.
Mary at her very best. Always worth a second read.
TRY TANGO!
Like other comments to the article I find the author’s description of “The End” accurate- the disastrous breakdown of privacy (and authenticity) with Britney Spears as the obvious example.
The fact that Spears’ story can take place shows the crudeness of the “cultural movement” behind – a celebrity person cuts her hair off in order to become ugly – a desperate attempt to save remnants of personhood – leading, however, to no change.
I am not sure if I agree with the article’s conclusion, though. Or is the conclusion just “We are all Britney Spears now”? I agree that we are all surrounded by this “culture”, but do we have to join it? Can’t we fight against it and at the same time find some fragments of real life to take part in? E. g. to endorse Harrington’s article verbally or even with a “like” I hold for resistance – not joining.
Regarding fragments of real life – let me tell about an improvised tango scene I visited last night here in Berlin, outdoor in rainy weather under the corona restrictions. That little scene has its “likes” and its vanities like other human arenas. But the people you meet are not dead! You can seek contact aiming at friendship, a relationship or just a dance. It takes time and it is a bit awkward. Being somewhat open and authentic is now more risky than ever thanks to the circumstances so accurately described by Harris, but people are not dead! You can always try to reach out.
Mary Harrington goes into this, and more, in an interview on Triggernometry broadcast a couple of days ago, Well worth a listen.