Celebrities: One of the More Destructive Influences or Victims?

[john grey]

“Celebrities” like Charlie Sheen might be one of the more destructive influences in the US today. This “man” has beaten women in his relationships, placed co-workers jobs in jeopardy, threw tantrums, & made substance abuse palatable to the public. He has received very few consequences due to his “celebrity status” and money. He has not been a father to his children and basically made a great deal of money from morphing an emotional illness into “winning”.

The constant attention he calls to himself has made many people believe that they also can travel that path as he appears to the public in such a way that no consequences seem to faze him.
We have many negative influences in life. However when such a collection of dysfunction are displayed in such a way; the lack of depth in which he is portrayed is a very destructive element. Somewhat similar to the drug dealer driving the new car and having a great deal of material things may appeal to the immature urban observer.

What is interesting is the level of defense he has received. His tantrums are justified by many & his behavior with drugs, alcohol, & interpersonal relationships are glamorized or justified. Many rush to his defense. Some of the public see Sheen as a “victim” of a Hollywood conspiracy to topple a great actor. However when Sheen attempted to do any lone “stand-up” with little to no scripting, he failed miserably.
Sheen is not alone by any means. Many similar “celebrities” maintain the same agenda.

Do you believe this is a destructive force or simply a by-product of the entertainment industry? Do you believe Sheen (& those similar to him) is a victim of exploitative agenda such as voyeuristic TV shows (such as "Celebrity Rehab")?

[macaroni tony]

Both are true IMO. The former moreso than the latter, in most cases

[colcifer]

They're victims but they also knew what they were getting into and have used the system just as much as it uses them.

[Relic]

IMO - Charlie Sheen has turned into a joke and is hardly an influence to anyone. The celebrities that are more "potent" as bad influences are the ones who are a little less outrageous and a bit more insidious - the ones who seem like they're "cool" (not nuts like Sheen) and preach the word that "confidence" = doing whatever you want, being whatever/whoever you want to be and not apologizing for it. While to an extent, it's true, but when taken to the extreme...? Ahhh hail naw... it's screwed up, it really is.

[john grey]

Originally Posted by colcifer

They're victims but they also knew what they were getting into and have used the system just as much as it uses them.

Could you explain to what degree they are victims (as adults) in this context?

[WalterBush]

They're not good influences, and they're not victims, either. Many of my favorite celebrities have chosen to leave the spotlight in order to lead normal lives, and I applaud them for it; those who constantly strive to stay on the top tier of public recognition seem to start acting crazy in order to do so, i.e. Charlie Sheen, Britney Spears, Mel Gibson (although I think he's legitimately insane, not a publicity hound.)

Celebrities, from where I'm sitting, have enough money and fame to insulate them from the consequences of their actions, and many take advantage of this. People without that amount of money or fame who try to emulate their actions end up wrecking their lives. Most people can't avoid paying taxes, party every night, get repeated DUI or drug charges, or go through divorce after divorce without suffering horrible consequences. Celebrities in America make HORRIBLE role models IMO. If they're victims of anything, it's that too many people are willing to let their behavior or outrageous public remarks slide because of their popularity.

[john grey]

Please cut me a little slack w/ this because I REALLY don't keep up w/ the celebrity issues (until this stuff happened w/ Sheen).


Gibson said something about Black people or Jewish people? - I don't remember which.

What makes Gibson insane and Sheen not insane?
{Please note:} I mean this in all sincerity as I really don't watch a much TV at all. It's a rhetorical question: as I have a gut belief that true bigotry is an emotional disorder.

[Balog]

Originally Posted by WalterBush

They're not good influences, and they're not victims, either. Many of my favorite celebrities have chosen to leave the spotlight in order to lead normal lives, and I applaud them for it; those who constantly strive to stay on the top tier of public recognition seem to start acting crazy in order to do so, i.e. Charlie Sheen, Britney Spears, Mel Gibson (although I think he's legitimately insane, not a publicity hound.)

Celebrities, from where I'm sitting, have enough money and fame to insulate them from the consequences of their actions, and many take advantage of this. People without that amount of money or fame who try to emulate their actions end up wrecking their lives. Most people can't avoid paying taxes, party every night, get repeated DUI or drug charges, or go through divorce after divorce without suffering horrible consequences. Celebrities in America make HORRIBLE role models IMO. If they're victims of anything, it's that too many people are willing to let their behavior or outrageous public remarks slide because of their popularity.

They can until they get nominated for a Cabinet position, apparently...

And celebs are in no way victims.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by Balog

They can until they get nominated for a Cabinet position, apparently...

And celebs are in no way victims.

I wouldn't say that across the board. A celeb can certainly be a victim. Many have been "taken to the cleaners" by corrupt agents/managers, many have emotional/psyche issues, etc etc. A celeb is no more or less human than any of us. My issue is with those who forget that little key fact.

[Skitch it!]

I think the three of them have their own mental issues that have manifested in different ways over time, money, fame, drugs, choose your trigger. Kind of like what happened with Jaco, he didn't, or couldn't see the writing on the wall but to everyone else it was pretty obvious it had all gone wrong.

[Balog]

Originally Posted by Relic

I wouldn't say that across the board. A celeb can certainly be a victim. Many have been "taken to the cleaners" by corrupt agents/managers, many have emotional/psyche issues, etc etc. A celeb is no more or less human than any of us. My issue is with those who forget that little key fact.

This thread is asking if celebrity is in itself a status of victimhood, which it is not. Obviously if a celebrity is beaten or raped or whatever they are a victim the same as anyone else ould be in those circumstances. But there is nothing inherintly victimizing about celebrity. Which was I believe the question the OP asked, and the one I was answering.w

[Relic]

Originally Posted by Balog

This thread is asking if celebrity is in itself a status of victimhood, which it is not. Obviously if a celebrity is beaten or raped or whatever they are a victim the same as anyone else ould be in those circumstances. But there is nothing inherintly victimizing about celebrity. Which was I believe the question the OP asked, and the one I was answering.w

Gotchya.
I'm wandering off topic. I was more focusing on the first two sections of the OP's post.

Still, "celebrity" can mean a lot of things. Charlie Sheen is one, so is Rodney King so is Elizabeth Smart - not all are on the same level of "victimhood" by a long shot.
Semantics I guess.

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by colcifer

They're victims but they also knew what they were getting into and have used the system just as much as it uses them.

That's pretty much my take on it. Regardless of his mental illness and personal demons, I think that Sheen knows exactly what he's doing when it comes to the media, interviews, and comedy tour. With that said, yes, the media is pretty much commodifying Sheen's craziness (though I wonder how much of that craziness is legit and how much of it is, again, a part of the persona that Sheen is currently portraying).

Usually, I don't give two poos about celebrity gossip or what celebrities are up to other than their movies, music, etc. However, I was really fascinated and amused by Sheen when he was throwing out zingy quotes like, "I'm on a drug. It's called Charlie Sheen." I guess I found it interesting because he was actually just saying a lot of the things that many people think about themselves; but they don't want to come off narcissistic, so they don't.

[colcifer]

Originally Posted by john grey

Could you explain to what degree they are victims (as adults) in this context?

It's a gray area, IMO, but I'd say that they're victims in that their personal lives are invaded. Some of it they let happen for publicity but the rest of the time... like I said, it's a gray area.

[john grey]

Originally Posted by colcifer

It's a gray area, IMO, but I'd say that they're victims in that their personal lives are invaded. Some of it they let happen for publicity but the rest of the time... like I said, it's a gray area.

I think that a fascinating way of looking at it.
If I were to impose that some "celebrity" were to identify that they had some personal demon, alcohol, for example. I would doubt that they may get the same level of help from a public structure like AA that a "anonymous" member of the public would.
The fact that Sheen attacks AA has little to do with this in my opinion, he couldn't stay anonymous anymore than Mel Gibson. The personal imposition of a media "feeding frenzy" would work two ways in it's career enhancement & it's destruction of privacy.

His "pathology" COULD be an act. But I would think it's to his detriment as few big dollar companies would take a chance on that guy not returning to his previous way of dealing with his boss & co-workers especially since he was (perhaps) the highest paid TV actor in history.