A World Without Heroes - Cultural Mythmaking, Then and Now

[Marwan]

Here are some bunched up thoughts

I think it's because people back then deserved to be celebrated (the celebrity).. these days so many people are celebrated who do nothing, or don't have very much talent or that special something.. so we're just being saturated by talentless singers,actors, etc., that are really popular and in every entertainment news story.. Today, the best actors/singers/authors, whatever, are generally not the ones getting the most press.. Was it different in the 40's/50's/60's? Icons today don't live up to the bill because they are not icons, they are just manufactured by people to try and be icons. And the real icons may not be getting enough exposure since it's really not dependent on talent anymore.

[xorbie]

Culture ADD

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
I hink it really has to do with the media today. We know all about Lindsay Lohan's drinking and we've seen Britney's hoo-haw, and we read all about that terrible Hollywood divorce in the papers and see what it's like behind the scenes of Desperate Housewives on Entertainment Tonight.

There's no more mystery. There's no studio cultivating a persona for Gable, Stewart and Davis anymore.

Back then, you NEVER saw these people in the news except as part of a promotion for their next movie.

Mystery creates idolatry. Since we have no mystery regarding today's stars they are no more than human to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is definitely a large part of the "world without heroes" concept - no holds barred, 24/7 press invasion of celebrity personal lives. The 2 oft cited examples of past generation's hero making, and the press' role in it, are MLK and JFK.

As a side note - it's interesting how Bill Clinton weathered the press storm, and established his place in our cultural lansdscape - it could be argued that the exposure of Clinton's foibles and human-ness are in large part why he is a cultural icon.

-Al

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are some bunched up thoughts

I think it's because people back then deserved to be celebrated (the celebrity).. these days so many people are celebrated who do nothing, or don't have very much talent or that special something.. so we're just being saturated by talentless singers,actors, etc., that are really popular and in every entertainment news story.. Today, the best actors/singers/authors, whatever, are generally not the ones getting the most press.. Was it different in the 40's/50's/60's? Icons today don't live up to the bill because they are not icons, they are just manufactured by people to try and be icons. And the real icons may not be getting enough exposure since it's really not dependent on talent anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Icons are always manufactured on some level - but maybe there was a sense of "meritocracy" in the American public conscious back in the day wrt to atheletes, politicans, movie stars. That these people somehow deserved the idolatry and their status wasn't really questioned.

We're a much more cynical America than 30 years ago. Schandenfreude is a big part of the cultural mindset today, and tearing down celebrities is a much bigger business. Difficult to have heroes when we're always looking for their flaws.

-Al

[natedogg]

One thing I think is pretty intersting is that there were huge business Barons from the early part of the century who are still known today and act as icons (to some). Rockefeller, JP Morgan, and the like. These men created vast empires that keep people in awe even today.


My impression is that there were several decades of time that went by where none of these kinds of men emerged (or at least they didn't get celebrated).

The 40's, 50's, 60's etc. did not produce Rockefeller.

But today we have the Gates' and Buffets' and Jeff Bezos' and Jerry Yang's and the Google Guys (whose names I can never remember). If anything we are in a period where men are creating empires and wealth that will rival the turn of the last century. And they are celebrated for it too. Gates and Buffet are both cultural icons and more importantly, they are *heroes* to many.

natedogg

[Devil Duq]

[ QUOTE ]
But today we have the Gates' and Buffets' and Jeff Bezos' and Jerry Yang's and the Google Guys (whose names I can never remember).

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, couldn't you have just googled their names? I did -- Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

It seems to me that the cruxes of this issue, as least as it pertains to pop culture icons (versus actual "heroes" - they are certainly not one and the same) are the 24-hour news cycle, the advent of entertainment values and profit motive shaping modern reportage, as well as a seemingly insatiable public appetite for celebrity gossip that unfortunately has eclipsed the real need to pay attention to more important world events.

Studios certainly kept a tighter rein on releasing information related to their stars back in the "Golden Age", as has been alluded to previously, but scandals could and did erupt in Hollywood on a fairly regular basis. The difference seems to be a question of scale -- the Ingrid Bergman/Roberto Rossellini affair, for example, was big news back in 1953 but didn't seem to dominate the airwaves the way that the Anna Nicole Smith imbroglio did recently. What used to be reserved for the society pages is now placed front and center, ad nauseum -- to our society's detriment, I might add.

There is also the factor of shamelessness and willing relinquishment of privacy that seems to pervade every facet of our society these days - from shower cams to newlywed reality shows to bloggers who insist on broadcasting every banal aspect of their daily lives. In a such a world, there are few illusions left, and without illusions the craft of cultural mythmaking ceases to be.

[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