Minus fame

Even 30 years ago, nationwide fame was synonymous with nationwide love. Artists, athletes, cosmonauts … Even the negative characters (comrade Saakhov, Coward, Dunce and Experienced, Khmyr and Oblique, Wolf) were loved. The mechanism for linking fame with pleasure seemed so rigid and simple that it never occurred to me that it could be otherwise. If an artist is liked, if they go to see him, he is both known and loved. What can a football player be famous for, if not a brilliant game of football? Why then not enjoy this game and feel gratitude for this pleasure?

Let us also note – where it was about art, for example, cinema – that people’s love did not imply lowering the bar, conscious adaptation to mass tastes. “White Sun of the Desert”, “Kalina Krasnaya”, “Prisoner of the Caucasus”, “Diamond Hand”, “Gentlemen of Fortune”, “Mimino” – you must admit, these are brilliant films for the most picky taste, and at the same time, the leaders of the box office. Nikulin, Leonov, Mironov, Papanov – the very best folk artists and at the same time artists of the highest standard; somehow there was no conflict of interest.

Today we have a clip of about 1000 recognizable faces of the so-called media people. Their participation in anything obviously increases the rating of sites and TV shows. I think I won’t be mistaken if I call irritation the dominant emotion from seeing another such person as an ordinary person. Stas Mikhailov, Zhanna Friske, Zhirinovsky, Mitrofanov, Sobchak, Chubais, Bezrukov, Lera Kudryavtseva, Garik Kharlamov, Anfisa Chekhova, Baskov, Volochkova, etc. are associated with approximately such phrases: again you and change the channel. We observe the operation of a completely different mechanism, a little more complicated than the previous one: fame with a “minus” sign is rather a burden, a burden on money, on the opportunity to lead a life that is not completely free, but very well-fed.

Read more:

• Why do we love the stars?

Let’s try to understand this sad transformation.

There is a kind of light circle: the prime time of Channel One, Yandex tops, covers of glossy magazines. Whoever falls into this circle, we (the people) learn to know. The reason for getting hit is usually not related to the direct professional activities of the media person. For example, we are “interested” in his opinion about fashion, abandoned children, the same football, politics, cinema, etc. What did he do to break into this circle of light? Well, there is some invisible part of the answer that only unnecessarily excites our imagination, plus a certain twilight part that can be traced if desired. He led (option – participated) very second-rate programs beyond the bounds of vulgarity and on the verge of criminal liability on marginal channels. He represented a toy opposition in our long-suffering Duma. Played a bandit / cop in endlessly renewable series.

The profession of an actor is so connected with the concept of fame and success that I would like to understand it in more detail.

There are two stable phrases: to play a role and to act in films. To act in films (usually in the role of oneself) can just be a famous person, not an actor. Sometimes this is justified by the intention of the film. For example, in one of Solovyov’s films we see Okudzhava (in the “role” of Okudzhava) talking about Pushkin with Mikhail Kozakov (in the “role”, of course, of Mikhail Kozakov – otherwise the stylistic fabric would be torn). Note that Kozakov, unlike Okudzhava, is a talented artist and is actually capable of reincarnation. But this figure of Kozakov in the role of Kozakov, in my opinion, is very important for understanding the phenomenon of our new “people’s” cinema.

There is a TV presenter (or, a little more broadly, a media person). Before becoming a media person, he could be an artist, politician, athlete, journalist, writer, KVN player or anyone else. Not the point. Now his face in front of the camera is worth so much money and makes so much money. The difference between these amounts encourages the producer to invite the media person not to play a role, namely to act in films, remaining fully recognizable. At the same time, the former actor is indistinguishable from the former athlete, their difference is leveled. More precisely, acting is simply not in demand in the design of the whole. Therefore, the game of Ivan Urgant is indistinguishable from the game of Nikolai Valuev. Both of them are cool in the frame – that’s all.

The producer of our new movie is thinking hard: to make it good and a little unprofitable, or to make it for the people and get a little rich. As already noted above, there was no producer yet, and the question did not arise. It is difficult to imagine Gaidai in front of the same stone during the period of reflection on the “Prisoner of the Caucasus”. Well, okay, the USSR is not an indicator: when everything is skewed, sometimes the impossible is possible. But “The Godfather” or “The Truman Show” in the normal film industry once again remove the false alternative “quality – nationality.” To be precise, nationality (rating, rental) is one of the varieties of quality. There are others (Tarkovsky, Sokurov), but now we are not talking about them.

Heavy reflections once again end with “Soviet masterpiece-2” or “Big rzhaka”. The people are perceived here as a bunch of lovers to see the buttocks and listen to vulgar jokes. This misconception about the people turns into unimpressive fees and the fact that, even after watching the film and getting some base pleasure, the viewer does not respect himself or the product in the end. Returning to our main topic – well, all these producers and managers, organizers of the process do not notice the notorious popular irritation? The answer lies on the surface: of course, they provoke and inflate it in every possible way. Mass love or mass discontent are equally converted into mass attention – and further into money. Therefore, it makes sense to brag about a mansion, a Cadillac, a fee, adultery, a drunken photo from a private party. Folk wisdom beats – it means that love turns into indignant – that means it pays.

The senselessness of this race becomes fully apparent at the moment of the physical death of the participant. Unfortunately, less painful insights are rare and not statistically noticeable. Well, for example, the show “Voice” on the First stirred up the swamp, because it was a qualitative phenomenon in the circle of light. But now we see how his heroes are basking in the same acidic environment as the rest, gradually swimming into the mainstream …