I’ve got nothing against the incredibly wealthy elites who do the important work of providing the unwashed with our entertainment, but I was struck by a few passages in a piece in the February 2013 Vanity Fare. It’s on page 88 in their “Red Carpet Guide” section, a piece entitled “Where I Go” about the habits of award show-attending celebs.
For instance, Naomi Watts states, “Since I don’t live in L.A. anymore, I love it when I can just be in the house I still have there.” She doesn’t live in L.A. but she has a house there.
Jerry Weintraub can’t resist mentioning his 90-inch television.
Harry Weinstein states, (My wife) distrusts my fashion sense… Not only will she pick out my suit, but she will talk to the people who make the suit to ensure it looks a certain way." His wife talks to the suit people.
Anyway, lest we forget that the rich are different from you and I. Me anyway.
?? My wife “talks to the suit people” as well, because my fashion sense is non-existent. And to think, I have yet to produce a movie or buy a Golden Globe.
Why is this in any way remarkable? Lots of people who are wealthy enough to afford it have second homes (and sometimes third or fourth ones) in cities or other places that aren’t their primary places of residence. Naomi Watts is a well-known actor; it seems reasonable that LA would be a place it would be convenient for her to have a second home even if she doesn’t live there.
I’m not advocating fawning over celebrities just because they’re wealthy and famous, and I’ve never read Vanity Fair in my life, but come on. People being interviewed about their lifestyles are going to reveal some things about what their lifestyles are like. And if those people are wealthy celebrities, then their lifestyles are predictably going to include things like second homes and expensive high-end electronics and individually tailored suits.
I’m no wealthy celebrity, not by a long shot, but even I with my lower-middle-class income have had a couple of dresses individually made for me by a dressmaker. And I’m willing to bet that there are some non-wealthy non-celebrity Dopers who own 90" televisions (which I believe can be had for as little as $5K, not that I’d pay anywhere near that for a TV even if I owned a TV which I don’t, but it doesn’t sound like an insanely expensive purchase).
Sure, the rich are different than us. They have more money.
Other than that, I don’t see myself doing anything different than the examples you mentioned if I had the means. If I could afford to buy a new house without selling my old one, maybe I wouldn’t sell it. If I liked my 90" TV, then maybe I’d talk to people about it. And if I could afford to have my suits tailor-made, then I’d *definitely *take my wife. She has much better taste than I do.
Hell, we’re waaay lower middle class and have a 4’x7’ home theater screen to watch TV on if we choose. Plus a 2nd residence in another city because my husband travels back and forth for work. It’s an apartment, but still.
Why just pick on rich Hollywood types anyway? What about rich politicians? I’ll bet Mitt Romney has more than one home, a 90" TV in one or more of them, and tailored suits that Ann has some say in. Or is it not that the rich in general are different, but that lefty liberal Hollywood types are different?
Would you really? Seems to me that making a proud reference to one’s new toys isn’t specifically “rich” or “Hollywood-type” behavior.
Moreover, Vanity Fair wasn’t just making idle conversation with these celebrities to pass the time at the bus stop; they were interviewing them for a feature (yes, I finally went and found the article the OP was talking about) billed as “Six awards-season veterans share their insider itineraries for the big night”. So naturally, they want to hear some tidbits that sound glamorous and Hollywoody.
And saying that Weintraub “can’t stop talking about” his 90" television seems a bit unfair, when he mentioned it only once:
So Jerry Weintraub watches old movies in bed, and he likes to see them on a large screen. Those Hollywood-types, I tell you.
Anyway, from this feature I also learned that Kirk Douglas started allowing himself to wear sneakers with his awards-ceremony outfits when he turned 90, that Helena Bonham Carter likes to stay in room 1123 at the Four Seasons, and that Anjelica Huston turns to a “private army” to look her best, although I’m not really sure what that means. So there’s some ignorance fought, at any rate!
Whoops, misquoted, sorry! What you said was that he “can’t resist mentioning” it.
And would you think that there was something characteristically “rich” or “Hollywood-type” about that?
I think you’re conflating two related but separate phenomena here:
Rich people tend to have possessions and habits that are too expensive for most non-rich people to afford on a similar scale.
Hollywood celebrities being interviewed by gossip magazines for “insider details” on celebrity events tend to mention some details about their lifestyles.
Consequently, if the Hollywood celebrities are also rich (and let’s face it, damn few of them aren’t), then that means that their interview responses frequently indicate that their lifestyles are expensive.
I really don’t understand why you find any of this “striking”.
I’m certainly not rich, but I wash! If you want the full story of that “the rich are different from you and me” quotation, read it here. Typical Hemingway-esque embroidery of history. He certainly made more money from his writing than Fitzgerald ever did.
But thanks for letting me know the Hollywood issue of Vanity Fair is out. I’ll be sure to pick up a copy…
The problem with that argument is that (esp. during the election) the Usual Republican Voices were all about how cumzit that Democrats hate rich businessmen but don’t hate rich celebrities, sports stars, et al?
Amusingly, the other implication was that us working-class stiff were just deeply envious of the rich businessman and consequently hated him. I don’t know about you but if a genie offered me $100 million to either be a Hollywood celebrity or to be CEO of some giant investment firm, I’d take the one that gave me tickets to the Oscars and the chance to have Taylor Swift write an embittered song about me.
Lots of people like to talk about their new toys or things they have:
Had friends who bought a second car - an old Mercedes that eventually turned into a money pit - and whenever the two of them had a conversation, it went something like, “Did you drive the Mercedes here?” or “Don’t forget to take the Mercedes to the garage tomorrow.” As if this impressed my SO and I (both of us lived in Germany for a long, long time) but it seemed to make them feel “special”.
I heard lots of people stop talking about charging their phone or dropping their phone and suddenly they were charging their “iPhone” or they dropped their “iPhone” when they first came out - to make sure we all knew they had the all mighty “iPhone”!
And if you have ever had friends who took some grand trip, I am sure you will hear for years “…and when we were in Tuscany, we bought these great salad forks…” and “…that reminds me of when we were in Tuscany and…”
You don’t have to be a celebrity to brag about something you think is extra-special and mention it as often as you can.
Why is this in any way remarkable? Lots of people who are wealthy enough to afford it have second homes (and sometimes third or fourth ones) in cities or other places that aren’t their primary places of residence. Naomi Watts is a well-known actor; it seems reasonable that LA would be a place it would be convenient for her to have a second home even if she doesn’t live there.