*giggle*  they'll think up a name for anything

i wouldn't doubt if 'heterosexuality' ('situational heterosexuality') and 'dogmatism' will become part of the new DSM (which i hear is being phased out in preference to the medical coding system...)

I hadn't heard of that term before Elanorgold, but I came to the conclusion a long time ago that I would not want to be famous. I would imagine that, if you're not careful, fame could do terrible things to one's mental health. I am a person who is intensely private; someone who enjoys being anonymous. I think that if I was famous, I would grow to be resentful of all the people who wanted my time, money, etc - even people who simply wanted an autograph. I also like to do things for myself, so I wouldn't want to hire someone to do my shopping, driving, etc. for me. Fame is definitely not for me (but I could do with a little more financial fortune in my life).

There seem to be some who can handle it and some who can't, just like a lot of other things.

Natalie Portman seems to stay on a fairly even keel and the "Potter kids", while not perfect (Daniel's admitted to needing help with alcohol, IIRC), seem to be keeping themselves out of trouble. Emma in particular seems to be following Portman's model of keeping a "life" going (going to college for instance) even as she continues to advance her careers in films and fashion. Harrison Ford, who retreats to his ranch between movies, is another who seems to be fairly in control and, indeed, can be almost reclusive at times.

Then there's the Lindsay Lohans and Britney Spears of the world who simply lose control once the fame and money pour in until they are more famous for their crashing and burning than for whatever made them famous. Brit, at least, seems to be back on track now but the jury is still out on whether Lindsay will ever make a comeback in acting. Russell Brand (ex-Mr. Katy Perry) is a lesser case of this.

Then there's a third group who thrive on their fame but don't seem to lose control of it. Brangelina (used that term because both of them fit) and Brad's buddy George Clooney come to mind.

I think how quick you become famous is a factor, too. Someone who rockets to the top young seems more likely to crash back down while those who build their careers and fame over time seem to hold up better in the long haul.

If I were to become famous, it would likely be as a writer (the only talent I have that could make me famous, at least) and since they don't have the public visibility of an actor or musician (Rowling and King being rare exceptions) they seem less prone to the problems of celebrity.

Mendalla

Hi Elanorgold,  I think people exposed to a lot of stroking for what they "do" or "have achieved"  rather than for who they really are, could lose the sense of self that is at their real core.  The important bits. Getting back in touch with the part of them that is there, no matter what happens outside of them, would be the key, imo. 

I think it would be really tough not to adopt a false sense of self with continued adoration.  This is just a guess....haven't experienced that, personally.

Taking a look at the ASN bit of the "Narcissism" entry on Wikipedia I see that the term was coined by one Robert Millman who seems to have had a lot of experience with drug and alcohol abuse.

On a skim through an online version of the latest DSM, I don't see ASN listed.  The most I can get is that it is a proposed entry for the upcoming new edition of the DSM.

There is also talk of abolishing Narcissistic Personality Disorder from the upcoming DSM.

All this talk reminds me of an awesome (and chlling) QED of 'de-individuation'.

The 'gameshow' starts at 7:07

That is another reason why calling something 'evil' doesn't really work for me; now we understand how it happens, how it works and we can figure out ways to mitigate it.

It speaks a lot to me aboot the negative side of the internet (internet trolls, cyberbullying) and the negative side of democracy (mob mentality, accepting horrific wars as normal)

He's got a few more in that series, where he investigates Luck, the Manchurian Candidate (it works, you can program someone to do things they are really against doing, you can even program them to be better shots) & Guilt (where he convinces an innocent person that they murdered someone).

Ashton Kutcher, you only wish you could be this good :3

Then there are also those who lose their social status associated with their careers, businesses, partners, spouses, and the circles of friends that they identified with while being half of a couple or part of a group. Those, who through illness and disability, or aging,  lose physical or mental functioning and can't do what they identified with before. Similar feelings and dynamic where what one once identified, or a skill or ability or integral part of who they saw themselves as, is no longer, and they have to start over in some way. Part of the humbling human experience of disappointment, losses and new beginnings. Some handle them better than others. I think every person experiences that to some degree, in some way. It's almost like a grieving process.

I hadn't heard that Daniel Radcliffe has had booze problems. That's a shame. I wonder if someone gives/gave the ones who are handling it well, tips on how to cope with it...

It seems that one would need a healthy amount of self confidence, and down to earth-ness, to handle it well. It seems that it's the ones who doubt themselves, or have doubted, that suffer most and become sacrificial lambs to the slaughter. Naivity, recklessness, self doubt and external validation.

Yes, does seem like the slow growth works best. Hard work and pay off, rather than a dizzying, confusing rush. But, that said, INXS rose very slowly and Michael still ended up dead. The other members seem alright though. Michael was the focus of all the adoration.

abPenny, that sounds pretty right to me. Thanks.

Hmmm Kimmio. Reminds me of Duran trying to handle being thought of as lame during the 90's. John spiralled into a terrible drug addiction. Simon saying in an interview, " I still have something to say, and I want the opportunity to say it. YES, it does matter."

I also think of Dave Gilmour saying that fame is like a drug, "You want them to love you," saying that it was a dangerous thing.

Here's an article, probably the source from which I first heard about it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harry-potter/9058347/Daniel-Radcliffe...

Mendalla

I could add that we are also to blame sometimes, for laping up what the agents offer us, not seeing them as real people. Those managers and agents abuse both the stars' talents, shortcomings and naivity, and the fans' needs, innocence and wallets. So when Pink Floyd do something as clever as "Have a Cigar", a song which slights this very industry, I am wowed to the max, man!

Inanna, I'm not so concerned with the terminology, but with that it is something that is being taken note of at last.

In the book Brandwashed, hubby and I read about the "pixie dust", which is the effect the famous have on the regular folk, the way we see them as superhuman somehow, even unintentionally. This is somethign the managers cultivate in us. ANd they have a time limit they restrict contact between fans and their favorite stars, in order to maintain the pixie dust affect.

Bands are interesting because there often seems to be one or two members who are affected more than others. Bonham in Zep, Moon in The Who, Cobain in Nirvana. Probably just shows how much of it is individual.

Mendalla

Hmmm, yes, and those first two were the drummers, not even the front man. Individual, Yes. I did feel badly for Kobain at the time, though I didn't like him. I still could see his suffering. "and I swear it I don't have a gun..."

Good for Daniel Radcliffe putting a stopper in it, and telling the press just how good it is to be tee total! Of cource you don't need fame to get into that routine.

You're right. It does matter what they have to say. I was just sort of thinking of the feelings associated. i can't say I know what it's like to be famous and lose that fame, but I do know what it's like to lose a job, a relationship, etc. and how you have to grapple with losing part of your identity if it's not strong to begin with (at least in my case I've had to go through that), or because you poured so much effort into gaining external validation. I've been there, despite not being famous..

It seems that sometimes there is a paradox going on...they want people to love them, but don't.  They want the attention, but don't. And the attention can be dangerous too. Kind of like addiction maybe.

Like her or hate her, I really hope that Miley Cyrus gets back on track.  We got some good laughs as a family watching Hannah Montana on Family channel and as a parent of daughters,  I feel for her Dad who prays his heart out for her.   (they are Christian)

Hopefully, he's doing more than praying. He's had a few bumps in the road of fame himself and should have some practical advice for her (though she may not yet be at an age to listen). In the end, she hasn't crashed and burned catastrophically yet, just hit the bumps in the road rather hard. I don't see another Lindsay in the making. Yet...

Which brings me to another young artist who, so far, seems to be handling her success gracefully so far though we'll see where things go now. Jennifer Lawrence, already an Oscar winner (for Winter's Bone) and part of one successful franchaise (she played Mystique as a young woman in Xmen: FIrst Class) is now going to be bigger than ever with Hunger Games, where she co-stars with Liam Hemsworth (who is dating Miley which is why I thought of her here). Hope she keeps it classy as she has so far in her young career. I'd love to see her become another Portman.

Mendalla

To me, it seems to be the ones who flaunt being a celebrity more than an actual profession (actor/actress musician, etc.) seem to have more problems.  Not always, but I think that would contribute to problems that may already exist.  Unfortunately, that type of celebrity seems to be more common now than before, when you have people who are famous just for being famous or having a sex tape.

True enough, chemgal. And it's interesting how many of the really good ones in any of the celebrity professions like acting and music are often the ones who hit that line between flaunting and restraining. They play the game but not so far that the game takes over their lives and careers. Again, Clooney comes to mind. He's not afraid to play his celebrity card (think of his recent arrest in a demonstration which he turned into publicity for the cause) but he also seems to be in control of when and how it gets played. Whereas a Lohan seems to be totally incapable of playing that card with anything resembling intelligence or restraint.

The whole "professional celebrity" racket has definitely ratcheted things up a notch or two. I don't have the quote handy but actor Daniel Craig ripped specifically into the Kardashians over that whole game. The interesting thing is that Kardashians, Hiltons, and such like seem to be far more in control than it appears. They want to appear out of control but they also seem to have more control over how the celebrity card gets played than someone like Lohan who really is out of control.

Mendalla

The witch that came (the withered hag)

To wash the steps with pail and rag,

Was once the beauty Abishag,

The picture pride of Hollywood.

Too many fall from great and good

For you to doubt the likelihood.

-Robert Frost

Good poem for the thread Arminius.

I was listening to the biography of Harry Belafonte recently, about his abusive, poverty stricken childhood, his rise to fame, and how he immediately struck the memory of his childhood from his mind, which both the doing so, and the experiences themselves caused him psychological problems. He didn't say he'd done that, but once he was famous, he lost touch with his childhood, and believed in the fame 100%, and no longer talked about the hurt or self doubt he had as a young person, not humble, like who he was had never been. He disattatched from his mother, who lost her wits cause she couldn't come to grips with his fame.

He also spoke of a singer he worked with in his movie Carmen Jones, who did the operatic vocals for his part, as it was not sung by the actors. This top notch opera singer. Who years later he found being the washroom attendant in the men's room of a posh restaurant he, Harry, was eating at. He had to do a double take, he coudn't believe it was him, but it was, and that made him quite down and angry. He reconed that had the opera singer been white that wouldn't have happened.

Harry experienced a lot of racism in his time. I had no idea, so much that he constantly talked about it in his book, and was quite bitter. Such a shame. He was a very handsome man, half Scottish, half black Jamaican.

Harry Belafonte did a lot to lessen racism in his day too. A great thing.

It seems to me that when people become famous as adults, they are often able to handle it better than people who become famous as children, teenagers or young adults. Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Daniel Radcliffe and Miley Cyrus all became famous when they were teenagers (actually, I think Lindsay Lohan may have been a pre-teen). George Clooney, on the other hand, didn't really become famous until he was on E.R. - he was in his 30s at that time. Of course, there are child-stars who don't seem to go "off the rails" (like Natalie Portman) and adult celebrities who do, but more often it seems to be that the young ones who grew up as celebrities don't learn how to handle themselves when things don't go their way.

Hmmm. Although some who grew up in it, are used to it, I'm thinking Jodi Foster...? And the Potter kids I think seem to be doing quite well. Daniel becoming a tee totaler at 21(?), is pretty good. But yeah, it can also go the other way.

Yes, that he did Kimmio. It was more important to him than his singing career. He was chased by the KKK twice! Some of the things that happened to him were just awful. To think that our culture was like that once, segregation and all. Yes, he did good stuff. He was a two timing womanizer, but he did good stuff for the anti apartied movement, and saving people too.

I think I might put together a playlist of songs about the dark side of fame.

Listening to Michael Hutchence's later lyrics makes me quite sad: "Not enough time, for all that I want for you, not enough time for every kiss..." "Are you comfortable in your skin, when does the strip begin?" "Men and women giving each other the sham", "Aw sure, you're right, this ain't the good life, aw I'm elegantly wasted." "How can you heal someone who doesn't want to heal" " She is rising, he is rising. Give it up, let him in, all he wants is to begin"

Not sure if it's age so much as maturity; an ability to recognize that fame can be fun and useful but also has risks and can be fleeting. That sometimes you need to walk away from fame, or at least from its trappings, to give your life a chance. I think that's probably why Harrison Ford lives away from Hollywood when he's not working, for instance. That said, someone who's already in their late twenties or thirties when they hit the big time is more likely to achieve said maturity.

One interesting thing is that being from a Hollywood family that has the scars of fame's downside doesn't seem to help. Carrie Fisher, who was the daughter of celeb actors Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher, had a real rough patch when she hit it big as Leia in the original Star Wars trilogy. Of course, in her case, her parents' rather turbulent celerity lives probably was a hindrance in and of itself.

Mendalla

has anyone here given thought to what the 'purpose' or 'function' of stars are in our particular culture?  what do they do?

They rise, shine brightly for a while, and then fade away.

Seriously, they are the heroes of our culture (although most of them do not always act heriocally :-)

(But maybe the heroes of old didn't, either :-) 

Well I was just about finished typing up an indepth post when I hit backspace while the cursor had flashed to the wrong spot and lost my post. I have written to admin. I will try to remember and sum up what I was saying.

I think Jodi Foster was pretty mature as a kid.

Famous people serve several purposes in society:

Heros: In film they enact modern mythologies, which serve as healing stories, and role models for how to behave. They can lead a movement and act as the voice of the people. They can also instruct. Hence they are idols.

Gods: Closely related to that is how in the lack of organized religion, or the lack of these figures in the religion, the human mind seeks out the primal, elemental personifications wherever they can be found. Britany Spiers is Venus, Orlando Bloom is Adonis, Christopher Plumber is Jupiter... There are many Jesuses...

Substitute Heartthrobs: I've lately been thinkign that it isn't fair how we see all the most beautiful people in the world and subconcously size them up as potential mates, often ruling out the local potential mates, and naturally our standards being set based on them. This is how the managers and agents want it. They allow us/make us fall in love with someone we can never have, and all we can do is buy the product they offer. We are being used. And likewise the performers are being sold for the financial gain of the managers. The middlemen are like pushers, used car salesmen, or priests making the human sacrifices. The public bay for blood and Dianna dies, Brittney is chased in her car by the paparatzzi, Cobain curls up in the foetal position on stage.  "Here we are now, entertain us, I feel stupid and contagious, a mulatto, an albino, a mosquito, my libido."

http://inmusic.ca/news_and_features/news/katy_perry_fame_is_disgusting/3...

Thought this relevant to the discussion.

Mendalla

That's good. That's the sort of thing we want evolving. Stars saying it outloud and people recognizing they are people.

Of course you can convince an innocent person that they murdered someone, it's called "interrogation", it may be done completely without striking people physically or hurting them, and false confessions are frequently obtained this way when confessions, but not complete interrogations, are recorded. You can certainly "program" people to be better shots--it's called sports psychology, including hypnotism, and it works better the more trust between the parties. You certainly can "program" people to do things that they would otherwise not, but the question is, can you send them back to their lives and still control them? Of course, inducing people to harm others is commonly done in war and other special situations, but having a "sleeper" agent acting normally for a period and then able to be "reactivated" is fiction.  The US government would be able to save considerable amounts on their killer drone assassination program if they had had anywhere near success like this on their continuous "brainwashing" research since the 50's everywhere from Canadian psychiatric clinics to Guantanamo.