A World Without Heroes - Cultural Mythmaking, Then and Now

[Anacardo]

I doubt this is an original observation, but I have yet to see it discussed, so I'll toss this one out there.

It seems to me that an earlier age of the American media-entertainment empire produced a pantheon of cultural icons that has yet to be duplicated. Figures from the 40s, 50s and 60s are enshrined in our collective consciousness, without any seeming equivalents from later eras. Perhaps this is merely the effects of backward-looking relative youth, and one day Tom Cruise, Madonna and Dr. Dre will take their respective places on nostalgic swaths of Americana beside James Dean, Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley, but I instinctively doubt it. (Only in sport, perhaps, can we find exception; Michael Jordan is every bit as iconic as, say, Joe DiMaggio, but the self-inflating hype machine of modern American professional sport likely has no equal past or present.) Am I wrong? Too myopic as a child of the '80s and '90s? Or was there something special about that era that produced these monolithic entertainment figures? Somebody older who's done some thinking about Hollywood, Motown, etc., pls chime in. (Dominic, please report to the white courtesy phone. Dom to the white courtesy phone.)

[fish2plus2]

there were less famous people back then, so they got more attention. for the music stars, they actually made great music and were influential. these days, its more commercialized. thats the only difference i see. maybe its just the difference between the social aftermath of world war II vs vietnam?

[Colt McCoy]

Your thread title confuses me. Are you talking about heroes or pop icons? If anything I think hollywood has perfected the creation of pop icons to the point where they can create them at will.

[Tao_Jones]

[ QUOTE ]
Your thread title confuses me. Are you talking about heroes or pop icons? If anything I think hollywood has perfected the creation of pop icons to the point where they can create them at will.

[/ QUOTE ]

[invisibleleadsoup]

i watched an interview with orson welles from the seventies recently in which he talked about this sort of thing,but he had a different perspective.

he said something about how he felt the golden age of cinema was over,and that there would never again be stars who could match up to bogart,garbo,cagney,etc.

the interviewer asked why he thought this was,and he said that basically he thought that when they were all around,being a movie star was the greatest thing you could possibly be,in the popular mindset,and that that caused a period of great creativity while that lasted.

then it moved on,and the greatest thing you could possibly be was a singer,so you had the era of elvis,sinatra,bille holiday,etc

obviously the theory isn't watertight,but its an interesting way of looking at things.

i've often thought that,much and all as i love some of the great justin timberlake,usher and beyonce singles,they can never quite compete with prince,michael jackson and madonna in their prime,simply because for that type of music they were around for (or created) the golden age.i think this even though there are far more pop songs that i genuinely love from the nineties.

even to take a narrower focus,looking at just rap music,i'm not sure that there will ever be another group of rappers to compete with the biggest rappers from the mid nineties-will anyone really every eclipse biggie for flow and charisma,or nas for pure rhyming talent?

in terms of actors,i don't think there's been any in the last twenty years or so who can match the greats.

i mean johnny deep is a very good actor and all,but when you watch paul newman in a film,he sets the screen alight in every scene,or when you watch someone like bogart their presence is just so compelling,i don't think you really get that anymore.

[Aloysius]

Anyone ever read Joseph Campbell, The Hero With a Thousand Faces?

I haven't but thought there might be some relevant stuff in there to Ana's OP.

-Al

[PokrLikeItsProse]

With the postmodern fragmentation of society, there is no mainstream, no collective consciousness anymore.

Colt McCoy has it backwards. Back then, Hollywood studio moguls, record label chiefs, and the like decided who was going to be a star. Now, anyone can be a star for a short while, but few can be a superstar because no one is guarding the gates to keep back everyone else clamoring for attention.

[El Diablo]

Cardo,

Largely it's just pure numbers and access to information. When you had a limited number of studios, a limited number of movies, and a limited number of infromation outlets/options, being a star was a much more rarified thing.

Nowadays that level of iconic status is reserved for the top of the top. Tiger Woods in sport has reached that status. But, overall, in entertainment, the lifespan of stars burning at their brightest is often a far shorter timeframe than in the past. Some like Michael Jackson, Bono, Madonna, Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney etc. are in the running, though. Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCaprio, and a few other movie stars too.

But, overall, it's all about the money, man. And it's more effective to churn out a bunch of short-lived superstars than develop megastars.

[Colt McCoy]

One thing that probably impacts this is that back in the eras Anacardo is talking about, movie stars were under long-term contract to their studio. It made much more sense for the studio to invest in building them up to megastar status. Also the studios made most of the profits from the movies. Today major stars take a cut of the box office and are just as likely to be making their next movie for a competing studio.

[El Diablo]

Colt,

It largely comes down to the fact that the cost of developing a star and the risk involved was so much higher that it made more economic sense within the studio system to create a small number of megastars. Now, that cycle is far shorter and there are tons of ministars created, out of which a very small number filter up over time to become megastars.