The Moss case
Sep. 21st, 2005 08:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fpbAccording to how it finally ends, the Kate Moss affair may well be of considerable historical importance. Here is the reason why.
In 1935, Hollywood actress Mary Astor was caught by her husband having an affair with well-known theatre personality George Kaufman. Her diary ended up in the hands of the press, and it was a disgusting document: one that, behind yards of schoolgirlish rhetoric and self-absorption, showed a woman who treated her men as living vibrators with a few irrelevant appendages thrown in, and did not even begin to understand the ideas of loyalty, companionship, or even respect for another person. (No wonder that Astor had her greatest movie part as the heartless, murderous seductress in The Maltese Falcon; she was playing herself.)
The significance of the Astor divorce case is this: that before 1935, and in spite of Hollywood's well-deserved reputation for sexual, alcoholic and chemical excess, anyone caught like Astor condemning herself out of her own mouth, would have been finished. But with the passing of the decades, Hollywood had become increasingly used to, indeed increasingly confident in, what might be called their unusual ways. By 1935, a generation had been born and brought up in the extended brothel in Southern California, and found it harder and harder to even accept the sexual views of the rest of America and the world. And in the case of Mary Astor, they closed ranks. She was not destroyed; she did not even lose any important job.
When this sort of thing happens, it is because a whole group of people, a whole social class, has grown up with a sense of entitlement, of normalcy. Americans before the Civil War, especially in the Southern states, had grown up with large-scale black slavery around them; it was part of their sense of entitlement, part of their social world, and they did not begin to understand why the rest of the world should find it so unacceptable. By the same token, Hollywood citizens had either been born in or entered very young into a society whose sexual habits were routinely out of kilter with those of the rest of America, let alone the world. They had a distant awareness that this was so, but with a steadily diminishing understanding of outsiders' views; the sense of entitlement was growing, as was the resentment at the hostile scrutiny of others.
The Astor case was the breaking point. It was the point where Hollywood, as a collectivity, silently and widely challenged the rest of the world. Mary Astor remained a star. She continued to perform. Hollywood essentially, collectively (the collective aspect is important; it means that nobody in particular had to stand up and justify their stand) held up two fingers to ordinary morality. And, what is more important, they succeeded. The public did not desert - or deserted only briefly - Mary Astor's movies. Moral disapproval lost out before Hollywood glamour.
Now, getting back to the present. Does anyone doubt that if the kind of stories that came out about Kate Moss in the last few days - there are several, not just one - had come out ten years ago, she would have been instantly destroyed? Nobody would have wanted to touch her with a barge-pole.
However, look what is actually happening. Not one, but several media personalities have defended her on screen or gone in print with articles about "the Kate Moss I know," that Kate Moss being of course a fantastic, funny, intelligent, generous, etc. person. And to date, only the mumsy Swedish high street outfit H&M have broken their contract with her.
We still have to wait and look. Things might turn out differently. She might yet lose all her contracts - nothing is more cowardly than a large corporation. But if she survives this storm, it will be a sure sign that in several influential areas of our world, not only multi-partner sex - that was already known - but regular cocaine consumption, has come to be covered by that sense of entitlement and daily habit that I was speaking about.
The consequences for our society may well be far-reaching. Hollywood's increasingly successful defence of their own turned into an increasing commercial use of semi-nudity and propaganda, however disguised, for free sex. The Sixties, the destruction of the Hayes Code, and the rise of pornography as a major industry (now surpassing Hollywood in cash size), may all be seen as the long wave of Hollywood's successful imposition of its own view of sexual morality, which began with the Astor affair.
By the same token, if rich and media-savvy parts of society such as the fashion industry (and do we doubt that they are not the only ones?) have come to take the use of cocaine as part of their sense of entitlement and normalcy, then the laws against the use of drugs, however savage, however supported by State power on all sides, cannot be expected to last for ever. What people come to see as habitual cannot be long forbidden.
(As a side note, I will add that I am in favour of legalizing most drugs - not because I have any respect for the fashion industry, which I loathe, or Hollywood, which I despise, but because I find it hugely hypocritical that one of the most damaging drugs of them all - alcohol - should be freely available, while others are forbidden.)
In 1935, Hollywood actress Mary Astor was caught by her husband having an affair with well-known theatre personality George Kaufman. Her diary ended up in the hands of the press, and it was a disgusting document: one that, behind yards of schoolgirlish rhetoric and self-absorption, showed a woman who treated her men as living vibrators with a few irrelevant appendages thrown in, and did not even begin to understand the ideas of loyalty, companionship, or even respect for another person. (No wonder that Astor had her greatest movie part as the heartless, murderous seductress in The Maltese Falcon; she was playing herself.)
The significance of the Astor divorce case is this: that before 1935, and in spite of Hollywood's well-deserved reputation for sexual, alcoholic and chemical excess, anyone caught like Astor condemning herself out of her own mouth, would have been finished. But with the passing of the decades, Hollywood had become increasingly used to, indeed increasingly confident in, what might be called their unusual ways. By 1935, a generation had been born and brought up in the extended brothel in Southern California, and found it harder and harder to even accept the sexual views of the rest of America and the world. And in the case of Mary Astor, they closed ranks. She was not destroyed; she did not even lose any important job.
When this sort of thing happens, it is because a whole group of people, a whole social class, has grown up with a sense of entitlement, of normalcy. Americans before the Civil War, especially in the Southern states, had grown up with large-scale black slavery around them; it was part of their sense of entitlement, part of their social world, and they did not begin to understand why the rest of the world should find it so unacceptable. By the same token, Hollywood citizens had either been born in or entered very young into a society whose sexual habits were routinely out of kilter with those of the rest of America, let alone the world. They had a distant awareness that this was so, but with a steadily diminishing understanding of outsiders' views; the sense of entitlement was growing, as was the resentment at the hostile scrutiny of others.
The Astor case was the breaking point. It was the point where Hollywood, as a collectivity, silently and widely challenged the rest of the world. Mary Astor remained a star. She continued to perform. Hollywood essentially, collectively (the collective aspect is important; it means that nobody in particular had to stand up and justify their stand) held up two fingers to ordinary morality. And, what is more important, they succeeded. The public did not desert - or deserted only briefly - Mary Astor's movies. Moral disapproval lost out before Hollywood glamour.
Now, getting back to the present. Does anyone doubt that if the kind of stories that came out about Kate Moss in the last few days - there are several, not just one - had come out ten years ago, she would have been instantly destroyed? Nobody would have wanted to touch her with a barge-pole.
However, look what is actually happening. Not one, but several media personalities have defended her on screen or gone in print with articles about "the Kate Moss I know," that Kate Moss being of course a fantastic, funny, intelligent, generous, etc. person. And to date, only the mumsy Swedish high street outfit H&M have broken their contract with her.
We still have to wait and look. Things might turn out differently. She might yet lose all her contracts - nothing is more cowardly than a large corporation. But if she survives this storm, it will be a sure sign that in several influential areas of our world, not only multi-partner sex - that was already known - but regular cocaine consumption, has come to be covered by that sense of entitlement and daily habit that I was speaking about.
The consequences for our society may well be far-reaching. Hollywood's increasingly successful defence of their own turned into an increasing commercial use of semi-nudity and propaganda, however disguised, for free sex. The Sixties, the destruction of the Hayes Code, and the rise of pornography as a major industry (now surpassing Hollywood in cash size), may all be seen as the long wave of Hollywood's successful imposition of its own view of sexual morality, which began with the Astor affair.
By the same token, if rich and media-savvy parts of society such as the fashion industry (and do we doubt that they are not the only ones?) have come to take the use of cocaine as part of their sense of entitlement and normalcy, then the laws against the use of drugs, however savage, however supported by State power on all sides, cannot be expected to last for ever. What people come to see as habitual cannot be long forbidden.
(As a side note, I will add that I am in favour of legalizing most drugs - not because I have any respect for the fashion industry, which I loathe, or Hollywood, which I despise, but because I find it hugely hypocritical that one of the most damaging drugs of them all - alcohol - should be freely available, while others are forbidden.)
no subject
Date: 2005-09-22 11:31 pm (UTC)And no, I have nothing against role models. I have several. However, I accept that I am 'me' and they are/were 'them', and ne'er shall they combine while on this circling sphere. I neither condone nor necessarily condemn the behavior of the role model nor those that see them as such. I simply accept it all as a matter of nature and life.
And as far as condenscension goes...
But I would appreciate it if you took the time and energy to read my comments before answering them in a condescending way. Maybe you don't think I'm worth it, but then, to follow that logic, I'm not worth answering either.
Pleasure to meet you, Kettle. I'm Pot.
oops
Date: 2005-09-22 11:33 pm (UTC)The above post is mine, as I reckon is pretty obvious.
[fixes logon options]
no subject
Date: 2005-09-23 11:40 am (UTC)Celebrities get addicted to drugs because they have deep-rooted psychological problems.
People who are not celebrities get addicted to drugs because they have deep-rooted psychological problems.
They may say that they started taking drugs because celebrities do, or that it's OK to take drugs because celebrities do, but that's to deceive others and themselves in order to protect themselves from contempt and self-hatred.
That is my whole point. I hope it's clear to you. If you have questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them.
Now you say that I despise the celebrities and worship the masses.
Do I despise Britney Spears? Yes. Do I despise John Lennon? No.
Do I despise people who think they're the hight of cool because they wear round sunglasses and scratch a guitar? Yes. Do I despise people who really want to learn to play the guitar, put effort in it and write their own songs? No.
Again, I hope it's clear, and if it's not, feel free to ask questions.
Now, do I despise you? I have to say that I don't know you except from last week's argument. What happened here is that I made a comment, and you made your comment in a separate thread. Now that would not be a problem if you hadn't insinuated in your comment that I was a little stupid. On my side, that does not create the impression that you're out for an honest debate, but rather that you feel like sneering at me (or at someone in general) and that you don't have the guts to do it in my face. Maybe that was a mistake on your part and you just clicked the wrong button. But it does not give me a favourable impression. Next time you feel like saying I'm an idiot, at least, say it directly to me.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-23 04:21 pm (UTC)No. I did not. What I said was: "I took what you wrote as something of a condescension/condemnation of those worshipped/idolised/emulated and an estimation of high discerning and rationality to the masses." I stated that I perceived a particular 'condescension' or 'condemnation' of those who fall into the category of 'role model' or 'celebrity'. You make the blanket statement that all celebrities are psychologically damaged, suffering from unspecific forms of self-hatred and loathing. I disagree with that statement (which you have made more than once and emphatically), and I sought to explain that.
As far as despising you, I have no idea why I ought to. I don't believe I came anywhere close to insinsuating that, nor do I believe I made the insinuation that you were in any way 'stupid'. Please cite for me the passages from my posts wherein you believe I made such insinuations. I have read and reread my posts, and I do not see them. I do understand, however, that indeed most people with whom I debate/discuss/argue/whatever issues get this impression -- which I must confess sometimes is present. But in this thread with you, it was certainly not intended. Again, apologies.
Next time you feel like saying I'm an idiot, at least, say it directly to me.
I did not say that you were an idiot. I figure you are referring to my statement of "Pleasure to meet you, Kettle. I'm Pot." I was making light of what I saw as your request for 'no condescension' being followed up with what I saw as, well, condescension. I get that a lot, too, and I don't believe pointing out contradictory statements/behavior in anyone, for any reason is a bad thing. I get amused when I see it in myself as well, and people point out when I do it all the time. But I do find that most people don't appreciate it when I do it back. That's the problem with perceptions though, isn't it? (Oh, what a catch-22! My philosophy professor would be so amused.)
no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 09:51 pm (UTC)the celebrities who get addicted to drugs do so, in my opinion, because they have deep-rooted psychological problems.
Please note that I used the same grammatical structure to say that the people who are not celebrities and get addicted to drugs do so because they have deep-rooted psychological problems.
I did not mean, in any way, that everybody gets addicted to drugs and that everybody has deep-rooted psychological problems (celebrity or not).
In your first comment, you put the following:
To those who say that no 'normal' person would ever do the stupid, inane, insipid, self-destructive things that celebrities do: You are obviously pretty young.
It's of course not as offensive as if you said that I'm old, in which case I would certainly have sent my brother to challenge you in a duel, but I did take it badly. Young and stupid do not mean the same thing, but the fact that you didn't say it to me directly and that you have been misunderstanding about everything I have said has made me see red.
Just to sum it up:
To those who say that no 'normal' person would ever do the stupid, inane, insipid, self-destructive things that celebrities do
I never meant that. I meant that people who get self-destructive do so because they are hurt. Nobody gets self-destructive for such shallow reasons as "Kate Moss does it, too". Blaming self-destructive behaviour of non-famous people on celebrities is not addressing the issue of self-destructive behaviour and is not helping anyone (least of all celebrities who are addicted to drugs. They don't need additional guilt).
Celebrity. Success. Wealth and/or Fame. Beauty. That is what drives some to idolise others. Don't try to apply common sense, logic or rationality to it. The psychiatric establishment will tell you that's barking up the wrong tree. "Scientific world we live in"? I must disagree. We live in a technological world, in an instant gratification world. Science is the foundation, yes, but if it were really the integral part of life you seem to say it is -- we wouldn't have nearly the problems we do.
Couldn't agree more. I meant that I work in a research lab in science, and I tried to describe the kind of self-destructive behaviour that scientists tend to have, namely smoking like chimneys, workoholism and accepting abusive behaviour from their bosses. Of course, you couldn't know that, but I'm still baffled at what you made of what I said. English is not my first language, but if I may be so saucy, let nobody ever tell you you have no imagination.
I took what you wrote as something of a condescension/condemnation of those worshipped/idolised/emulated and an estimation of high discerning and rationality to the masses
I have estimation of high discerning and rationality for individuals, not "masses". Again, I condemn and despise individuals, not the body of worshipped, idolised and emulated people. I would be in bad shape if I despised my own role-models.
I hope we agree at least on what I think, if not on the importance of Kate Moss in History and on her impact on the attitude of people on drugs. I can perfectly believe that the people you've met in show business did drugs, if only because, as you seem to say, it's the self-destructive behaviour of choice in the show business. I guess in the show-business, drugs is the "cool" thing to do. In scientific research, the "cool" thing to do is to work till you drop dead. I'm no physician, so I wouldn't be able to say what is worst in terms of health issues, but it's still sad to see otherwise smart and good people forget that you can't do good science if you don't eat or sleep or have a life next to the lab.