It was from 1915 onwards, that Charles Chaplin “became the most famous man in the world”. He has been described as a “filmmaker, whose artistry transcends the cinema and spans world-historical dimensions”. Author Bernard Shaw wrote: “Chaplin is more than a genius. He is an institution, the idol of millions of all races and creeds, the champion of the pathetic and oppressed… the little man with the funny moustache is something of a saviour”.
I’m enjoying this series immensely, thank you. Perhaps you’ve addressed this in more recent instalments, but a thought keeps occurring to me. If these performance icons are motivated at least partly to avoid shame and humiliation, why would they go into show business? Surely there are few businesses more guaranteed to shame or humiliate someone; after all, you can’t ever be sure how an audience will react to your performance. Could it be that this narcissistic strategy is courting shame as much as it is avoiding it? Like what you wrote here about reckless sex, which always sails close to the wind of public opprobrium.
Thanks Thomas. This is a brilliant question! And no i havent addressed it in another post. I wonder if this question has something in common with questions about addiction and crime. Why do people reoffend after being punished? Why did the heroin addict go for a second hit even though his first try made him sick? I cant say ive thought this through enough, and your question helps me to start. But some things come to mind:
Firstly, fame promises admiration and idealisation, and like an addiction, early on it will deliver that for those who do become hooked (some dont). What it then delivers is much more complicated as you say. How do they tolerate the boos and the rejections at audition? I can think of four things can happen: A. I think narcissism develops various devices to devalue the criticism and rejections by rationalising or devaluing the person who criticised. B. They are genuinely knocked down by it and have to recover but are then drawn back by the same promise. C. They collapse completely and dont go back. Or D. They do something to compensate and regain stability - something more in their control - for example in the areas of drug use (see monroe, lennon) or sex (see brando, elvis, chaplin). Youre right that they can never control the whims of the industry and they will be confronted with what they wish to avoid. And so they may need strategies like drugs that can be obtained and controlled on demand. And we know how that often goes.
Also, as you say, the artist can never guarantee a standing ovation. But if the artist is desperate, they will do everything in their power to excel. As a child at least, they come to believe they can control it and in turn control their care givers (see michael jackson).
It maybe that it can happen, that performers can court shame and humiliation also. Id have to think more about that. Let me know if you have any other thoughts since the question came to mind.
Thanks Charlatan. Yes they are. But i guess that includes the casino. Some of the icons ive looked at died before they were 50. Some lived till they were old. And i think it depends what you call success.
I’m enjoying this series immensely, thank you. Perhaps you’ve addressed this in more recent instalments, but a thought keeps occurring to me. If these performance icons are motivated at least partly to avoid shame and humiliation, why would they go into show business? Surely there are few businesses more guaranteed to shame or humiliate someone; after all, you can’t ever be sure how an audience will react to your performance. Could it be that this narcissistic strategy is courting shame as much as it is avoiding it? Like what you wrote here about reckless sex, which always sails close to the wind of public opprobrium.
Thanks Thomas. This is a brilliant question! And no i havent addressed it in another post. I wonder if this question has something in common with questions about addiction and crime. Why do people reoffend after being punished? Why did the heroin addict go for a second hit even though his first try made him sick? I cant say ive thought this through enough, and your question helps me to start. But some things come to mind:
Firstly, fame promises admiration and idealisation, and like an addiction, early on it will deliver that for those who do become hooked (some dont). What it then delivers is much more complicated as you say. How do they tolerate the boos and the rejections at audition? I can think of four things can happen: A. I think narcissism develops various devices to devalue the criticism and rejections by rationalising or devaluing the person who criticised. B. They are genuinely knocked down by it and have to recover but are then drawn back by the same promise. C. They collapse completely and dont go back. Or D. They do something to compensate and regain stability - something more in their control - for example in the areas of drug use (see monroe, lennon) or sex (see brando, elvis, chaplin). Youre right that they can never control the whims of the industry and they will be confronted with what they wish to avoid. And so they may need strategies like drugs that can be obtained and controlled on demand. And we know how that often goes.
Also, as you say, the artist can never guarantee a standing ovation. But if the artist is desperate, they will do everything in their power to excel. As a child at least, they come to believe they can control it and in turn control their care givers (see michael jackson).
It maybe that it can happen, that performers can court shame and humiliation also. Id have to think more about that. Let me know if you have any other thoughts since the question came to mind.
High risk high reward! The highest rewards are found in the riskiest places.
Thanks Charlatan. Yes they are. But i guess that includes the casino. Some of the icons ive looked at died before they were 50. Some lived till they were old. And i think it depends what you call success.