Thursday, March 29, 2007

Hollywood? C'mon, Really?

To the right is a recent cover of US Magazine.

It's not that there is a drug problem in Hollywood that baffles me; it's that US Magazine believes that Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan collectively represent Hollywood. Let's see here:

Hollywood is a metonym for the American film and television industry. I don't really see how "One Night in Paris" classifies as part of America's rich film history. Nor, for that matter, does "Crossroads". Of the three, I guess Lohan has the most cred when it comes to being a movie star, but how in the world can US justify Paris and Britney as being part of Hollywood?

All three of these girls are spoiled and rich, thanks to an unforgiving paparazzi and a salacious tabloid society. We won't admit it, but we just LOVE to watch these girls fail at everything from marriage to motherhood to careers to relationships to friendships. We find them smug, whether they are or not. But are Paris, Britney and Lindsay the equivalent of yesterday's Lana Turner, Ava Gardner, and Rita Hayworth? That's who true Hollywood is . . . or was. Sure, those women were spoiled and rich too. But somehow they didn't seem as trashy.

1 comment:

  1. I guess the real problem is that Lana , Ava, and Rita had something that Paris, Britney and Lindsay dont : talent. A synonym of class in our trash adulating times.