On Nepotism, Fame, and Monica Lewinsky – KristenBellTattoos.com

Will it be a week in the news cycle without a celebrity being called out for saying something out of touch with reality? The latest celebrity to face backlash was Jennifer Aniston, who came under fire this week for recent “missing comments about Hollywood” and for being a child of nepotism. Before you burn your Friends DVD, that’s what happened.


Earlier this week, Jennifer Aniston and Sebastian Stan appeared in Diversityseries “Actor about Actor” in which they chatted on a variety of topics, including Friends, Pam and Tommyand how they got their start in Hollywood. At one point, they both discussed how the acting landscape has changed with the advent of social media. “I feel so lucky that we got a taste of the industry before it became what it is today, which is just different,” Aniston said. “More streaming services, more people – you’re famous for TikTok, you’re famous for Youtube, you’re famous for Instagram… it kind of dilutes the work of an actor.”

People on Twitter were quick to point out that both of Aniston’s parents were famous actors. They accused her of being a child of nepotism and trying to maintain fame. Not everyone agreed; some Twitter users claimed that Friends The actress was just pointing out how the industry has changed. But the focus on whether Aniston is being hypocritical misses out on some other dubious conclusions.

Just before this talk about who would become famous, Stan revealed how he himself was unaware of many of the details surrounding Lee and Anderson’s sex tape (mostly that it was stolen from the couple and that they were trying to prevent it). publication) until he played Lee for the limited series. He notes that a lot of people didn’t know it either: “What was amazing about this show was how many people didn’t really know that the tape was stolen, or they had nothing to do with it,” he says.

In the written transcript of the interview, which is on Diversity, Aniston is quoted as saying, “And that was just at the time when the internet was really shaping a new culture about how people become famous. This thing where people get famous for doing practically nothing. I mean Paris Hilton, Monica Lewinsky and everyone else.” Then Stan does (not quite right) comment on how this time period was also the start of a 24-hour news cycle.

( video from an interview posted on YouTube plays out a little differently: Aniston seems to remark, “The internet was just in its infancy, and it really created so much of a new culture, like people are known for basically doing nothing, but everything same having these incredible careers. And then female reputation—I mean Pam, Paris Hilton…” She trails off. Stan chimes in: “We’ve been in such aggressive seclusion ever since, and it’s gotten bigger and bigger.” written interview the above makes no mention of Stan’s comments about privacy.)

Whether this discrepancy in their quotes is due to video editing or a transcription error, the fact remains that lumping Paris Hilton and Pamela Anderson as two women “famous for being famous” is problematic for two reasons. First, Pamela Anderson was already a famous actress on Malibu safeguards by the time her sex tape was leaked. Hilton was a member of a prominent family and socialite, a concept that has been around for hundreds of years. Secondly, he ignores the role that the inconsistent release of their sex tape played in their fame and the fact that they did not want it. Hilton and Anderson did not take part in the release of their cassettes. Anderson was stolen from her garage; The Hilton case could be considered revenge porn if it happened today. “It was a personal experience between two people… to have your trust betrayed like this and to have the whole world watching and laughing,” Hilton said. Vanity Fairadding, “It hurt even more when these people thought I did it on purpose.”

Lewinsky’s inclusion seems like a particularly low blow. Although she was a private figure until the affair came to light, she was not known for being “famous”. She got into the public sphere for having an affair with one of the biggest power imbalances imaginable. The so-called “fame” she achieved came at the expense of her personal life and well-being; she was publicly ridiculed, not exactly glorified, as the word “famous” implies. Lewinsky wrote in Vanity Fair in 2014, when the affair broke, “I was possibly the most humiliated person in the world” and her mother feared she would “literally be humiliated to death.” The fact that she was able to subsequently build a career should be praised, not discounted.

To say that women like Lewinsky, Hilton and Anderson, all of whom have risen to prominence through public violence, are “known for being famous” is almost tantamount to blaming the victim. None of these women welcomed the attention their public infidelities attracted. None of them authorized their humiliation. It’s not Aniston’s fault that our culture writes off these women this way, but as a public figure who’s been treated badly by the media over the years, it’s disappointing that she adopted that dismissive tone. The acting world may have changed in ways she doesn’t realize, but it’s in no way like what happened to Anderson, Lewinsky and others – and Aniston should never have mentioned their names in a conversation in that light.

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: