Celebrity Fatigue or Failure?

Just asking. Which is it, after all? People tend to invest much in celebrities, raising them in their estimation above the common fray, inbuing them with sensitive emotions and sensibilities, nobleness of purpose and character. Unless they're simply superficially inclined and are easily spellbound by the glamour, notoriety, and physical beauty and talent of celebrities and don't much care if they have the same personality flaws as the rest of society - which they most certainly do, with rare exceptions.

Take Paul McCartney for example; Sir Paul that is. As an entertainer recognized by a number of generations of fans as being the ultimate performer, basking in the historical glow of his luminous portion of a fabled team, and risking no diminishment in his esteemed place in entertainment's Hall of Fame by making it on his own talents. So he's also a wife-beater. Under the influence, of course. Oops! he abuses drugs too? Is anyone surprised?

Take Stephen Hawking, another storied celebrity albeit in an altogether other sphere of achievement and entitlement. A celebrated mind of great genius, author of a cerebrally-difficult, theory-elevated book that no one quite seems to understand but no one doubts its authentic genius of perception. Hey, that's fairly scandalous behaviour for a man whose physical limitations are such that he requires 24-hour-a-day nursing. Seems he's working on affair #3.

And then there's Bono, the favoured celebrity of politicians and heads of state because association with his Book of Good Works appears to illuminate the status of the particular head of state he's haranguing at the moment. Figure that one out. Bono, whose charitable thrust is to become the saviour of the emerging economies around the world, the starving masses, through his star-sprinkled efforts to persuade governments to up their ante on the charitable portions they assign to their national economies. Bono and U2 have removed their enterprise from Ireland in favour of a substantially lower tax levy elsewhere. Effectively withholding tax dollars from the very country whose charitable bounty he exhorts be increased for aid abroad. Hmmm...

But then, boys and girls, famous personalities, celebrities over whom everyone wants to swoon, are not like you or I. They have no shame. Public disfavour? Doesn't last. There's no real interest in pursuing the alter-image of a shining personality to reveal a cramped little soul looking for even more fame and adulation, and in the process shamelessly manipulating their adoring public and governments alike at will.

Ah, but there's Madonna, she who excels at shock and awe and - how her bold and ruthless entertainment psyche elevates her well above the norm even among celebrities. Audicity rules, it pays off big time. One becomes a law unto oneself. Starting with her appropriation of a name heavily invested in a different kind of awe, she manoeuvered herself flawlessly into a position of entertainment eminence and unrivalled celebrity.

But look here, even her fans are in doubt about her most recent exploit. Yes, she has given generously of a small-change portion of her enormous fortune to establish orphanages in Malawi, and that's certainly a good thing. People with colossal fortunes earned through public enthusiasm of mass entertainment can certainly afford a little pay-back where it's most needed. Ah, but selecting an infant from Malawi which exercises strict control over out-of-country adoptions just isn't on, it seems.

Well, why not? The child's mother is dead, it's father is grateful for the opportunity for his son to be raised in a manner he's clearly unable to provide. The government of Malawi in recognition of the assistance to needy Malawian children Madonna's largesse has provided is willing to overlook its own laws. Oh yes, no one should be above the law, and there is an element of hypocrisy here, but isn't that the way of the world?

This item is not really one we need be so exercised over.