Can we survive without these celebrities?

Can we survive without these celebrities?
Vidyut Latay

Location: Oure Cassoni Camp, Africa

Shot: Point of view of the subject

Camera moves frantically through the small, dingy, and crowded lanes of the camp. The camera taps the desperate sighs and the images of innumerable anorexic men, women, and children non-chalantly looking at the camera. The camera covers the area in all its intensity and deprivation. Camera movement now stops; it covers two healthy, pretty looking hands, and properly manicured lifting up a naked wounded child lying helpless in his mother’s arms. The camera turns around and sees its ANGELINA JOLIE.

This scene and the description of the shot could be from any Hollywood movie based on a celebrity’s “other side” of life. But unfortunately this is no fiction but purely fact about the desert border camp, Oure Cassoni Camp between Darfur and Chad. Angelina along with her much talked about personal life, has been media’s hot favorite because of her charity work as a good will ambassador with the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) in the forsaken lands of Africa and Cambodia. The television cameras, reach out to the worst affected areas of human carnage and slander following the foot steps of Angelina.

Typically a television producer would plan this shoot with an intention of covering the visit as a feature on the initiatives taken by celebrities in endorsing a cause of human suffering and helplessness. The angle that perhaps the media industry needs more to dwell upon is the driving force in covering such celebrity driven charitable causes—is it the interest of people in watching their favorite stars getting more humane, walking the murky path of human shame and apathy for a change, miles away from their pleasant, glittering, highly privileged walk on the red carpet! Is it the motivation of the producers in doing something “creative” and “different” in television, or is it just a revenue generating initiative for the advertisers that drives the entire industry to compete for the rare photo compositions of these Hollywood beauties amidst human anguish and resentment?

However media tries to defend itself by talking about the “greater common good” and serving the interests of the people in awakening them, informing them through such program initiatives, one cannot deny the fact that most of the issues are addressed only because of the celebrity presence. Media, television channels cannot do away without celebrities. That is the reality. Be it charity, be it sports, be it politics, or for that matter a normal opening ceremony of a school. Celebrities from the film, “unreal” world are required to create the “real” impact about the causes of human concern and dignity.

“Because I know at the end you’re not looking at me, you‘re looking at them.” Well… “As long as you end up looking at them that’s the point” says Angelina Jolie in the Newsweek interview. Its I think very naïve of Ms. Jolie or for that matter any celebrity to think that the world is looking at the picture of those unfortunate souls when she is in the picture. Whether they do it for their own personal interest of making a difference or they do it for the sake of some selfish motive of creating a more affable image is beyond the scope of this discussion. But the larger question is why media is so obsessed with these celebrities? Celebrity endorsement has become a big program content for media. Television channels go out of the way to reach for these god forsaken areas as the refugee camps of Africa and Afghanistan only because some celebrity is visiting the place as a part of his/her charitable operation. Popularly called today as “celebrity tourism,” media today looks forward towards this new found adventure of program content.

The media when questioned upon its obsession towards the celebrities is quick to add that it is the people who are interested to see celebrities everywhere and every time of the day. These charitable excursions just are one of the millions of ways to see the “other side” of these celebrities’s lives. So are these images of the “other side” of celebrity life as juicy and interesting for the viewers as watching Britney Spears without underpants?
It’s an irony but often news channels have segments and discussions on why the masses have obsession for these celebrities when in reality these channels are the ones that bombard people’s minds with the constant images of these celebrities. “Why are the masses so interested in Anna Nicole Smith?” asks the popular television host, Bill O’Reilly ,when his own program along with a bunch of others on Fox news have given the world a live commentary about the all the events pertaining to Ms.Smith’s death.

The larger question is if channels find their revenues rising up with the telecast of the popular faces than is it reflecting upon the people who are its passive viewers and consumers? Are the people too interested in these celebrity lives? Is the celebrity bit keeping us off the reality of the images that television needs to exhibit. Are the “common” and “non-celebrities” so frustrated and upset with their lifestyles that they badly need this catharsis through the actions of celebrities to live their lives happily? Why people instead of being concerned about their neighbor are interested in the elusive lives of these celebrities staying miles away from them both mentally and physically.

Is it the media or is it the people? What came first? the chicken or the egg, this story will never end but somewhere the greater influence it is creating on our society needs to be addressed. India has a program on a popular channel, New Delhi Television (NDTV) where in the films stars travels in the remote military areas of India and interact on a one on one basis with the young courageous soldiers who are guarding their motherland on the front. These actors most of the times appear to treat this experience more as a personal adventure than the noble cause they are endorsing. They are seen praising the sacrifice, and struggle made by these unknown heroes. Looking at the childish enthusiasm of these film heroes in handling the real arms and ammunitions has always mesmerized me. Does the Indian military actually need these celebrities to inform the masses about their challenges and hard work required for their country? Do these film stars in any way facilitate in improving the soldier’s image in the minds of people? If yes then it is a very sad scenario for a country that needs endorsement for its soldiers. As a programming idea it is a great concept but in philosophical terms it raises a lot of questions regarding the demi- god status of these celebrities and their undue importance that has spread in every sphere of public life. Is that the issue for the Indian government to turn deaf ears to the issue of prisoner’s of wars (POW)? Will it be an intelligent plan for the Indian families of this POW’s to actually hook up a celebrity to fight for their cause both against the Indian and well as Pakistani Government?

Television is growing and the channels are bound to invent different ways and means to have an edge over their competitors. The beneficiaries in this race are the popular names and people who will get their market price increased and constantly altered as per the demand of the channels. Advertisers are happy in either ways as they have the people’s eye balls glued on to their products and brands during the course of these celebrity images on the television. But where do people feature in this whole process? Do they really need so much of information about people who just don’t matter to them apart for plain entertainment? How much do we really need to know about them? How much is it necessary for a common citizen to know what time Tom Cruise wakes up in the morning, what color purse did Meryl Streep carry at the Oscars , how many cars does John Travolta owns, or who is the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby ? Is the baby ever going to be benefited by watching the archival footage to hunt her own father? Is the amount of money Angelina Jolie decides to contribute towards her UNHCR charity, decide how many less deaths will occur in the near future? Would the campaign towards curbing global warming ever see the media spot light had it not been the Ex-President of the United States, Mr.Al Gore and his dramatic exit from the American Politics? Should we always assign a celebrity like George Clooney to attract the United Nations attention towards the genocide in Darfur? Will we always need an Oprah Winfrey to open a school for young girls in the abandon areas of Africa? Would the issue of landmines ever get noticed but for Princess Diana’s fight for it?
Are we somewhere depriving the real workers working relentlessly for human upliftment and human dignity without any expectation of name, fame, and media glare? Is the media even trying to look for these real heroes? Bangladeshi, Mohd. Yunus and his “Grameen Bank” won the Noble Peace Prize in 2006 for their ground-breaking work in devising new economic opportunities. How many channels have repeated his pictures and his story? How many people even care to know about him or his work? Will there ever be a day where media makes some “real” role models? Is media ready for some real action? How long media will telecast content which has been a mundane routine about –Lights, camera and total INACTION……………


1. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17553797/site/newsweek
The Power of Personality
2. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n6_v28/ai_183830473.

Star Struck –high end periodicals’ obsession with celebrities-cover story
3. www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/09/cnnpce.chasing.angelina/index.html

4. http://www.azcentral.com/ent/tv/articles/0301girlsgonewild0301.html