The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Double Fake
Would you sincerely like to be famous?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Donald Trump was the real star, and everyone wanted selfies with him.

Last night, in a break with usual stay-at-home custom, I went from my monastic cell out into the glittering evening parade of London’s West End. All the world is there, plus food and entertainment.

Leicester Square Theatre is not, as the name proudly suggests, on Leicester Square, (therefore fake) but on a side alley, in the best tradition of the off-beat lanes and pathways of theatricality, as befits the scruffy comradeship of the precarious acting profession. The bar was full of supposedly famous people, the talk spontaneous and embracing, immediate friends together at first sight. Several people in the small bar looked like someone else. Apparently, with sufficient work, I would resemble someone, but since I did not know the named actor the point was lost on me. The crowd outside was judged too big to be allowed into the crowded room, and were let in as space became available. First night drama.

The show (first night of a three-day run) started late, perhaps because it was still being put together. It began with Alison Jackson impersonators, each of which came out with striking blond hair, glamourous black-clad and booted long legs and lithe bodies to announce that they were Alison Jackson. Point taken. We can have personal identities yet be one of a type. Few of us outstandingly unique. The glamourous have imitators. The beautiful lead fashions. Nobodies want to rise to Somebodies. Who wouldn’t want to be famous? Who is real any more?

The real Alison Jackson, if that is who she eventually was, gave an illustrated and animated lecture about celebrity and fame, the main thesis being that Art had outfaked Life, and it was impossible to know what was fake or real any more. Fake news, fake facts, and fake people.

Her artistic history was based on a simple, fundamental cultural event: the mass mourning of Princess Diana by millions who never knew her, but who recognized her image. That image was the message, and the tears fell. Mine too. Of course, her image was carefully tended, and her clothes even more so. She was the People’s Princess, in a phrase provided by Alistair Campbell for Tony Blair.

Days after her death, interviewed for television about this oceanic public grief for Diana, I explained how those who thought they knew her were not entirely wrong. See someone’s image often enough you get to know them. Face recognition is powerful. TV shows you the living person, their expressions, momentary reactions, movements, mannerisms, tones of voice, and their major public life events. They become friends in a parallel life, a set of milestones against which other women’s lives can be compared: engagement, marriage, children, problems, separations, divorce, and what next?

While the camera crew wrapped up, the woman interviewer said that she still could not understand the grief, and did not feel it. I enquired of her, did she think that all the headlines about their royal romance should have been: Nanny makes good?

Jackman dares to create the pictures which support that sort of headline, merely on the basis that having had that thought, she realizes that others might have thought it, and believes that such an image should be created to challenge the prevailing images. In the jargon, Jackson de-constructed the images of Diana, and got hated for it. It there a reality? I believe there is, despite manipulations, and even in the anything-goes milieu of celebrity.

In face to face in conversation (reported by a person of my esteem) Diana was lovely, smart, kind, and at home with other mothers and children. No fool. Calm and friendly. Of course, she also had her private life with lovers and admirers. The book on her private life came out the next day after her public engagement, but despite her part in it she gave no hint that it was coming.

Diana’s death launched Alison Jackson on a 20 year examination of our fascination with celebrity and the images that fan the flames of adulation. Jackson shows celebrity’s imagined private lives, always as shabby as one would suspect them to be, often grossly so. She is understandably drawn to fame, and the Royal Family (“the firm”) in particular. Royalty is a brand which goes back a long time. Her pictures of the Royals home life are designed to take them down a peg or three.

Do we really want to know that they are like us? Apparently so. Royalty’s crime is to beguile us with their poses, and Jackson’s pics reveal the Royals know exactly what tricks they are up to when they claim to be King and Queen, and many believe them.

Jackson searches for look-alikes, often taking years to find the right one. The three-night theatre show was partly a set of auditions. We helped with our applause to choose the contestants worthy of getting a make-over, and they were filmed backstage in the process of celebrity transformation. Then they came out, looking vaguely right, and Jackson shot multiple photos as they enacted tableaux. On the screen many of the shots were great, just right, and very passable imitations.

On stage they were more clearly look-alikes. Photography, she has said, is ‘a slimy deceitful medium’, which ‘tells only a partial truth’. She publishes one in a thousand of the shots she takes. Interesting to find out whether the original image-makers also pick so few of the many pictures they shoot. Probably so.

Her approach is in the tradition of Hogarth, with added bile. Vulgarity rules, and also degrades the status of the pretentious. Satire is a political weapon and Alison Jackson is the Queen of sedition.

As proof of the refined nature of the audience, impressionist and comedian Rory Bremner was asked up from his seat to comment on celebrity, and he gave us an auditory play within Jackson’s larger visual play. His apparently effortless mimicry made his unseen characters parade before us, the voices mocking one fallible politician after another. He explained that in his youth celebrities like Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton seemed at a great distance from ordinary mortals. They truly were the gods, never to be met in real life. Now celebrity has become commonplace, and images are cheap and ubiquitous, yet there is still a pecking order, and power still commands a following. His account of being in character in public places (after hours of makeup) as politicians he disliked was that he feared assault even as he concentrated on imitating them correctly. We certainly got our money’s worth last night.

Of course, celebrity is nothing new. The heroes of sagas had their fan clubs. Gilgamesh, Achilles, Hector, and then a very long list, including Napoleon, Frederick the Great, and then a great debate about whether the great make any difference. As to celebrity for lesser acts, a case can be made for Rudolph Valentino being the first modern day celebrity, his fame promulgated by the movie industry, who then made celebrity a marketable commodity.

Perhaps most celebrities have very good reason to be celebrated. They are more noteworthy than most citizens because of their talents as writers, directors, actors, singers, entertainers and even sometimes as scientists. Feynman was a celebrity, though his calling was hardly a mainstream interest. Sure, some will be celebrated simply for being celebrated, but who would turn down a stadium full of admirers simply because one had the skill to be admired for one’s self alone? Being noticed is difficult. Getting admired is no easy task. Try it in class.

The show was good, funny and illuminating. Photos distort and also reveal. They can capture a truth and expedite a lie. Social policy can turn on a sharp image. The photo can be a true event cast in a false light to draw a tear and perpetrate an injustice. Jackson let us see her faking at close quarters. It was not quite enough to make us deny our own identities, but it made us question the basis of our adulation. Celebrities come to us already faked by their publicity teams. Mostly, we are admiring confections. In that sense, celebrity culture is pornographic. Not even the famous have a perfect life, who are depicted in continuous enjoyment as porn stars are in perpetual sex. Deflating illusions about other people’s lives is usually a moral campaign, and warnings usually don’t work. The injunction not to look at gossip magazines is as counter-productive as advising against pornography: the moral warning serves to signal something interesting prohibited. Pictorial satire, on the other hand, has its effect by saying: “look closely, the famous want you to think them famous but they are in fact pretty ordinary, and even crass behind closed doors”. Fake lives, fake sex, and don’t bother to envy either of those imposters.

I walked out of the theatre determined not to take a selfie with any of her characters. Surely I could observe and understand the cult of celebrity without succumbing to it myself? More deeply, to take a selfie is to bask in reflected glory, or to have friends who doubt your word when you say you have met a celebrity. The photo is proof of a mystical connection, like the King’s Touch, supposedly able to ward off scrofula. A Nobody meets a Somebody, and if the photo comes out well, both gain. By the mere process of association, the Nobody inches painfully and minutely upwards in limited popular esteem: the Somebody gains yet another follower to burnish their renown.

Outside in the foyer the buzz was to get a selfie with Trump. No contest. He looked a good match with the original, and the name is well known, to say the least. The selfie would need no explanation. I saw one person ask Rory Bremner to be photographed with them. I simply point out that he is a real person with a real talent.

As far as I could see, few asked to have a selfie with Alison Jackson. Wish I had done that.

 
• Category: Culture/Society • Tags: Celebrity, Donald Trump 
Hide 12 CommentsLeave a Comment
12 Comments to "Double Fake"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. dearieme says:

    The camera ever lies.

    Many decades ago there was a famous leader of a Dance Band, Henry Hall, who bore a resemblance to my father. When my parents were on holiday in a city where Mr Hall was appearing, they found that little knots of people on the other side of the road would wave and cheer “Good old Henry”. My father would gravely raise his hat and wave it shyly back. This would elicit further cheers.

    That’s another of my very tenuous connections with the famous: I’ll shut up before I reach my Alma Mahler story.

    • Replies: @Graham
  2. Cortes says:

    “Mr Bean!” shrieked my wife’s youngest niece (4) when I (circa 40) met her for the first time. Over the more than twenty years since then, the child’s perception has been validated by numerous people. Adieu French movie idol Gerard Philippe – a nutty Polish woman when I was 21. Farewell Jeff Goldblum – a delectable blonde colleague in Edinburgh in my early 30s.

    Bean it is.

    Bastard!

  3. Alison Jackson: “Photography (…) is ‘a slimy deceitful medium’, which ‘tells only a partial truth’.” James Thompson: “She publishes one in a thousand of the shots she takes.”

    It’s interesting, that people tend to think otherwise. This and this was so and so – see: Here is my selfie to prove it. – That’s how that works usually, that’s how it usually is, for most of us, in almost all circumstances.

    2) You have to be experienced to understand the deceitful side of a medium. – How it differs from our perceptions and recollections.

    a) To end way up in my artsy heavens: A painting, that looks exactly like the real world is no interesting painting at all. Caspar David Friedrich said that.

    b) A virtuoso of language-philosophy like Jürgen Habermas thus comes to the following conclusion: In the end, we (philosophers of language and thought) agree, that language and reality are so closely knit together, that it is useless (and / or impossible) to try to come to a definitive result by methodically disentangling them. – There just does not exist a formal solution for this type of problems – only practical ones. And practical solutions in these cases depend on experience, most of all.

    So yes – this last sentence of yours could be quite right: “As far as I could see, few asked to have a selfie with Alison Jackson. Wish I had done that.”

  4. Jamie_NYC says:

    What is this trash? Has your account at unz.com been hacked, perhaps?

    • Agree: Realist
  5. Graham says:
    @dearieme

    That reminds me of my brief career as a Bollywood star while on holiday in India many years ago. I didn’t have to do any acting, and everybody wanted to be photographed with me. My protestations were in vain. It turned out that I was the double of an Englishman who played an officer in scarlet regimentals at the Maharaja’s ball, etc.

    • Replies: @Cortes
  6. Making fun of famous or successful people is easy when you are envious of them. In the “Is the glass half empty or half full” scenario, people like Jackson see their own glass completely empty.

    Politicians in particular are easy targets, because they are constantly being hypocritical. Of course, the last POTUS would never be made fun of, because he was’t a politician rather a god, or at least kangs an shee-it.
    Royalty is a different matter. Until the current UK Monarch, Royalty preferred to be invisible. It was the media that demanded they appear more in public so as not to be aloof. It is the media that created the Diana cult, and the media that vilified the Queen and Charles, knowing full well they would never respond. The masses simply followed. Other countries have their Royal families, but they are never under the level scrutiny faced by those in the UK.
    Congratulating yourself for

  7. Cortes says:
    @Graham

    Superb!

    “Major General Flashman, I presume.”

  8. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    Marilyn Monroe has been dead 57 years and yet there are still people who think they know her intimately and love her despite their having been born decades after she died. John Wayne still resonates with a lot of people in a similar fashion. Their images will live forever-probably longer than the current stars whose image are stored only digitally, in ten thousand years archaeologists might find a buried Technicolor or Kodachrome print of one of their films and be able to painstakingly “read” it, whereas the digital media of today all have a very short (in historical terms) shelf life, even if the equipment to read them still exists and works.

    I know of a case where 5000 man-hours of work on an aircraft design were lost because they were all on a proprietary tape cartridge of which no surviving machine exists that can read them. All the rubber wheels and belts turned to goo in the few surviving machines, and the quote to make new ones was in the $100K range. Recovery services could read the tapes manually and encode them but the bill would be similar for the volume involved. The engineer involved died circa 2000 and no one alive knows exactly what’s on them, he worked on several projects, some of which could have value today and some worthless. The company burned the tapes and took a tax loss.

    People “know” famous people from their movies, still photos, music, spoken dialogue and from interviews and biographies, and often come to feel they know them better than the real people in their own lives. This makes owning the properties of the work of these people very powerful. Elvis worship in the South was, and is, no joke.

    Yet, Elvis’ heirs were (might still be) Scientologists and Elvis’ postmortem income went in large part to the Church, an organization created by one L.Ron Hubbard, who called Jesus Christ a child molester and bastard. Elvis-who wore both a cross and a Star of David on the grounds he didn’t want to be kept out of heaven on a technicality-would likely have been in great opposition to giving Scientology a cent.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  9. Sparkon says:

    Jackson (not Jackman) gets good results that depend on good actors with reasonable likeness of celebrities, but the process is labor-intensive. Now there’s a type of CGI using face morphing technology to create what are called “deepfake” videos where the faces of famous people can be superimposed convincingly over faces of porn stars doing naughty things.

    Hollywood has had the technology for at least a few years where it is possible to animate famous actors of the past using a digital double.

    The new “Star Wars” movie, “Rogue One,” was a big hit at the box office. Exciting story, thrilling effects, and gifted actors — including one who’s been dead for over 20 years.

    […]

    But here’s the thing: It’s fine to create virtual clones of people as long as everybody knows it’s for entertainment purposes. But how long will it be before someone tries to pass it off as reality?

    Pogue said, “Let’s say I decide to make a presidential candidate do something heinous and I release that as news. Is that plausible?”

    […]

    “I can create a virtual version of somebody who can walk and talk and say things that they never actually did,” he said. “And that’s a power that’s never existed ever in the history of humans.”

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/digital-doubles-bringing-actors-back-to-life/

    Let the viewer beware.

  10. anonymous[324] • Disclaimer says:

    wwebd said – I am pretty good at guessing who looks like who and my best guess is that you were probably told you looked like Iain Glen – a name you would not have easily registered because the last name sounded like a first name and you were waiting for more info before zeroing in on what you heard – or a guy called Charles Dance, again a name you might have missed because you were not sure if people were asking you about dancing. Also, neither are very famous, so they would not be names you immediately recognized. I could of course be wrong, just trying to be helpful.

    Language is funny that way.

    I used to imagine that if I had famous friends I would therefore have friends who were intelligent and funny – but while I have had some nice conversations with several people with long wikipedia articles about them – include one now-mostly-forgotten mostly prose writer for the old New Yorker magazine, and a very renowned US Army 4 star general, and several people with very recognizable names in American politics – none of them seemed all that much more interesting than my non-famous friends, at least past the age of 25, with the exception of the general (but we only talked about technical things – troop morale and billeting issues – if we had talked about, say, Dostoevsky or Beiderbecke or hunting or golf or women I might have been less impressed).

  11. @Anonymous

    The Smithsonian keeps two reel to reel digital tape recorders that are used to read old US census tapes from the 1960’s. Old Ampex machines are still around for audio and video but running them has to be justified.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS