Why do celebrities past their peak so desperately cling to fame?
I wasn’t sure whether I should file this under ~movies, ~music, or ~society, so I put it here. Feel free to move it elsewhere.
I had a thought this morning: I’m confused about the attention-seeking behavior of famous and wealthy celebrities in the music or film industries, past their peak.
From my point of view, as someone who is neither famous nor wealthy, I think that if I ever reached that level, then I would be more than happy when people stop paying attention to me, and instead start swooning for newer, younger artists on their way to stardom.
It would signal to me that my time to be in the spotlight is over, that it’s my turn to pass on the torch, and that I can now ride into the sunset, content to potentially have several decades of time left for me to just enjoy a quiet, cozy life, making use of my money to amuse myself as well as to invest it in worthy causes, so that I not only leave behind a legacy of fame and wealth, but also improve the lives of other people.
Every famous and wealthy musician or actor could do this.
But so many of them don’t. They choose to, instead, do everything they can to stay in the limelight. They pull extreme stunts with which they harm themselves, which ironically, in many cases only end up embarrassing in the eyes of the world anyway. And they do all of this to retain the attention of people who have long forgotten about them.
What for? I don’t get it.
Is it really so that fame and wealth just corrupts a person to such an extent that they become addicted to being the center of attention?
This thought, by the way, came about because I’ve become aware of many such “extreme and dangerous attention-seeking stunts” from many celebrities in the last few weeks. It’s not about one celebrity in particular. It’s been a thought that has been brewing in my head for a while.
Attention-seeking is a bit like profiteering. How much is enough?
"Just a little bit more."
Indeed. In the past I've always wondered why people who lose fame tend to descend into drug abuse, but I now think it's because if you're that kind of person, losing fame means losing your very sense of being, like you've turned into a nobody and you can't emotionally deal with that.
It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing, though. From pressures at the peak of fame and exposure, a number of celebrities start abusing substances and then behave erratically. The erratic behavior becomes public and they get dropped from high-profile projects, leading to a decline in their fame. There are quite a few who bounce back, with more maturity and ability to cope.
Just a few days back I read an article on celebrities who purposely walked away from Hollywood. Frankly, I am not surprised by those that walk away just as much by those who cling to the very end.
Great example would be Rick Moranis.
Go watch The Wrestler by Darren Aronofsky. It's a perfect example of how this can happen and how it plays out.
Another great recent example is The Substance.
Love the Wrestler. That scene with him and Marisa Tomei's characters reminiscing about the 80s was a beautiful moment in a film that's otherwise pretty bleak.
I’m sort of obsessed with celebrity culture. This might be wrong but from my perspective there’s two different types of people that get famous. The first group are those that want to be famous. This isn’t just reality tv stars or influencers, but people who get into acting or music in order to achieve the fame they desire. This group usually has a hole in their heart that they try to fill with the attention they get once they become famous. Because this was their only goal, once their stardom starts dying out they don’t have anything else to fill in that gap. This would be the group depicted in films such as The Wrestler and The Substance which were pointed out here.
The second group are artists who just happened to become famous. Thespians who hit it big with certain film roles or musicians who were at the right place at the right time (think Nirvana for instance). I think these people truly just love the art and any attempts at staying relevant are them trying to fulfill their artistic desires (you can’t really keep going if you’re irrelevant). An example of this is Zoe Saldana, last year she had made a statement about being middle aged in Hollywood and how her roles are now being limited. And how she doesn’t really know who she is if she can’t act.
You are making an assumption here that they have a comfortable amount of money saved up - lots of people just aren't good at managing their money, and end up running out. I think this was more common a few decades ago (at least, I heard about it more often then), but time was we'd constantly hear about former celebrities going broke.
There's also an assumption that they want to retire. Even just in my regular jobs, I've met plenty of people for whom retirement is tantamount to death. If they're not working, they feel they have no purpose. And for career celebrities, being the center of attention may be their only "professional skill," so to speak. I'd venture, too, that this happens more often for celebrities than us regular folk because the majority of us are working with retirement as the end goal, while they tend to get relegated into retirement. Don't get me wrong, some celebrities choose to retire, but so many actors just age out of their wheelhouse and are unable/unwilling to adapt to new roles, musicians' styles fall out of fashion, etc.
Yeah celebrities tend to be bad at saving money, they like to live large. A recent example is Armie Hammer, who, despite starring in multiple high profile blockbusters, had to work selling Timeshares after he became persona non grata
True that.
I'll add another guess that hasn't been pointed out yet: addiction to the privilege surrounding fame.
I was watching Randy Feltface yesterday and at one point he said, privilege isn't how many opportunities you're given, but rather how few obstacles are in your way.
If you'd been famous, perhaps you'd become customary to how many obstacles in life simply disappears. Newest and greatest restaurant calls you to ask you to come to their new menu night; vacations are free and whatever time you want to come it's booked; hottest concerts and parties you're always included. Forget to do your taxes? Don't worry your team will fix it. What are groceries? Got pulled over? It's okay the officer just wants a selfie off you go. Don't stand in line ever. Events start when you sit down. Never feel alone at a party again, everyone wants you at the best table.
A lot of these are no longer available, or have a few more hurdles, when you're simply "rich" and no longer "famous". Bravo you can afford to pay for X, but so can 1000 others, get back in line.
And then factor in jealousy: the people you used to hang out with are now also in those special circles where you're no longer invited.
Bonus reason: you've been famous your whole life effortlessly, so you're simply doing your normal thing, but people keep saying you're appearing increasingly desperate. You don't feel desperate, you're applying your regular skill set. Because you actually haven't a clue how to do anything else.
There's surely a risk of confirmation bias here. The ones that retire quietly escape your notice and the ones clamouring for your attention get it. When Gene Hackman died recently most of us were shocked to learn that he hadn't been in a movie in over 20 years. We hadn't even noticed.
Many film stars become producers/directors and disappear behind the camera for decades. I believe this is what Mel Gibson did when his public image turned sour - he directed the Passion of the Christ and kept his face out of the news. Jessica Alba pivoted to running a business unrelated to the film industry and dropped off the Hollywood map.
Do they?
There are celebrities I wasn't aware of forgetting about until obituary stories about them appear in the news.
You do have a point, I think there's at least a little bit of selection bias involved in this post. Although (even as someone who doesn't really follow or care about celebrity culture) that's not to say that OP's observation is inherently inaccurate or anything.
Identity and self-worth are pretty central to an individual's happiness. When you've achieved a peak or success in anything, that can become an internal benchmark. Anything less feels like a loss.
Beyond celebrities, how many people peak in high school or college and relive that the rest of their lives. I know plenty of athletes in less glamorous sports who have hit their late 30's and decide to step away; even the most introspective struggle with a crisis of identity. Hell, I won a state championship around 15 and that lives in my head daily.
It would be helpful to get a definition on what and when exactly is a (1) "peak", what does it mean to be (2) "past their peak", and what constitutes (3) "clinging to fame". 1 and 2 are extremely subjective and 3 could easily be just career management. Staying in the spotlight is a good way to maintain their income.
Perhaps one or two examples could clarify the question.
What are some examples of this, where the “stunts” cause bodily or physical harm? I feel like much of this is just selection bias. Do you think about celebrities who go quietly into the night very often? Probably not, after all that’s what quiet means.
I think you hit the nail on the head here, but have a slight modification to add. The edit being they aren’t necessarily corrupted, though some certainly are.
I think these people are truly addicted to attention, which is not surprising. All humans crave attention to a certain degree. Tribalism and all that. Social creatures blah blah blah.
With addiction, I think people overlook how tolerance builds and how it’s very difficult to break this mindset.
Related to this mindset, breaking addiction to something without having a replacement or substitute behavior is really hard. It’s also hard to break addiction without addressing the root cause which we don’t know in the case of many celebrities.
If someone is addicted to attention, but not just attention, let’s say some of these people are addicted to receiving praise for being “innovators” or “creative” “disruptors” — there is no replacement for the reward they feel when those buttons are pushed.
No amount of chilling in the alps or eating at every Michelin star restaurant will scratch that itch.
Some incredibly wealthy/famous people find other purpose in philanthropy — or doing other things. But if your addiction is attention and praise that is solely focused on you you may not get your needs met by those endeavors.
Funny you ask this question, I had a similar one percolating. I am like you and I wish I’d see more torch passing or encouragement/emablement of the new blood. I think many of these people also feel entitled to sit on the throne for as long as possible because they “worked hard” to get there (yes they worked hard, but many are also nepo babies or otherwise had a leg up). Death of the ego is hard for these people.
Makes sense. Yes.
True. I didn’t think about this. They really would need to replace a lot of old habits with new, better ones.
Mortality, past experiences, wanting to hold onto relevancy, I'm not sure. I think it'll differ between persons.
Celebrities are products that exist in a marketplace. But they're also people. A lot of celebrities intertwine who they are and the product that is crafted around them.
So I think for them it becomes less about their self aging naturally and more about the product aging. Consumers of celebrity generally don't want the product to change; change is risky. Aging is change.
I would imagine that money is a big portion of it. Being famous means getting jobs.
That being said, not everyone is like this. Richard Kind is well known for enjoying that he is not well recognized so he can enjoy his career without being bothered everywhere he goes.
Joke’s on him though. I love the guy and would definitely gawk if I saw him.