January 22, 2007

DiCaprio speaks out over 'objectification'

An interesting one for the feminists (and others) to ponder…

Leonardo DiCaprio wanted to give up acting for a time after the hit movie “Titanic.” DiCaprio was back to being considered a “another piece of cute meat” after the 1997 film’s spectacular box office success, an image he had wanted to get away after his days on the cover of teen magazines, he told Newsweek for editions on newsstands Monday. “It was pretty disheartening to be objectified like that. I wanted to stop acting for a little bit,” he said at the magazine’s Oscar panel discussion with other actors. “It changed my life in a lot of ways, but at the same time, I can’t say that it didn’t give me opportunities. It made me, for the first time, in control of my career.” From AP

Meanwhile, I noticed today’s News of the World (yes, I’m very well read) had two ‘showbiz’ stories amounting to little more than “snapped” photos of topless celebrities on holiday. One of the two looked staged for sure, the other was harder to tell.

So in the week that the House of Celebrity nearly came crashing down around Jade Goody’s feet, is it time to ask how much of this shit we’re willing to take? The public – aided by the media – has become far too fickle and shallow. How many of the millions of people who saw Titanic will head to the cinemas to watch DiCaprio’s new flick Blood Diamond?

Isn’t it about time we put art back into mainstream culture?


- 5 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

  1. The public – aided by the media – has become far too fickle and shallow. How many of the millions of people who saw Titanic will head to the cinemas to watch DiCaprio’s new flick Blood Diamond?

    I think you’re oversimplifying things a bit Chris. When I went to watch Titanic at the cinema, I did so because I was guaranteed that whatever would happen I would, at the very least, have an enjoyable spectacle. Despite what’s been said about Titanic, I still think that it was a decent (if not great) film, and I’d happily watch it again. And it’s not because of Winslet’s Jubblies nor DiCaprio’s “cuteness”.

    I watched Blood Diamond as soon as it came out and it’s an OK film. I didn’t watch it because of DiCaprio. I thought before I watched it that I wouldn’t like it. It’d be a typical action film, with a typical plot, set in Africa. I watched it and it was OK. But I wouldn’t pay to see it in the cinema. It wasn’t a good enough film. It handled some interesting themes in a very poor manner. it was predictable. Sometimes boring. I don’t think it merits the “Millions who flocked to watch Titanic”.

    Isn’t it about time we put art back into mainstream culture?

    I find that very condescending, and more than a little bit misguided. What makes you think that Titanic was not an artistic film? Say what you will about the plot, it is undeniable that the director went to great lengths to bring to us the recreated splendour of the ship and gave us some wonderful scenes. And Blood Diamond is art? Which part of it is art? Leonardo’s somewhat decent South African accent? The terribly weak chemistry between DiCaprio’s Character and convenient plot device (sorry, read: Jennifer)?

    If you want to speak about Art, Apocalypto would have better suited your purposes. And it’s designed for the mainstream.

    22 Jan 2007, 07:22

  2. Maybe it wasn’t the best example then. I was trying to make more of a comparison between those who will see DiCaprio in a film because he’s had his top off in a magazine and those who will see it because the film’s good.

    22 Jan 2007, 09:20

  3. Oh but how will they know that the film is good before they see it? Surely being enticed by a good body to watch a good film is better than losing out on the good film? Means to an end my friend!

    22 Jan 2007, 11:07

  4. You count Apocalypto as art? I count as not much of a plot being used as an excuse to make a gory film. A man getting his face eaten off by a jaguar is not art.

    22 Jan 2007, 13:11

  5. You count Apocalypto as art? I count as not much of a plot being used as an excuse to make a gory film. A man getting his face eaten off by a jaguar is not art.

    Hey the plot may be conventional, but remind me of the last time you were able to catch a glipse of the splendour (and gore) of Mayan civilisation. I think Apocalypto was actually less gory than Braveheart. Heck, it was only slightly more gory than the Rome TV series. Yes, I found the film artistic.

    22 Jan 2007, 13:28


Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

Twitter Go to 'Twitter / chrisdoidge'

Tetbury Online

Most recent comments

  • To quote from PM Cameron's speech at Munich Security Conference on the failure of State Multicultura… by on this entry
  • Not sure whether their installation can do that (though I assume it will), but I personally have a D… by Pierre on this entry
  • Yup. The figure at the end I guess isn't so much a sign of falling standards, as failing policy. by on this entry
  • Didn't the compulsory GCSE in a language get ditched a few years back? by on this entry
  • Yeah, that was a Brown–like kiss of death. by on this entry

Search this blog

Blog archive

Loading…

Tags

January 2007

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Dec |  Today  | Feb
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31            
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXIX