I’ll say this much for Lohan and Spears: they’ve lasted a lot longer than many prognosticators had originally thought—myself included. I was convinced we’d be burying Spears after the last 5150 hold, where she had to be rushed to UCLA Medical. The same goes for Lohan and her manic party habits, not to mention the asthma and weight loss episodes. Fortunately, they’ve survived while Hollywood has bid adieu to the likes of Anna Nicole Smith, Heath Ledger, Corey Haim, Brittany Murray, Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston. Spears is fortunate that her father has stepped up and taken a leadership role within the family. Lohan, I’m afraid, hasn’t been so fortunate. Does this mean that Spears is out of the woods? Not so fast. The Associated Press, and I’m sure they’ve done this with Lohan, too, has actually pre-written Spear’s obituary says THE WEEK, in its February 1, 2008 edition. “Of course, we would never wish any type of misfortune on anybody,” said Jesse Washington of the AP, “but if something were to happen, we would have to be prepared.” So, let’s just call the 5150 incidents in January of 2008 her precarious walk between The Eden Roc and Fontainebleau. And she doesn’t have too many more of those left in her. Neither does Lohan. Is there a March 22, 1978 in their futures—a day in which one or both of these young ladies will tempt the fates one time too many? Will children, across America, have to ask their parents why such a tragedy (or tragedies) had to happen? If so, the answer will certainly be: “She couldn’t help it. It was in her blood. It was who she was.”
I tell my students the Spotlight fallacy is not a difficult concept to grasp. It comes about when we assume the individuals and issues occupying the spotlight (or headlines, if you will) are representative of the norm and worthy of emulating. One would hope that, as creatures of common sense, most of us would be able to discern the difference between normal and irresponsible behavior, even deviant behavior. That’s precisely why Spears, Lohan, Hilton and Kardashian are banned in my house—along with hosts of others, I might add. I don’t want my kids exposed to that pathology. Sadly, however, our nation’s appetite for the likes of these four, and many others like them, is sufficiently voracious to justify the parasitic and voyeuristic existence of scores of entertainment rags, television shows and web pages. America sits back and consumes this garbage each and every day. We’ve become a nation fascinated by Hollywood’s version of reality and gossip—never content, never satisfied; snared in this vicious cycle. The average student or working person wouldn’t survive a day, even an hour behaving like Spears, Lohan, Hilton or Kardashian. Our teachers and supervisors wouldn’t put up with it, nor should they. We’ve got to make this clear to our kids. Those four behave the way they do because they can. The rest of us can’t afford to emulate their nonsense.
If my words aren’t enough to convince you, read the July 2011 article, Facebook is Fun for Recruiters, Too. So, the next time you apply for that job, or submit that college application, don’t be surprised if someone is vetting you at the other end, vetting you thoroughly.2 And if you’ve fallen into the Spotlight Fallacy pit and are emulating our four diva friends in any way by flaunting your Hollywoodesque exploits on social media—drugs use, excessive drinking, nudity, sexual activity, indiscriminate partying—
just be prepared for a string of rejection letters.
Some are going to claim that Spears is no longer the “in” news item and thus has no influence on our youth. To believe that, you’d have to deny what we now see in our young girls in terms of their behavior, their looks and what they wear. Cruise around the social network sites and take a look. Who are these people? And what are they trying to accomplish? Any father of a pre-teen or teen will tell you how difficult it is to find hip fashions that don’t accentuate their daughter’s buttocks, show a bare midriff and emphasize cleavage—even where cleavage has yet to present itself. I believe the word is precocious, and that was one of Spears’ main selling points. To me, Spears was like a nuclear explosion, whose fallout is still in evidence today.
Hollywood is a land of imitators. Spears comes along, then it’s Lohan, Hilton and Kardashian. Pamela Anderson makes a porno, then Hilton imitates her, followed quickly by Kardashian, Montana Fishburne and now former Miss Teen Delaware Melissa King—not to mention about a million other young ladies. Porn is now a multi-billion dollar industry. You no longer have to be an abused, neglected, alcoholic, drug-addicted cast-aside to make pornos. They’re mainstream. All you really need (besides the narcissism that already there) is a little nerve. Just a little. Janet Jackson has a “wardrobe malfunction” and suddenly they’re all the rage: Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Ice-T’s wife, Coco, Sarah Jane Dias, Lindsay Lohan, Sharon Stone and, please say it isn’t so, Selena Gomez.
It’s not just the influential divas we have to watch out for. Consider the issue of celebrity marriage. It seems nobody stays together anymore. At least that’s the impression we get from Hollywood: Pitt-Aniston, Phillipe-Witherspoon, Barrymore-Green, Madonna-Penn, Basinger-Baldwin, Cruise-Kidman, Cruise-Holmes, Garner-Foley, Jolie-Thornton, Simpson-Lachey and Spears. I’ll even throw in the Gores, Al and Tipper. So, who’s next? Jolie and Pitt? Alright, I’ll go for that.
This past Christmas I noticed a new book on my mother’s end table: Leading Ladies: The 50 Most Unforgettable Actresses of the Studio Era.3 It’s a thorough work, put out by Turner Classic Movies, and includes a complete filmography on each actress, along with a comprehensive list of all marriages and children—legitimate and illegitimate. After reading a couple of the bios, I began noticing how each woman seemed to have had two, three and even four husbands. All of a sudden, I had the irresistible urge to thumb through the book and count all of the divorces. When I was done courting these fifty lovely ladies (Garbo, Russell, Taylor and Garland among them), I could hardly believe what I’d scribbled down: 101 divorces. No wonder two-thirds of the world’s attorneys reside right here in the United States. I bet a majority of them are divorce lawyers. And consider that these failed marriages came at a time when divorce was supposedly frowned upon. And we hold these people up as role models? They’re the cultural elite? By the way, just what does cultural elite mean? I’d like to propose a new title for the book: The 101 Most Forgettable Relationships of the Studio Era and the Men and Women Responsible for Their Ruin. One thing’s for sure: When I finally closed the book and tossed it back onto the end table, I had a sudden urge to wash my hands and Lysol the room.
Vladimir Lenin referred to foreign sympathizers, during the Russian Revolution, as useful idiots. And wouldn’t the crusty old Bolshevik get a kick out of the likes of Kevin Spacey, Sean Penn and Naomi Campbell—all of whom have cavorted with the late Venezuelan dictator and potentate Hugo Chavez, simply because they couldn’t stand George W. Bush or maybe because they were ashamed of America. Perhaps going steady with Chavez was simply the sheik Hollywood thing to do. Penn and Spacey have both spent several hours with the megalomaniac, as did supermodel Campbell, who declared her admiration for the “love and encouragement” Chavez gives Venezuelan welfare programs.4 When I first read Campbell’s claims, I had to do a double take. Wasn’t Chavez the same guy who had his own people standing in line for everyday necessities (baby food, milk, chicken and eggs) at state-run markets manned by soldiers? Wasn’t he the same great mind who aspired to change the country’s constitution regarding presidential term limits so he could cling to power indefinitely? And wasn’t this the same man who changed Venezuelan time, and who grabbed control of the press and oil wells?
Can somebody explain what the heck Campbell is talking about?
I have news for these three celebrities: George W. Bush may not have been perfect, he may not have been everyone’s favorite president, but he never attempted to seize control of the press. He didn’t change the constitution by eradicating executive term limits; rather, he stepped down gracefully on January 20, 2008. That’s more we can say about Chavez. Perhaps Spacey, Penn and Campbell would care to break free from their hectic schedules in order