Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Broken Record

At first glance, you might mistake Guinness World Records 2009 for a book-sized can of some energy drink. Its metal-foil cover shimmers with such pulsating greenish-gold intensity it could give a disco ball a headache. Inside, its pages are jam-packed with factoids and photographs, including life-sized 3-D portraits of the world’s tiniest man and the world’s largest tarantula. Such touches are gimmicky but necessary: While the phrase “world record” once conveyed a sense of accomplishment so palpable no 3-D glasses were required to see it, those days are long gone.

The first edition of Guinness, then called The Guinness Book of Records, was published in England in 1954. It was the brainchild of Sir Hugh Beaver, a Guinness Brewery marketing executive who’d gotten into an argument over which European game bird was fastest — the golden plover or the grouse. When no reference volume readily yielded that information, Beaver saw an opportunity. Why not publish a book made up solely of facts about world bests? Beaver suspected it would be a big hit in his country’s 81,400 pubs, where drunken patrons regularly jousted over such quandaries, and thus a great promotional item to emblazon with his company’s name.

A year after its English debut, Guinness showed up across the pond. At a time when America was determined to put a man on the moon, end poverty and disease, and find a cure for black-and-white TV, The Guinness Book of World Records, as it would eventually be known here, was an apt companion piece for our optimism. It showcased the extraordinary feats human beings could accomplish. It encouraged the pursuit of elite achievement by broadening its domain — world records weren’t just for sports anymore; they were for everything. It was a serious book, the product of a purposeful culture that still had faith in the power of science, industry, and, most of all, progress. The four-minute mile? We could break it. A skyscraper taller than the Empire State Building? We could build it. The future was surely going to surpass the past.

As it turned out, though, breaking the four-minute mile didn’t cure cancer. Sending a man to the moon didn’t end poverty. Things were getting better in some ways (cable TV, super-premium ice cream, infinite varieties of tennis shoes) but also worse (AIDS, homelessness, global warming, custom ring tones). Our faith in progress was eroding, and The Guinness Book of World Records was contributing to the malaise. Whereas it once championed elite achievement, it now trivializes it. Thousands of people want to earn a place in its pages as the world’s best something-or-other, and Guinness, in need of new content to keep its annual updates fresh, is happy to accommodate them. For example, Guinness World Records 2009 includes entries for “Most snails on the face” and “Fastest time to push an orange one mile with the nose.”

Instead of inspiring us, such pseudo-records merely remind us that we now value publicity more than achievement. They reinforce how purpose-driven our lives have become, how silly and trivial we are. Before Guinness, world records signified something important, the mastery of something that was considered worth pursuing, even if that something was no more ennobling of the human heart than competitive hamburger eating. After Guinness, world records didn’t need to have a context or a purpose outside the context of Guinness itself. The goal is no longer to demonstrate the capacities of the human spirit; the goal is merely to get into Guinness.

In Missouri, attendees at a science fair recently broke the world record for blowing up balloons in one hour. In Germany, 15,000 puzzle fans assembled the world’s largest jigsaw puzzle. As Wall Street implodes and the war on terror percolates, we’ve pretty much stopped believing that tomorrow is going to be better than yesterday. To distract ourselves from such depressing notions, we create the world’s largest plastic duck, the longest ballpoint pen, or the most expensive ice cream sundae, and Guinness treats these endeavors as if they’re noteworthy achievements. In truth, they’re all so meaningless even drunken Englishmen have better things to argue about.

Greg Beato writes regularly about pop culture for Las Vegas Weekly and Reason magazine.

Categories
News

Vanity Fair

Once again, it was time to pass out 50 gold-plated bookends to people who don’t read, and once again, a billion hungry souls devoured every minute of it with a mix of envy, contempt, and — because above all else, the Oscars has no place for us — profound exclusion. That the show continues to mesmerize us in such numbers in the age of YouTube and MySpace is one of life’s great ironies.

Not so long ago, only grandstanding members of the Washington press corps got to ask political candidates questions during presidential debates. Now, anyone with a webcam and a talking snowman at their disposal has a pretty good shot at that honor. Snack-chip multinationals ask you to name their products. Pop stars want you to direct their music videos. The Academy Awards will let you fill Jack Nicholson’s seat for a minute or two while he takes a dump but only if you promise not to speak to any of the real guests.

The Academy Awards does not care if you think it’s a crime that Lindsay Lohan’s riveting, multi-layered performance as a stripper and her (imaginary?) twin in I Know Who Killed Me was not recognized with a nomination for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress. It will never ask you to vote for your Favorite On-Screen Hook-up. Not one of 2007’s top-grossing movies was up for a Best Picture award.

Thanks to the investigative zeal of People, Entertainment Weekly, Entertainment Tonight, E!, The New York Times, and countless other breathless chroniclers of thespian self-loving, we know a great deal about how the Oscars operate. We know, for example, that the Oscar statuette is roughly the same weight as Atonement star Keira Knightley: 8.5 pounds. We know that the Oscars are made of tin, dipped in gold, and hand-sanded for hours, just like red-carpet staple, Joan Rivers. We know that 30 years ago, during the 1978 Oscars telecast, Debbie Boone was accompanied on “You Light Up My Life” by a heart-tugging chorus of deaf children who weren’t actually deaf.

We know the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences consists of roughly 6,000 members, the majority of whom are neither artists nor scientists. We know that membership is by invitation-only. Each December, these 6,000 insiders receive nomination ballots in the mail, and about half of them complete them and send them to the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers. Once the final nominees are determined, a second vote takes place in February. The proceedings are so top secret sometimes academy members don’t even know who they’re voting for. (Henry Fonda used to have his wife do his decision-making for him.)

Equally enshrouded in mystery is the event’s enduring grip on us. In 1978, there were good reasons to watch the Oscars. Back then, movies were not only the most glamorous branch of pop culture; they were the most important. The Oscars offered a rare opportunity to see stars in a real-world setting. Plus, there wasn’t anything else on to watch, except maybe Kojak and Love Boat reruns.

Nowadays, movies are basically the mainframes of pop culture — clunky, expensive, obsolete. The YouTube clip of the linguistically innovative beauty queen from South Carolina giving her verb-free answer in the English-as-a-second-language portion of the Miss Teen USA pageant has been viewed substantially more often than any of this year’s nominees for Best Picture. The video game Guitar Hero grossed $820 million in the U.S., more than twice as much as 2007’s box-office champ, Spider-man 3. When MySpace exhibitionists post photos of themselves online, they ape poses and facial expressions popularized by porn stars, not movie stars.

And yet when the porn stars hold their annual awards ceremony, the whole world doesn’t come to a halt and watch, even though the gowns on display are far more entertaining. And that’s because porn stars are a pretty modest bunch. At least compared to movie stars, that is. They rarely express their opinions on human rights abuses in Tibet in public. They almost never go to Iraq on fact-finding missions. If they are advising the United Nations Security Council on Darfur, neither they nor the UN Security Council is publicizing it.

Movie stars do all of those things and then some. They make jokes about their narcissism, but they keep showing up at the endless pageants that honor their wonderfulness. They believe they are the world’s brightest, hottest, most compassionate beings, and that’s why we can’t quite quit them, even if we don’t watch many movies anymore. They are the vainest creatures in an era where vanity’s the greatest virtue. How can we possibly not stare at their magnificent chest-puffing with anything less than awe and loathing?

Greg Beato writes regularly about pop culture for Las Vegas Weekly and Reason magazine, where he is a contributing editor. His work has appeared in more than 70 publications worldwide.

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

The Rant

Normally, O.J. Simpson charges around $100 per autograph at personal appearances. Earlier this year, HarperCollins Publishers, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, paid him thousands more times that amount to add his signature to If I Did It.

The now-infamous project must have seemed like a perfect opportunity for Big Media synergy. Step one: Hire some ethically atrophied ghostwriter to speculate how O.J. might have chopped off his ex-wife’s head had he, wink, wink, actually committed that crime (along with the murder of Ron Goldman).

Step two: Air two-hour infomercials on News Corporation subsidiary Fox Broadcasting to promote the project.

Step three: Sit back as Bill O’Reilly, Geraldo Rivera, and the various lesser car alarms who staff Fox News (another News Corporation subsidiary) furiously denounce O.J., his book, and the Fox TV specials in a Barnumesque effort to whip the rubes into a frenzy of curiosity.

Step four: Make tons of money!

Step One must have gone pretty smoothly, because If I Did It does in fact exist. And after that?

Say Simpson was serving a life sentence for the murders of his ex-wife and Goldman. Say he had admitted his guilt in emphatic, unambiguous terms. Say any revenues that If I Did It generated were earmarked for his victims’ families. Under those conditions, maybe, just maybe, the public might have accepted a book with Simpson’s byline on it.

In reality, of course, Simpson was a free man, serving a life sentence of golf and autograph shows. Instead of acknowledging his guilt, he brazenly swivel-hipped from pious avowals of innocence to shameless taunts of literal hands-on involvement. (“No one knows this story the way I know it.”) And unless the Brown and Goldman families were secretly working as caddies and bartenders, they’d never see a penny of the $3.5 million HarperCollins had shelled out for the book.

In short, it was a tough sell. And yet, apparently too potentially lucrative to ignore. If handled deftly, sensitively, with a certain discretion …

“You will read, for the first time ever, a bone-chilling account of the night of the murders, in which Simpson pictures himself at the center of the action,” a HarperCollins press release gushed — with the sort of tastelessness only a professional publicist can muster. In an astonishingly bold move, If I Did It was being marketed as a spine-tingling screamfest, and if the book sold well enough, who knows what other bone-chilling murders Simpson might picture himself at the center of? Maybe he could even give Freddy Krueger a run for his money.

Not surprisingly, a backlash ensued, and Rupert Murdoch suddenly euthanized the whole production. The Fox specials would not air. The book would be pulped and reincarnated as pages in more prestigious HarperCollins titles, say, perhaps, Sex, Sex, and More Sex and Confessions of a Recovering Slut. Bill O’Reilly, whose best-selling etiquette guides are also published by HarperCollins, would not have to boycott himself.

Mission accomplished, right?

Well, not exactly. If I Did It may not reach as many people as it would have had News Corporation stayed the course, but it’s not going to disappear either. The Fox specials were taped. Books were printed, and at least some were distributed to bookstores. If I Did It is out there, and these days, if it’s out there, it will eventually make its way to YouTube, the Enquirer, or any of a million other potential outlets.

Had If I Did It been published as planned, great stacks of the book may very well have been bruising remainder tables by early January and still not moving at $4.98 a pop. Now, it’s a forbidden mystery, more intriguing than ever — how graphic does O.J. get? How cruelly, psychopathically bold is he in his re-enactment of these crimes? No doubt, we’ll know soon enough. In the meantime, O.J. is laughing all the way to whatever discreet financial institution HarperCollins courteously sent his check.

Greg Beato is a freelance journalist who has written for SPIN, The Washington Post, and many other publications, including his own Web site, Soundbitten.com.

Categories
News News Feature

Celebs Forever

Every day, Hollywood cedes territory to video games, blogs, text-messaging, MySpace.com, etc. There are bored, lip-syncing teens on YouTube.com now scoring higher Nielsen ratings than half the shows on basic cable.

But here’s the thing: While you may feel no pressing need to see Lindsay Lohan’s latest attempt to out-act Dakota Fanning, you’re at least vaguely familiar with her efforts to out-skeeze Paris Hilton. Not so long ago, celebrity gossip was a moribund art form, domesticated by punch-pulling softies like Liz Smith, neutered by the red-carpet suck-bots of Entertainment Tonight. Once urbane, sophisticated even, a fizzy cocktail of venom and cynical wit, celebrity gossip had flattened into tepid stuff, a supermarket staple aimed at housewives.

But then the Web came along to resurrect it. Visual, voyeuristic, convivial to rumor and speculation, the Internet is to gossip what sheep dung is to azaleas. And everywhere you look, gardens of schadenfreude and comeuppance are in vivid bloom. If you like your creepy sycophantic voyeurism with a dash of corporate polish, try AOL’s wildly popular entrée into the field, TMZ.com. If your tastes run more toward sole practitioners but you find the Drudge Report too wonky and articulate, you may enjoy PerezHilton.com.

In the old days, you had to spit on a photographer to get coverage on Hard Copy, but on the Internet, the demand for content is endless: Just be hungry and vaguely recognizable and eventually you’ll show up on Celebrities.com, a site whose CIA-quality surveillance of popular L.A. restaurants proves that Hollywood stargazing can be almost as entertaining as watching a 7-Eleven security cam.

Luckily, the photos and the video clips don’t all have to be jaw-droppers or even mildly interesting — in the online world, they’re just a jumping-off point. Gossip has always been an intimate phenomenon, a chain of whispers passed from busybody to busybody, idler to idler. Mass media speeded up this process but did little to connect all the nodes on the grapevine. The Web, on the other hand, does this very well. When TMZ.com documented the somewhat counterintuitive way Mel Gibson has of expressing his Semitism, the post inspired nearly 6,000 user comments. Even an unflattering mug shot of Liv Tyler’s latest zit can inspire days of follow-up wisecracks and analysis.

But while gossip on the Web is a communal, user-centric experience, celebrities are, and will always be, a necessary ingredient. You don’t need a movie star to make a YouTube.com blockbuster. And sites like MP3.com and Purevolume.com aggregate so many surprisingly adequate bands that they’re well on the way to making the title of “rock star” as meaningless as “porn star.” A few hardcore fans may recognize the occasional standouts, but to the masses, they function simply as disposable, interchangeable, semi-anonymous content-providers, here today, gone today.

Gossip without celebrities, meanwhile, is like bourbon and water without the bourbon — it may satisfy your thirst, but it won’t warm your heart. That’s because gossip is a dish best served ruthlessly, and while the Web makes it easy to give your worst self free reign under the cover of anonymity — on the Internet, no one knows you’re a homicidal misanthrope with atrocious spelling skills — some gentler souls still hesitate to ridicule strangers. But celebrities are larger than life, not quite human, blessed by fortune. Shielded from our petty swipes by a thick armor of privilege and a great set of abs, they make excellent piñatas. Traditionally, this has been their burden to bear, a fame tax of sorts. Now, as our interest in the forms and mediums that made them famous wanes, it may be their saving grace.