I have perhaps had it with the opinion of some writers/journalists (just because they have the power to publish with a popular newspaper or a magazine) and a lot of other people, that a celebrity or a movie star or anyone popular is 'public property'.
Would anyone care to define this whole "celebrity is now public property" nonsense?
I remember having an argument with an auto driver several years ago. He was one of those talkative ones and went bak-bak over the racket of the auto. And he happened to mention that a certain actress has to do this and that because she is public property. I remember lambasting him, as politely as I could and perhaps, just perhaps he changed his thinking. And then I asked him where he got the idea from. He said he read it in a magazine.
Today, more than anything else, I see how easy it is for a popular magazine or a newspaper to influence public opinion. To the extent that it makes the reader believe that it was his idea in the first place and not that of the writer's.
I read an article yesterday with quotes from popular people who have said that they don't mind their actions being followed and those who said they do not want the press in their kitchen or their bedroom. A celebrity is no different than who you are. They grow up pretty much the same way you do, study the same stuff, have similar friends and family also perhaps, some circumstances and a lot of other things.
Of course there are several ways a popular person is different from one that is not - One does not have to worry whether a simple Quote will be misconstrued/misunderstood or published in the same misconstrued manner. Because publishing a wrong notion happens in bold letters. Corrections happen in a corner of a newspaper that you will easily miss. I have always noticed that you'll have to search for corrections with magnifying glasses.
While on the topic, this whole thing about celebs repeating clothes and especially writing about it is another thing I detest. Money does not grow on tress. If a celeb has a tree in his compound, it does not grow on his tree either. Every TV interview or show that a popular person shows up on, especially in Chennai, you can bet your hat they have spent their own money on the clothes. No channel pays a celeb for the clothes and let me also clarify a celeb is not paid to give a TV/Radio interview. I got this idea from the guy who irons the clothes outside our building. The entire working class is of the notion that every time a celeb comes on TV or radio they are paid tons of money.
A celeb who repeats a set of clothes is called a Fashion criminal. Who bestowed the title of a fashion know-it-all or expert on the one who is writing this on a paper or a magazine? What the hell is fashion anyway? Some guy or perhaps there are two. They sit in Paris or whichever country it is and decide how the entire world should dress itself in the coming season.
With movies, a viewer watches it over a couple of hours, easily judges in a second on how the movie should have been made, how this should have been done, how that should have been done, amongst a ton of other suggestions. Some say acting is easy and anyone could do it. But if you had to get drenched in the rain for days together for a song shoot, your health not withstanding, or wear summer clothing in Arctic weather and still look as if you are having the time of your life then I wonder how many of the viewers will survive. Stunt scenes are another thing altogether. People do get injured and it includes the stars as well. All those superbly lighted sets that you see in TV shows and movies - the collective heat generated by all those lights can put a desert to shame. Yes a lot of studios have A/C facility but everyone sweats in spite of that. I wonder how the actors in that era managed to act, especially in all those devotional movies in the 60s and 70s with all that make up, jewellery and clothing.
I do not think I have to tell you that even the work - the movies or serials or music or anything else that a professional in the entertainment industry is involved in, which is produced keeping the public in mind, is for public viewing/listening - is not public property. They are protected by various intellectual property and copyright laws. If the copyright laws were really implemented in the country, you actually do not have the right to perform your favourite song. Just have a look at the fine print behind every CD that you might buy. If you are one of those who only downloads music /movies via torrents, well Pirate, I have nothing to say to you.
If this highly controversial Sach ka Saamna and all the 'truth' in it is anything to go by, people are people. Human. And flawed. Maybe a celeb does not have that many skeletons in the cupboard as some participants in Sach ka Saamna.
Like someone said : "I am myself and all my circumstances". I remember Pt Bhimsen Joshi saying in an interview that people only see where he is now with all awe and amazement. But if they had to even glimpse the path that he had to take to be where he is, they would have died a hundred deaths.
No one but the wearer of the shoe will know how and where it pinches. And he will have to break the shoe, sores and all.
Some schools of thought say that God does not judge you. So who are we trying to be? Imagining that we are the sole reason that the world spins on its axis? That we are the upholder of everything around us? If you zoom out even the street you live in, forget everyone else, even you cannot spot yourself or even the most popular person you know. That is how important we all are.
It pains me when some writers refer to women in degrading terms, denounce some acts of several people as undoable and against 'Indian Culture', so on and so forth. What was right sometime back is wrong now and so it continues. Not long ago, it was wrong for the girl to study. Now denying education is neanderthal.
These are times when I had thank my stars that the professionals I have come across in the print and visual media have been absolutely wonderful people.
Maybe I have digressed quite a bit here and there but to sum it all up:
A celebrity is not public property. No matter what someone might write. And has every right to his privacy and that of his family.
My two (or perhaps there are more) paise.
Would anyone care to define this whole "celebrity is now public property" nonsense?
I remember having an argument with an auto driver several years ago. He was one of those talkative ones and went bak-bak over the racket of the auto. And he happened to mention that a certain actress has to do this and that because she is public property. I remember lambasting him, as politely as I could and perhaps, just perhaps he changed his thinking. And then I asked him where he got the idea from. He said he read it in a magazine.
Today, more than anything else, I see how easy it is for a popular magazine or a newspaper to influence public opinion. To the extent that it makes the reader believe that it was his idea in the first place and not that of the writer's.
I read an article yesterday with quotes from popular people who have said that they don't mind their actions being followed and those who said they do not want the press in their kitchen or their bedroom. A celebrity is no different than who you are. They grow up pretty much the same way you do, study the same stuff, have similar friends and family also perhaps, some circumstances and a lot of other things.
Of course there are several ways a popular person is different from one that is not - One does not have to worry whether a simple Quote will be misconstrued/misunderstood or published in the same misconstrued manner. Because publishing a wrong notion happens in bold letters. Corrections happen in a corner of a newspaper that you will easily miss. I have always noticed that you'll have to search for corrections with magnifying glasses.
While on the topic, this whole thing about celebs repeating clothes and especially writing about it is another thing I detest. Money does not grow on tress. If a celeb has a tree in his compound, it does not grow on his tree either. Every TV interview or show that a popular person shows up on, especially in Chennai, you can bet your hat they have spent their own money on the clothes. No channel pays a celeb for the clothes and let me also clarify a celeb is not paid to give a TV/Radio interview. I got this idea from the guy who irons the clothes outside our building. The entire working class is of the notion that every time a celeb comes on TV or radio they are paid tons of money.
A celeb who repeats a set of clothes is called a Fashion criminal. Who bestowed the title of a fashion know-it-all or expert on the one who is writing this on a paper or a magazine? What the hell is fashion anyway? Some guy or perhaps there are two. They sit in Paris or whichever country it is and decide how the entire world should dress itself in the coming season.
With movies, a viewer watches it over a couple of hours, easily judges in a second on how the movie should have been made, how this should have been done, how that should have been done, amongst a ton of other suggestions. Some say acting is easy and anyone could do it. But if you had to get drenched in the rain for days together for a song shoot, your health not withstanding, or wear summer clothing in Arctic weather and still look as if you are having the time of your life then I wonder how many of the viewers will survive. Stunt scenes are another thing altogether. People do get injured and it includes the stars as well. All those superbly lighted sets that you see in TV shows and movies - the collective heat generated by all those lights can put a desert to shame. Yes a lot of studios have A/C facility but everyone sweats in spite of that. I wonder how the actors in that era managed to act, especially in all those devotional movies in the 60s and 70s with all that make up, jewellery and clothing.
I do not think I have to tell you that even the work - the movies or serials or music or anything else that a professional in the entertainment industry is involved in, which is produced keeping the public in mind, is for public viewing/listening - is not public property. They are protected by various intellectual property and copyright laws. If the copyright laws were really implemented in the country, you actually do not have the right to perform your favourite song. Just have a look at the fine print behind every CD that you might buy. If you are one of those who only downloads music /movies via torrents, well Pirate, I have nothing to say to you.
If this highly controversial Sach ka Saamna and all the 'truth' in it is anything to go by, people are people. Human. And flawed. Maybe a celeb does not have that many skeletons in the cupboard as some participants in Sach ka Saamna.
Like someone said : "I am myself and all my circumstances". I remember Pt Bhimsen Joshi saying in an interview that people only see where he is now with all awe and amazement. But if they had to even glimpse the path that he had to take to be where he is, they would have died a hundred deaths.
No one but the wearer of the shoe will know how and where it pinches. And he will have to break the shoe, sores and all.
Some schools of thought say that God does not judge you. So who are we trying to be? Imagining that we are the sole reason that the world spins on its axis? That we are the upholder of everything around us? If you zoom out even the street you live in, forget everyone else, even you cannot spot yourself or even the most popular person you know. That is how important we all are.
It pains me when some writers refer to women in degrading terms, denounce some acts of several people as undoable and against 'Indian Culture', so on and so forth. What was right sometime back is wrong now and so it continues. Not long ago, it was wrong for the girl to study. Now denying education is neanderthal.
These are times when I had thank my stars that the professionals I have come across in the print and visual media have been absolutely wonderful people.
Maybe I have digressed quite a bit here and there but to sum it all up:
A celebrity is not public property. No matter what someone might write. And has every right to his privacy and that of his family.
My two (or perhaps there are more) paise.
41 comments:
I guess its human tendency. When you can't be someone great then put down someone who already is.
I respectfully disagree. Whilst you have clarified the angle of you as a celebrity or as you may have understood it, I think the angle of an educated/free thinking individual maybe far from the examples you have specified.
The moment you step into the screen or over the mic for public distribution, you are in a sense selling shares for public to buy. They make or break a celebrity. Whilst any one of them does not have control over the company's life, they can jolly well influence it. Magazines and newspapers are like institutional investors or mutual funds who invest in your stock. Unless people are buying your stock, i.e. listening to your songs or watching your movies, the word celebrity or company becomes moot.
In the following passage you = any celebrity, no one in particular.
Sorry, if you are not open to criticism, then no point calling yourself a celebrity or appearing in public for performance. When you can take all those lavish comments of appreciation, it is but natural to expect some comments on outfits or appearance, the very parameters that people get to see to decide whether to invest their 5000 paise and more in terms of their time on you or your words.
I agree with you through and through. A celeb is a human being. At it ends there. He does what he does for his living, may be for his passion. But just cos he comes on air for millions to view doesn't make him a public property to claim and trash and bash. As you have put it quite perfectly, only the wearer knows his soles and holes. Easy for us to point fingers at, difficult to lead that life. I bet its crazy as hell, just as glamorous it is.
Chinmayi San...
Well the celebrities suffer fools more often than common people.
I think when people cant create magic with the given time,place an d the moment, end up with these kind of desperate attempt.
In addition Indians are very senstive and emotional, misinterpret everything,too soon to judge and confront.
A place where people fail to feed the mind/soul and live only to feed their stomach and other body parts ,what can you expect ?
All in the mind,Never Mind !!!
hav fun !!!
Nowadays all the leading tamil magazines have great competition in posting these kind of craps. They projecting all the film personalities very badly. Some writers are not that educated and don't have stuff to write. End of the day all Business...its never ending story..
Bye
Prakash
//
. A celebrity is no different than who you are. They grow up pretty much the same way you do, study the same stuff, have similar friends and family also perhaps, some circumstances and a lot of other things.
//
Exactly!!! WELL SAID!
As Kamal often repeats, "whatever the money public pays is for my performance, not for the rights to poke their nose in my personal life".
Sadly, not many people would ever understand it. There is a long way to go!
Quote "With movies, a viewer watches it over a couple of hours, easily judges in a second on how the movie should have been made, how this should have been done, how that should have been done, amongst a ton of other suggestions. Some say acting is easy and anyone could do it. But if you had to get drenched in the rain for days together for a song shoot, your health not withstanding, or wear summer clothing in Arctic weather and still look as if you are having the time of your life then I wonder how many of the viewers will survive. Stunt scenes are another thing altogether. People do get injured and it includes the stars as well. All those superbly lighted sets that you see in TV shows and movies - the collective heat generated by all those lights can put a desert to shame. Yes a lot of studios have A/C facility but everyone sweats in spite of that. I wonder how the actors in that era managed to act, especially in all those devotional movies in the 60s and 70s with all that make up, jewellery and clothing.."
My two cents on the above lines:
I feel any Movie that comes to the theaters is like any other consumer product. As a product when it comes to the market, the audience as customers, review the product(movies here) and provide their feed back. That too when some one watches a movie in the theater by spending their money and time, will obviously write and speak about their experience. I don't find anything wrong in that... For a viewer (consumer) it does not matter how much effort ( like getting drenched in the rain for days together for a song shoot) has been put. What all matters is if they were able to enjoy and appreciate the product.
Assuming that we buy a product in the market. If we are not satisfied or happy with the product, we tend to review the product and provide feedback. We don't accept the product just because a lot of human effort has been involved or by understanding the pain the product developers went through. End of the day its just a product for us.. So are the movies for the normal audience.
I don't find any reason why movies should be an exception here..
Quote: "I do not think I have to tell you that even the work - the movies or serials or music or anything else that a professional in the entertainment industry is involved in, which is produced keeping the public in mind, is for public viewing/listening - is not public property. They are protected by various intellectual property and copyright laws."
The intellectual and copyright laws are only to prevent some one from copying and distributing the work and not from providing any reviews or comments or feedback..
Quote:"If the copyright laws were really implemented in the country, you actually do not have the right to perform your favourite song. Just have a look at the fine print behind every CD that you might buy."
Are you trying to say that if the copyright laws are implemented, then people cannot perform or play their favorite song?
I don't think copyright laws can stop some one to play or perform the song (when they had bought it), unless and otherwise specified explicitly.
celebrities life are closely watched by the media so they spot the light on them so they are public property til ppl get matured.
HELLO MADAM IF U HAVE SPARE TIME VISIT MA BLOG N COMMENT. www.madrasnetwork.blogspot.com
HOPE U'LL REPLY.
THEN Y R U NOT SEEN IN AIRTEL SUPER SINGER JUNIOR 2
Well Some behave/do stuff at times that one cannot categorize as normal in the strictest sense. These people are the ones who get maximum attention in the media, and that image is what the auto driver must have had! But you are correct in mentioning the media has no right to generalize and treat them as objects of entertainment.
A good one though.
DM
Celebrity or popular public person will be known by all the people.Most of the people choosing their role model as popular persons.
For example: If they had a different hair style or kind of dressing , most of the people do like that.
I chosen one role model for blog witting as u.Becoz of in this busy schedule how u writing and responding to the commenting pupils.
Considering the people need to leave something or not do something in public.
if u have time just visit kanaknpk.blogspot.com
and leave comments how to improve.
A celebrity is not public property..Yes infact the media is poluting a newspapers, TV etc., by keenly follwing clerbrities lives. Infact it is breach of privacy. As well as waste of lot of newsprint and camera films. As a common man we are being glood of unwanted things. This is disturbing us from concentrating what we want.
Ram: As far as my limited understanding of 'shares' and everything goes.. some people come together start a company. If they start as a Pvt Ltd and then go public, they are only selling the shares of the company and NOT of the individuals or those on the board. Right? People only buy shares of a product. I note that you have also stated "people are buying your stock - i.e. listening to your songs or watching your movies". As someone else has pointed out, the money is fixed only to buy the creative product, be it book, CD or a movie.
As for the comments on outfits or appearance, even that is highly divided. There is one section of the audience which says trousers are not to be worn. And there is one which doesn't care whether you are wearing shorts.
And as far as criticizing celebs are concerned, I think
I know that there are some who do it because all that they get is just a high from the act. And there are some genuine ones as well. Forget celebs, I do not think any person is open to criticism. In a typical work environ, haven't you felt mighty pissed with Mr Know it all who constantly criticizes your work? Naanthaanga: Fair enough on your opinion that a movie is a consumer product. But my point is this, I do not see the public criticizing or reviewing other consumer products, like for example a soap, or anything else as much as movies. Of course nowadays there is a perk as well. Tweet that a consumer product or a service is bad, you might get free samples. I have heard of people who do this for a living :)
I am not trying to say, I am saying that you cannot perform your favourite song for commercial purposes. Which means you can listen to it in the car or at your home or the iPod. You are not to distribute it either. It is for personal entertainment only. And buying a CD does not entitle you to take your guitar and perform the song in front of a large audience. FYI, every TV/Radio channel pays royalty to music companies for contestants using songs in dance or music competitions or anywhere else. And if the copyright laws are anything to go by, they will be very stringent in the coming days.
to Adhu sari: Bingo. I think Sri Kamal Hasan is the one who has been point blank in telling the media that it is none of anyone's business to poke their nose into his life, in so many ways. And also on the dynamism of Tamil culture :)
Quote: But my point is this, I do not see the public criticizing or reviewing other consumer products, like for example a soap, or anything else as much as movies.
I think this is because, movies along with music and books can touch peoples heart directly.. In other words, people can easily relate themselves to the characters/lyrics of works like music,books and movies..
Or honestly, it could be because a movie review generates more interest than one on a popular Tea brand or chocolate or a meal at a restaurant did not go well with you. And here it affects your stomach directly. Let's face it. People like criticizing or influencing public opinion especially when they know another a popular person is involved. More often than not it is a power trip.
I'll accept what you said TOTALLY! I've thought about this many times.. As in not sympathy, but think as to how terrible a life they've got. A small gossip about a celebrity spreads like forest fire and damage their public image. We always say, leave your office work in office. Same applies here too.. I don't understand why magazines/journalists overdo their job by reviewing personal life instead of reviewing the celebrity's work! and Yeah! I totally accept the point that they are NORMAL humans too :) Celebrities capitalize their talent which is really great.. they've the gutso to bring out their talent.. but this doesn't mean that the general public aren't that talented! They just shy away sometimes. I know a person who looks awfully smart but rejected the idea of being a model for the problems it bring to his personal life! How sad is that now!!!
Anyway, My opinion is GIVE CELEBS THEIR OWN SPACE TOO like we need our space :)
Good strong post Chinmayee :)
I think the terminology might be the one to blame..I condemn the use of the word 'property'. Unfortunately, a celebrity becomes someone who's life seems very grand and sophisticated and no matter how many times you scream from the roof tops that you have similar lifestyles of the common man, people just think that the celebrity is being secretive or humble. I think it is also in the human nature to be curious which is what this expectation of knowing about celebrities is about. The designer clothes, the way they carry themselves all add to the alure. People just see what is on the surface and assume that all is peach and dandy on the other side. The glamor factor increases the curiosity quotient. Better not to take offense when the curiosity is within limits. Again, the celebrity can control how much the others need to know about them and in what manner.
With all due respect to your opinion and stature as a celebrity yourself, Chinmayi, I quite disagree. Everyone in this world must and does go thru' the point of presenting oneself as the creator of his/her work for reviews. If you work, your effort(be it in an office, in media, in politics) definitely comes to scrutiny by your team, by our management and by yourself. If there were no one to judge or to criticize, there, inevitably will be no growth. Well, celebrities unfortunately are subject to reviews from a much wider range of people who make or break them.Well, if celebrities are remarked on for their clothes/appearnces, well, that's what are primarily judged on. Of course, there is hard work involved in ever single note you sing and every single dialogue that hits the screen.But if hard work alone be blindly appreciated, every one, I tell you, in this world deserves an award because 80%of people work hard in whichever field they are part of. We might lose there, an opportunity to differentiate the good from the bad. If all the films were to be appreciated for the effort put in, well, the world might just see no more GOOD films. Out of an average 100 films in Tamil a year, no more than 7-8 do well, critically or at the box office but don't you think it's only because of these single digit good films, the love for cinema still is alive.And only because there were eyes to filter out the bad ones, the good came to the top. Would you care to pay your hard earned money or more importantly, a precious few minutes over a piece of art/information/entertainment that did not add any value to your interests.That's the way the world moves.It judges and no matter how much you try to be non-judgemental you are and you must be judgemental or you are insulting your own intellect.
Purpleheart: A lot of what you say makes sense. Though I need to disagree here and there. I have no issues about work being criticized. The post highlights on the Celebrity is a public property tagline which is becoming way too common and is perhaps a mindset. And My views on that.
And as for Hard work I would not say 80% of the people work hard. The percentage is perhaps half of that figure. There are more people in our country who love to be lazy and be paid for doing nothing after a point. Like some say, its not necessary to work hard either, and toil. Its enough if you work smart. And that smartness is a rarity. And as for movies that do well critically, do the people support it by watching it in a theatre? How many Tamil movies have you or your friends watched in the theatre after the advent of the pirated DVD? If you watched every one of them, then I thank you for not supporting pirates. And then thats the stark reality. The movies considered box office flops would actually break-even if the pirates (to me every one who watched a movie in a CD before its officially released is a pirate and a thief) took the trouble of watching it in the theatre. And more often than not a critically acclaimed movie does not ring the box office registers. How come? So if a critically acclaimed movie does not do well, is it a bad movie now? Who decides what is good or bad? Or is it even possible to define a good movie and a bad movie? A good movie does not do well a lot of times because of excessive twittering or blogging or smsing or everything else and the power of public opinion. At times I have watched such movies openly denounced by a lot of people and then several people realized that the movie is actually good. The power that a person has today, especially if a blockbuster releases I have noticed a weird sadistic quality in people who just float spoilers and bad reviews of a good movie just for the heck of it. So what do you call that then? Destiny?
And being judgmental is not equal to being intellectual in my humble opinion. Especially if the 'judgment' is bullcrap, it is galaxies away. And from my short experience, I have seen that almost all intellectuals are non judgmental.
Prejosh: Shall reply. Mail Id Please.
Shobana: Makes sense. I'm not sure whether what comes in the media is in the hands of a celeb right now as the world paparazzi apparently buys 'friends' and 'family' for information or sets up recording devices in cars or anywhere else by bribing drivers or other people, pays off people at mobile phone companies for sensitive data, hacks into email accounts.. what not. . Its not longer in anyone's control. This was given in a news report. Which is why celebs abroad are constantly under pressure and sometimes all they want to do is live what they define a normal life and go all out. Which again gets publicized. Its a vicious circle. And a news report in India says, this is about to happen in India or is already happening.
Well, Chinmayi,hands down, I agree on people comfortably crooning to the world of piracy. It's throwing away good talents for free which is painful for anybody who puts heart n soul to its making.But if we strictly streamline our topic to the attention celebrities gain, I would humbly stick to my point.If not for the celebrity-factor, why would Shahrukh getting detained in an airport make screaming headlines on our prominent news channels with people from all over bollywood condemning this when all he had to go thru' was answer security officials for meager two hours while hundred of thousands of non-celebrities go thru' the same procedure every single day ! Don't you think he was over-attended to simply because he's King Khan?!! Celebrities get worshipped,celebrated,assessed and even trashed. I think when you are on a road to become one, you should be prepared to face either or all of these ! :)
Hello Chinmee,
I agree with what you have said in here. Reality hits hard, but it's all about how to take things. Criticism is viewers' choice and celebrities can't help with it. It's difficult to satisfy everyone. Constructive ones help think about possibilities of changes and just that. Keep your cool constant man.
Take cares
Love and regards
Kiddy
Chinmayi,
The thing that Celebrity is not a public property and is as similar as any other human being should be taught even by the society and family[especially parents]. My opinion is unless and until their personal life [decisions made by them in their personal life,etc] doesnt set an example for the public or doesnt affect public in anyway, media shouldnt come into picture.
Everyone is human and does mistakes but celebrity should be more responsible when it comes to making decisions.
By the way, Congrats that your blog has got 'Public Ads given by Google'. I guess it is because of the number of visitors for your blog.
Take care. :)
I hope you understand that the other side is always green. Note, a normal person who has seen entertainers only in the screens will always be curious to know about their life.
On the other hand, a normal person who has had a chance to bump into an entertainer's life understands that they also have a normal life as any other person.
Irrespective of the media, I am sure people can and will understand the entertainer's life is no different from their's only if they personally get to see it from close and experience it. Otherwise, the tag "celebrities" will be attached and the entertainer's life will always be delved via various sources.
Media, helps in providing a glimpse of what people are curious to know about. The sad part is what they say is not always true.
Maybe you can look up the word "paparazzi" and its origins and also the roots of how much history dates this cult following of people for its heroes. It is always going to be there. When a person goes in front of the public eye, the best way is for them to understand that their life may be microscoped.
Congratulations on all your work so far.
PEACE.
This sort of stuff has been happening for years. If you look at ancient kings queens or even present day presidents lives are viewed to the entire world. For example everyone knows the life of Obama. His very own family is a great example for the american citizens. The same way the public is more eager and curious of celebrity lives. Present day media is not to be blamed they just doing their job they are getting paid for... celebrity earns money by gaining the publics attention good example of this is paris hilton... sadly she didn't even generate that amount of attention through her movies yet popular... Just like the king in ancient time who were living on the welfare of the public the celebrity in the present day are owned by the public... Shah Rukh khan has fans everywhere he made documentary based on his life this only attracted more fans to his side due to their curiosit who would inturn help him in watchin his movies... in order for a celebrity to earn money he has to expose himself to the public do many interviews and most of these interview usually go about askin his/her personal life... I agree with you the are not a public property and no one should be treated such a cruel way but its a human nature thats been goin on for on many years ...but curiosity, it has been as far as adam and eve ..karnan from mahabharat tryin to find his birth mother...all lead to destruction.. same way its the public curiosity that made them look at pirated dvds, to look into celebrity's lives etc which evetually made them public property ..heard they are goin to make a statue of Nadigar Thilagam Sivaji Ganasen would that be a public property or the life and the movies he made thrugh the years would be a public
property
-kas
Anonymous: Contradicting statements in your comment. You say a celeb is 'owned' by the public? How come? And then you say a celeb should not be treated like a public property.
Since you say everyone knows the life of Obama, could you say that everyone in India would know about Manmohan Singh, our very own PM? Do you know who is ruling us, their history, what they have done? Perhaps that is more important and then go out and vote for the right leaders don't you think?
By the way there is something called over exposure. By the human nature is not something that follows a rule book. It is supposed to evolve. And if it does not on its own then there would be people who would assert the need for change in mindsets.
As for Chevalier Sri Ganesan, neither the statue nor his movies are public property. Movies, the rights are owned by various organizations, and the statue if it stands on private property, then I think I don't have to tell you that it is not.
Sathyamurthy: I will have to mail. Please leave an ID if possible
Jayamurugan: Can anyone set a rulebook of standards which say, how and what kind of a decision a celebrity should make in his life? And how would celeb;s decision making in his personal life affect the PUBLIC?? What is it that a celeb does that a normal person does not do? Please watch Sach Ka Samna for some insight. The questions are displayed in English. And you should be able to understand the answers even if you dont understand Hindi.
My question is this. Why should anyone who is not connected to a celeb in anyway say or judge what kind of decisions make or how a celeb should lead THEIR life? Unless, of course advise is solicited. The life is theirs to live. Not yours. not mine and not anyone else's. Why should we even judge how another person should live?? Like someone said, Your right to sing your arm stops where my nose starts. Do you know their circumstances, the choices they face? Or is it necessary, just because someone is a celeb, that he must come out and explain his stand to every Tom Dick and Harry? And even that would be criticized because at the end of the day the common man is never satisfied. Everyone;s view point is different. Which is why I think after a point people just don't care about what the media says or what a third person says. One life to live. And it is everyone;s fundamental right to lead their life just the way they want. Mistakes and all. A person is a celeb as a BY Product of their profession. Would you dare tell a lawyer, a policeman, a Government servant, a Bank official, a PTC bus driver how to lead his life? And they are called Public servants. But you won't. Because the public won't dare.
I am not sure of the speciality of the Public ads thing. And whether its something to cheer.
Purple: I think there was more to that than met the eye. Which is why so much of hullabaloo. As for what I can and cannot face, hopefully the choice will be left to me.
I am not sure if we are talking of the same thing here. But the thing is this, no celeb's life is public property and nor are they owned by the public. What becomes a news item is a totally different matter.
Naanthaanga: Please do not pick one line and respond to it.. It has everything to do with what another commenter has said, and what I said pertains to her and her comment which will make sense to her. The media does not write about celebs just like any other news. Sorry. All this lovers eloping and marrying in a police station is almost a rarity these days. And comes once in a blue moon. A man killing his wife is a crime for your kind information and it WILL be reported. A girl giving birth to triplets is no longer news. Mercy Killing is a huge issue. And there are people who come forward to say they want to die in dignity. These people approach the media for help. So that their case is highlighted. Au contraire, a celeb's life is snooped upon. I have even said in a comment before that recording devices are placed in hotel rooms and cars, friends and family are bought out for information.. Now please do not tell me that all this bullcrap is correct and can be justified because the 'public' finds it interesting. If recording devices had to be placed in every 'normal' person's household or even if some 'normal' person's mind were to be read, it would be more than a thriller. And my argument is that a celeb is not public property and a third person does not have the right to dictate how someone should live. I think we are needlessly digressing.
This is getting hot and interesting.
Celebrities, especially entertainers, work on the principle of audience's willingness for suspension of disbelief. Politicians too.
According to the theory, suspension of disbelief is a quid pro quo: the audience tacitly agrees to provisionally suspend their judgment in exchange for the promise of entertainment (Wikipidea)
What happens is the audience easily extends this principle to the private realm of the performers as well.
No matter how hard one would like to disbelieve the stories press produces on celebrities, the promise of extended entertainment in this private realm easily encourages the fans to suspend that disbelief and wallow on it in a vicarious sense of achievement!!!
That reality apart, of course celebs are humans and I think, as once Kamal said, they are nimbler souls than others because of the different planes they have to switch, and hence with that much more consequent frailties.
So its another training, apart from the training on performing, the celeb has to get, esp from seasoned campaigners , how to handle celebrity status and the non stop glare.
Hi Chinmayi, Good to see you responding and actively participating in the discussion.
Have a great weekend.
For all those people who claim that just because a person has come to be known, his life can be critized and scrutinized, I would like to point out a few things. Just imagine, we the so called critics or followers or whatever, cannot even pick up a honest, necessary argument publicly to claim our rights, just cause we are embarrassed by those who are watching us. How many of us have been to a restaurant and have been the targerts of sneering from other tables around for just being loud. There again we are embarrassed as we are being watched. When we are so overtly conscious about being watched, what rights do we have to watch or to know the lives of people who are doing their JOBS. I bet we will all go crazy leading the cautious life they do. We should be applauding them for that and not crowd them. Its high them we gave them their break.
Sorry, out of topic.
‘Sing One More Time’ For MJ
please watch the song online.
http://www.indiaglitz.com/channels/tamil/gallery/events/19329.html
I just love the song, and Chinmayi stands out.. even though her part is short.
Neekie: Hey there, Guess wat.. I totally agree tat it really irritates anyone wen a 3rd person enters into their personal life... But being a celeb, (be it be whether u do it for ur living or for ur passion), ur survival in the industry depends on how the public responds to u... So you should be smart enough to consider both ur positive and negative feedbacks to move up in ur ladder of success and fame... while the positive comments motivates u to do further efforts, the negative comments should make u think of the root cause for it and c if its necessary for u to make a change in tat regard or else just ignore it... Since u r interested in doing a Phd in phsycology,all these comments would help you read people's mind and make ur thesis much more stronger wen connected with the life u had been thru all these days as a celebrity...
Take it in tat way!!!
Dont take it so hard!! But take them in a smart way!!!
Keep smiling!! ANd Keep Going!!
Nisha: The survival in any field depends on how good your work is and how sincere you are. And will eventually speak. And maybe there is also a play of destiny.
My post, I repeat, was against this whole notion that a celebrity is public property. I am not your property,i.e. if you are a part of the general public. I hope you get what I mean. I guess all celebs are pretty used to criticism and yellow journalism, including yours truly. A lot of us find it amusing.. And I sincerely believe that all negative comment need not be looked and analyzed. There are some who think criticizing someone is cool and come out with so much blah, for example there are regular comments which comes from some IPs which are only expletives. I only feel sorry, and think they should get psychiatric help sometimes. So more often than not, I ignore random criticism. I know whose comments I need and should heed and I know from whence they come. And 'reading' people's mind is not part of psychology. I, after being a student of it, although I must confess I have not devoted a lot of time, I sometimes wonder if all this is overrated because no amount of study can help one predict or determine something as complex and mutative as much as human behaviour. Of course the various schools of healing I respect, adore and admire. But the study of behavior ..I frankly do not have much to say on it. Mostly I think people have a tendency to follow the pack, what they call a mob tendency, this will what make a perfectly calm person pick up a rock and pelt someone, just because he sees someone doing it.. in concerts.. if there are a pack of people constantly booing a performer, the rest will follow suit sooner or later, even if they have all paid money for the tickets and have traveled a long distance to be there. Or for instance, no one behaves the way they do on the First Day First Show of a Rajnikanth movie for a FDFS of any other movie. People get gutsier to do things they usually dont in a crowd. And after all that digressing, of which I think succumb to almost always, I won't take things lying down. And yeah I would say I also know how to keep mum :)
It all depends upon the character and mindset of people. Some just think celebrity as an entertainer, philosopher etc and don’t mix them with their own life. But some are influenced by these celebrities and try to inherit some or whole of their characters. Remember how superstar’s style of using cigarette became famous. I remember my friend naming his room “Neverland Manor” after influenced by Michael Jackson’s “Neverland Ranch”.
It is not just the celebrities who go through this criticism, there are these school teachers, sales personalities etc also who go through these critics. Have you ever heard your schoolmates complaining about the dressing sense of the teacher claiming “See how this sir’s dressing being the head of the department”. But there were also students who would have been impressed by the knowledge of the same head master. Similarly there were people who spoke badly about the personal life of an actress and there were people who were interested in her dancing and acting ability than her personal life.
“Celebrity is a public property”, this sentence just means that these celebrities are people who have a great ability to influence public. I am not sure about what the auto driver spoke to you about, it just means that he wanted the celebrity he spoke about to set a good example for the people who are influenced by that celebrity. Think how you would feel if your role model does something that you think is very bad. Wouldn’t there be some place in your heart that would tell you, “He shouldn’t have done that”.
Celebrities, of course are not public property and have there own private life were they can unleash themselves, with their own set of rules, but would be good if they make sure that they don’t do things that sets a bad example. And people who speaks bad about you, learn to ignore them, because you are not their only target.
hey chimnayi, nice to see you speaking up for celebrities on the whole. Well i thinks its really up to each and individual. Everyone have their opinions and preferences. There are circumstances where some celebrities like that kind of attention. And its the attention that makes them a celebrity. If people dont pay that attention, they dont become popular either. So it is like a side effect and repercussion in some way. and the problem arises when people fail to understand where the line of boundary is drawn. Nothing can be done by either you or me. There will be people who have opposing views.. Just chill and take it as being part of your work and as for the crank calls, just ignore them.. And i appreciate your move in reporting it to the authorities! I like your courage woman.:) oh yes, advance birthday wishes!
Ramki: I did not go to a school which commented on the teacher's dress sense. As for what my role models do or do not do, I reiterate, I was not in their shoes and I did not face their circumstances and hence I have learned to not say "he should not have done that" Who am I to say who should have done what, anyway?
Anisha: Yup .. people fail to understand where the lines are drawn. Which is also a reason for most interpersonal relationships going awry. :)
Post a Comment