Robert Carlyle denounces "celebrities" now

13»

Comments

  • *Sparkle**Sparkle* Posts: 10,955
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Aspiring to be famous for the sake of being famous is unhealthy, and a society that encourages it is shooting itself in the foot. People have always aspired to showbiz and the glamour appeals, but once upon a time someone who fancied a job in acting or presenting would take acting classes, or train as a journalist. These days they are more likely to book themselves in for a boob job and practice "accidentally" flashing their knickers.

    Without knowing who "f*ckwit" actually is, we can't judge them. Robert not knowing who they are doesn't make them a bad person, nor an unworthy human being. Anthony Hopkins is a great actor, and a better actor than most, but that doesn't make him a better, or even more interesting person than those with less talent. As much as I think it's frightening that people are celebrated for being famous without any talent, I am equally worried that we are supposed to think that a very talented and credible film actor is worth more as a person than, for example, a moderately talented, and possibly very nice soap actor who does the promotion expected of the job.

    If Robert didn't know who this person was, and therefore objected to him being on the same page as a magazine as people he did recognise, then that's snobby. On the other hand, if it was a case of him knowing that he was famous, but not actually having a clue what his actual profession was other than "being famous", then I agree with his concern.

    I was brought up to believe all people are equal, whether famous or not, so I struggle with that bit of what he said, but the precise context isn't clear, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He always comes across as a really nice, and down to earth bloke the rest of the time and I don't think he is someone who resents that he isn't getting followed by the paps when he goes to the supermarket, so I doubt it's jealousy.
  • Soulmate9Soulmate9 Posts: 7,407
    Forum Member
    *Sparkle* wrote: »
    Aspiring to be famous for the sake of being famous is unhealthy, and a society that encourages it is shooting itself in the foot. People have always aspired to showbiz and the glamour appeals, but once upon a time someone who fancied a job in acting or presenting would take acting classes, or train as a journalist. These days they are more likely to book themselves in for a boob job and practice "accidentally" flashing their knickers.

    Without knowing who "f*ckwit" actually is, we can't judge them. Robert not knowing who they are doesn't make them a bad person, nor an unworthy human being. Anthony Hopkins is a great actor, and a better actor than most, but that doesn't make him a better, or even more interesting person than those with less talent. As much as I think it's frightening that people are celebrated for being famous without any talent, I am equally worried that we are supposed to think that a very talented and credible film actor is worth more as a person than, for example, a moderately talented, and possibly very nice soap actor who does the promotion expected of the job.

    If Robert didn't know who this person was, and therefore objected to him being on the same page as a magazine as people he did recognise, then that's snobby. On the other hand, if it was a case of him knowing that he was famous, but not actually having a clue what his actual profession was other than "being famous", then I agree with his concern.

    I was brought up to believe all people are equal, whether famous or not, so I struggle with that bit of what he said, but the precise context isn't clear, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He always comes across as a really nice, and down to earth bloke the rest of the time and I don't think he is someone who resents that he isn't getting followed by the paps when he goes to the supermarket, so I doubt it's jealousy.

    He's just sick to the back teeth with it all rammed in our faces 24/7, I guess.... the same as many others are.

    As for suggesting that f*** wit was a lesser person, I don't think he was doing that at all...... he was basing it all on their talents and suggesting that some deserve to be famous because of an outstanding skill and others, in his opinion, don't deserve their fame because of having chuff all in the way of talents or skills in the arts. I'm with him on it.
  • *Sparkle**Sparkle* Posts: 10,955
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Soulmate9 wrote: »
    As for suggesting that f*** wit was a lesser person, I don't think he was doing that at all...... he was basing it all on their talents and suggesting that some deserve to be famous because of an outstanding skill and others, in his opinion, don't deserve their fame because of having chuff all in the way of talents or skills in the arts. I'm with him on it.

    Perhaps, but from what you wrote, it wasn't that clear which way he meant it, so I thought I'd give consideration to the possibilities, and also to how people have reacted in this thread and on similar ones elsewhere. And to be fair, you did quote him as saying "it doesn't matter, they're all worth the same", because three people, one of whom he didn't recognise, appeared on the same page of a glossy magazine as an Oscar winner. If he couldn't remember, or even bother to read what they were in there for, then it's a silly example to use and is bound to raise questions.

    If it was a simple case of not recognising the person, then I'm sorry, much as I love Robert, he was being snobbish. The unknown person could have been an actor in a tv show he didn't watch, or a tv presenter or even radio DJ he wasn't familiar with. On the other hand, if he was able to recognise him or read enough to know he was someone like Callum Best who was clinging onto fame for the sake of it, then what he said was

    I've always liked Robert, and he always seems quite sensible and non-snobby, which is why I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that either he didn't express himself as clearly as he should have done, or it wasn't reported with sufficient context.

    I'd much rather the magazines gave attention to singers, actors and others who do proper "work" in the industry, but I've got to agree with those who say that if you think "celebrity" is worthless, then why worry about who qualifies? Personally, I think it's of just as much concern that best way for a talented or non-talented celebrity to get attention is to say something nasty about another celebrity.

    I don't think that's what Robert was doing here, but complaining about celebrity culture isn't particularly interesting, even if it is fair. Let's face it, even Jordan has complained about how it's too easy to be famous these days and she was complaining about other people getting the attention she thought she deserved. I'd much rather he was getting talked about for doing something interesting, and the fact we are talking about this, rather than his acting, feels horribly like we are joining in with the culture we are supposedly complaining about.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,393
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I adore Bobby, most Scots do, we're very proud of him but I do think he's being quite snobby with this. I read the article and although I will agree with him that wall to wall reality tv shows can be very waring, and z listers all over the place must be very demoralising if one is trying to break into the industry, there must be a call somewhere for this sort of thing, otherwise we wouldn't be deluged with it all. I agree with Bobby in some ways but I believe it's just a case of riding out this celebrity epidemic. It may get worse first before it gets better but things will turn around again. They always do and real talent will always out. Bobby has nothing to be worried about.
  • Pisces CloudPisces Cloud Posts: 30,239
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Of course they're harsh.
    They're supposed to be harsh.
    To be anything else would be giving the current celebrity culture a respect it doesn't deserve.

    I don't see anything ignorant about what he said. In fact he sounds very aware and has an informed insight. He doesn't say anything bad about Gareth Gates, he just uses him as an example to demonstrate three different levels of celebrity.

    My fault, I seem to have misread the post. I thought it said, ****wit Garath Gates. Sorry folks.
  • Soulmate9Soulmate9 Posts: 7,407
    Forum Member
    I adore Bobby, most Scots do, we're very proud of him but I do think he's being quite snobby with this. I read the article and although I will agree with him that wall to wall reality tv shows can be very waring, and z listers all over the place must be very demoralising if one is trying to break into the industry, there must be a call somewhere for this sort of thing, otherwise we wouldn't be deluged with it all. I agree with Bobby in some ways but I believe it's just a case of riding out this celebrity epidemic. It may get worse first before it gets better but things will turn around again. They always do and real talent will always out. Bobby has nothing to be worried about.

    I don't agree that he's being snobby. I really don't think Robert and snobbery go hand-in-hand at all. I just think he's probably sick to death with it all being rammed down his throat 24/7 like plenty of us others are. He's also making the point that if someone doesn't have any talent, why are they famous now? It wasn't like it years ago, etc, etc. As I said earlier, I'm with him on it all.
Sign In or Register to comment.