the Star
Daily life is harsh, and most of us
constantly seek escape from it in fantasies and dreams.
Stars feed on this weakness; standing out from others
through a distinctive and appealing style, they make us want
to watch them. At the same time, they are vague and
ethereal, keeping their distance, and letting us imagine
more than is there. Their dreamlike quality works on our
unconscious; we are not even aware how much we imitate them.
Learn to become an object of fascination by projecting
the glittering but elusive presence of the Star.
The Fetishistic Star
One day in 1922, in Berlin, Germany, a
casting call went out for the part of a voluptuous young woman in a
film called Tragedy of Love. Of the hundreds of struggling
young actresses who showed up, most would do anything to get the
casting director’s attention, including exposing themselves. There
was one young woman in the line, however, who was simply dressed,
and performed none of the other girls’ desperate antics. Yet she
stood out anyway.
The girl carried a puppy on a leash, and had draped
an elegant necklace around the puppy’s neck. The casting director
noticed her immediately. He watched her as she stood in line,
calmly holding the dog in her arms and keeping to herself. When she
smoked a cigarette, her gestures were slow and suggestive. He was
fascinated by her legs and face, the sinuous way she moved, the
hint of coldness in her eyes. By the time she had come to the
front, he had already cast her. Her name was Marlene
Dietrich.
By 1929, when the Austrian-American director Josef
von Sternberg arrived in Berlin to begin work on the film The
Blue Angel, the twenty-seven-year-old Dietrich was well known
in the Berlin film and theater world. The Blue Angel was to
be about a woman called Lola-Lola who preys sadistically on men,
and all of Berlin’s best actresses wanted the part—except,
apparently, Dietrich, who made it known that she thought the role
demeaning; von Sternberg should choose from the other actresses he
had in mind. Shortly after arriving in Berlin, however, von
Sternberg attended a performance of a musical to watch a male actor
he was considering for The Blue Angel. The star of the
musical was Dietrich, and as soon as she came onstage, von
Sternberg found that he could not take his eyes off her. She stared
at him directly, insolently, like a man; and then there were those
legs, and the way she leaned provocatively against the wall. Von
Sternberg forgot about the actor he had come to see. He had found
his Lola-Lola.
Von Sternberg managed to convince Dietrich to take
the part, and immediately he went to work, molding her into the
Lola of his imagination. He changed her hair, drew a silver line
down her nose to make it seem thinner, taught her to look at the
camera with the insolence he had seen onstage. When filming began,
he created a lighting system just for her—a light that tracked her
wherever she went, and was strategically heightened by gauze and
smoke. Obsessed with his “creation.” he followed her everywhere. No
one else could go near her.
The cool, bright face which didn’t ask for
anything, which simply existed, waiting—it was an empty face, he
thought; a face that could change with any wind of expression. One
could dream into it anything. It was like a beautiful empty house
waiting for carpets and pictures. It had all possibilities—it could
become a palace or a brothel. It depended on the one who filled it.
How limited by comparison was all that was already completed and
labeled.
—ERICH MARIA REMARQUE, ON MARLENE DIETRICH,
ARCH OF TRIUMPH
—ANDRÉ MALRAUX, QUOTED IN EDGAR MORIN, THE
STARS, TRANSLATED BY RICHARD HOWARD
—OVID, METAMORPHOSES, TRANSLATED BY MARY
M. INNES
The Blue Angel was a huge success in
Germany. Audiences were fascinated with Dietrich: that cold, brutal
stare as she spread her legs over a stool, baring her underwear;
her effortless way of commanding attention on screen. Others
besides von Sternberg became obsessed with her. A man dying of
cancer, Count Sascha Kolowrat, had one last wish: to see Marlene’s
legs in person. Dietrich obliged, visiting him in the hospital and
lifting up her skirt; he sighed and said “Thank you. Now I can die
happy.” Soon Paramount Studios brought Dietrich to Hollywood, where
everyone was quickly talking about her. At a party, all eyes would
turn toward her when she came into the room. She would be escorted
by the most handsome men in Hollywood, and would be wearing an
outfit both beautiful and unusual—gold-lamé pajamas, a sailor suit
with a yachting cap. The next day the look would be copied by women
all over town; next it would spread to magazines, and a whole new
trend would start.
The real object of fascination, however, was
unquestionably Dietrich’s face. What had enthralled von Sternberg
was her blankness—with a simple lighting trick he could make that
face do whatever he wanted. Dietrich eventually stopped working
with von Sternberg, but never forgot what he had taught her. One
night in 1951, the director Fritz Lang, who was about to direct her
in the film Rancho Notorious, was driving past his office
when he saw a light flash in the window Fearing a burglary, he got
out of his car, crept up the stairs, and peeked through the crack
in the door: it was Dietrich taking pictures of herself in the
mirror, studying her face from every angle.
Marlene Dietrich had a distance from her own self:
she could study her face, her legs, her body, as if she were
someone else. This gave her the ability to mold her look,
transforming her appearance for effect. She could pose in just the
way that would most excite a man, her blankness letting him see her
according to his fantasy, whether of sadism, voluptuousness, or
danger. And every man who met her, or who watched her on screen,
fantasized endlessly about her. The effect worked on women as well;
in the words of one writer, she projected “sex without gender.” But
this self-distance gave her a certain coldness, whether on film or
in person. She was like a beautiful object, something to fetishize
and admire the way we admire a work of art.
The fetish is an object that commands an emotional
response and that makes us breathe life into it. Because it is an
object we can imagine whatever we want to about it. Most people are
too moody, complex, and reactive to let us see them as objects that
we can fetishize. The power of the Fetishistic Star comes from an
ability to become an object, and not just any object but an object
we fetishize, one that stimulates a variety of fantasies.
Fetishistic Stars are perfect, like the statue of a Greek god or
goddess. The effect is startling, and seductive. Its principal
requirement is self-distance. If you see yourself as an object,
then others will too. An ethereal, dreamlike air will heighten the
effect.
You are a blank screen. Float through life
noncommittally and people will want to seize you and consume you.
Of all the parts of your body that draw this fetishistic attention,
the strongest is the face; so learn to tune your face like an
instrument, making it radiate a fascinating vagueness for effect.
And since you will have to stand out from other Stars in the sky,
you will need to develop an attention-getting style. Dietrich was
the great practitioner of this art; her style was chic enough to
dazzle, weird enough to enthrall. Remember, your own image and
presence are materials you can control. The sense that you are
engaged in this kind of play will make people see you as superior
and worthy of imitation.
She had such natural poise . . . such an
economy of gesture, that she became as absorbing as a
Modigliani. . . . She had the one essential star quality:
she could be magnificent doing nothing.
—BERLIN ACTRESS LILI DARVAS ON MARLENE
DIETRICH
The Mythic Star
On July 2, 1960, a few weeks before that year’s
Democratic National Convention, former President Harry Truman
publicly stated that John F Kennedy—who had won enough delegates to
be chosen his party’s candidate for the presidency—was too young
and inexperienced for the job. Kennedy’s response was startling: he
called a press conference, to be televised live, and nationwide, on
July 4. The conference’s drama was heightened by the fact that he
was away on vacation, so that no one saw or heard from him until
the event itself. Then, at the appointed hour, Kennedy strode into
the conference room like a sheriff entering Dodge City. He began by
stating that he had run in all of the state primaries, at
considerable expense of money and effort, and had beaten his
opponents fairly and squarely. Who was Truman to circumvent the
democratic process? “This is a young country,” Kennedy went on, his
voice getting louder, “founded by young men . . . and still young
in heart. . . . The world is changing, the old ways will not do. .
. . It is time for a new generation of leadership to cope with new
problems and new opportunities.” Even Kennedy’s enemies agreed that
his speech that day was stirring. He turned Truman’s challenge
around: the issue was not his inexperience but the older
generation’s monopoly on power. His style was as eloquent as his
words, for his performance evoked films of the time—Alan Ladd in
Shane confronting the corrupt older ranchers, or James Dean
in Rebel Without a Cause. Kennedy even resembled Dean,
particularly in his air of cool detachment.
A few months later, now approved as the Democrats’
presidential candidate, Kennedy squared off against his Republican
opponent, Richard Nixon, in their first nationally televised
debate. Nixon was sharp; he knew the answers to the questions and
debated with aplomb, quoting statistics on the accomplishments of
the Eisenhower administration, in which he had served as
vice-president. But beneath the glare of the cameras, on black and
white television, he was a ghastly figure—his five o’clock shadow
covered up with powder, streaks of sweat on his brow and cheeks,
his face drooping with fatigue, his eyes shifting and blinking, his
body rigid. What was he so worried about? The contrast with Kennedy
was startling. If Nixon looked only at his opponent, Kennedy looked
out at the audience, making eye contact with his viewers,
addressing them in their living rooms as no politician had ever
done before. If Nixon talked data and niggling points of debate,
Kennedy spoke of freedom, of building a new society, of recapturing
America’s pioneer spirit. His manner was sincere and emphatic. His
words were not specific, but he made his listeners imagine a
wonderful future.
news. By this strategy he made the news like
dreams and like the movies—a realm in which images played out
scenarios that accorded with the viewer’s deepest yearnings. . . .
Never appearing in an actual film, but rather turning the
television apparatus into his screen, he became the greatest movie
star of the twentieth century.
—JOHN HELLMANN, THE KENNEDY OBSESSION:
THE AMERICAN MYTH OF JFK
—EDGAR MORIN, THE STARS, TRANSLATED BY
RICHARD HOWARD
The day after the debate, Kennedy’s poll numbers
soared miraculously, and wherever he went he was greeted by crowds
of young girls, screaming and jumping. His beautiful wife Jackie by
his side, he was a kind of democratic prince. Now his television
appearances were events. He was in due course elected president,
and his inaugural address, also broadcast on television, was
stirring. It was a cold and wintry day. In the background,
Eisenhower sat huddled in coat and scarf, looking old and beaten.
But Kennedy stood hatless and coatless to address the nation: “I do
not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other
people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion
which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who
serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the
world.”
Over the months to come Kennedy gave innumerable
live press conferences before the TV cameras, something no previous
president had dared. Facing the firing squad of lenses and
questions, he was unafraid, speaking coolly and slightly
ironically. What was going on behind those eyes, that smile? People
wanted to know more about him. The magazines teased its readers
with information—photographs of Kennedy with his wife and children,
or playing football on the White House lawn, interviews creating a
sense of him as a devoted family man, yet one who mingled as an
equal with glamorous stars. The images all melted together—the
space race, the Peace Corps, Kennedy facing up to the Soviets
during the Cuban missile crisis just as he had faced up to
Truman.
After Kennedy was assassinated, Jackie said in an
interview that before he went to bed, he would often play the
soundtracks to Broadway musicals, and his favorite of these was
Camelot, with its lines, “Don’t let it be forgot / that once
there was a spot / For one brief shining moment / That was known as
Camelot.” There would be great presidents again, Jackie said, but
never “another Camelot.” The name “Camelot” seemed to stick, making
Kennedy’s thousand days in office resonate as myth.
Kennedy’s seduction of the American public was
conscious and calculated. It was also more Hollywood than
Washington, which was not surprising: Kennedy’s father, Joseph, had
once been a movie producer, and Kennedy himself had spent time in
Hollywood, hobnobbing with actors and trying to figure out what
made them stars. He was particularly fascinated with Gary Cooper,
Montgomery Clift, and Cary Grant; he often called Grant for
advice.
Age: 22, Sex: female, Nationality:
British, Profession: medical student “[Deanna
Durbin] became my first and only screen idol.
I wanted to be as much like her as possible, both in
my manners and clothes, Whenever I was to get a new
dress, I would find from my collection a particularly
nice picture of Deanna and ask for a dress like she
was wearing. I did my hair as much like hers as I
could manage. If I found myself in any annoying or
aggravating situation... I found myself wondering
what Deanna would do and modified my own
reactions accordingly....” • Age: 26, Sex:
female, Nationality : British “I only fell in love
once with a movie actor. It was Conrad Veidt. His
magnetism and his personality got me. His voice and
gestures fascinated me. I hated him, feared him,
loved him. When he died it seemed to me that a vital
part of my imagination died too, and my world of
dreams was bare. ”
—J. P. MAYER, BRITISH CINEMAS AND
THEIR AUDIENCES
Hollywood had found ways to unite the entire
country around certain themes, or myths—often the great American
myth of the West. The great stars embodied mythic types: John Wayne
the patriarch, Clift the Promethean rebel, Jimmy Stewart the noble
hero, Marilyn Monroe the siren. These were not mere mortals but
gods and goddesses to be dreamed and fantasized about. All of
Kennedy’s actions were framed in the conventions of Hollywood. He
did not argue with his opponents, he confronted them dramatically.
He posed, and in visually fascinating ways—whether with his wife,
with his children, or alone onstage. He copied the facial
expressions, the presence, of a Dean or a Cooper. He did not
discuss policy details but waxed eloquent about grand mythic
themes, the kind that could unite a divided nation. And all this
was calculated for television, for Kennedy mostly existed as a
televised image. That image haunted our dreams. Well before his
assassination, Kennedy attracted fantasies of America’s lost
innocence with his call for a renaissance of the pioneer spirit, a
New Frontier.
Of all the character types, the Mythic Star is
perhaps the most powerful of all. People are divided by all kinds
of consciously recognized categories—race, gender, class, religion,
politics. It is impossible, then, to gain power on a grand scale,
or to win an election, by drawing on conscious awareness; an appeal
to any one group will only alienate another. Unconsciously,
however, there is much we share. All of us are mortal, all of us
know fear, all of us have been stamped with the imprint of parent
figures; and nothing conjures up this shared experience more than
myth. The patterns of myth, born out of warring feelings of
helplessness on the one hand and thirst for immortality on the
other, are deeply engraved in us all.
Mythic Stars are figures of myth come to life. To
appropriate their power, you must first study their physical
presence—how they adopt a distinctive style, are cool and visually
arresting. Then you must assume the pose of a mythic figure: the
rebel, the wise patriarch, the adventurer. (The pose of a Star who
has struck one of these mythic poses might do the trick.) Make
these connections vague; they should never be obvious to the
conscious mind. Your words and actions should invite interpretation
beyond their surface appearance; you should seem to be dealing not
with specific, nitty-gritty issues and details but with matters of
life and death, love and hate, authority and chaos. Your opponent,
similarly, should be framed not merely as an enemy for reasons of
ideology or competition but as a villain, a demon. People are
hopelessly susceptible to myth, so make yourself the hero of a
great drama. And keep your distance—let people identify with you
without being able to touch you. They can only watch and
dream.
The savage worships idols of wood and stone;
the civilized man, idols of flesh and blood.
—GEORGE BERNARD SHAW
—IBN HAZM, THE RING OF THE DOVE: A
TREATISE ON THE ART AND PRACTICE OF ARAB LOVE,
TRANSLATED BY A.J. ARBERRY
—JEAN BAUDRILLARD. SEDUCTION, TRANSLATED
BY BRIAN SINGER
—JACQUELINE KENNEDY, A WEEK AFTER JOHN KENNEDY’S
DEATH
Keys to the Character
Seduction is a form of persuasion that
seeks to bypass consciousness, stirring the unconscious mind
instead. The reason for this is simple: we are so surrounded by
stimuli that compete for our attention, bombarding us with obvious
messages, and by people who are overtly political and manipulative,
that we are rarely charmed or deceived by them. We have grown
increasingly cynical. Try to persuade a person by appealing to
their consciousness, by saying outright what you want, by showing
all your cards, and what hope do you have? You are just one more
irritation to be tuned out.
To avoid this fate you must learn the art of
insinuation, of reaching the unconscious. The most eloquent
expression of the unconscious is the dream, which is intricately
connected to myth; waking from a dream, we are often haunted by its
images and ambiguous messages. Dreams obsess us because they mix
the real and the unreal. They are filled with real characters, and
often deal with real situations, yet they are delightfully
irrational, pushing realities to the extremes of delirium. If
everything in a dream were realistic, it would have no power over
us; if everything were unreal, we would feel less involved in its
pleasures and fears. Its fusion of the two is what makes it
haunting. This is what Freud called the “uncanny”: something that
seems simultaneously strange and familiar.
We sometimes experience the uncanny in waking
life—in a déjà vu, a miraculous coincidence, a weird event that
recalls a childhood experience. People can have a similar effect.
The gestures, the words, the very being of men like Kennedy or Andy
Warhol, for example, evoke both the real and the unreal: we may not
realize it (and how could we, really), but they are like dream
figures to us. They have qualities that anchor them in
reality—sincerity, playfulness, sensuality—but at the same time
their aloofness, their superiority, their almost surreal quality
makes them seem like something out of a movie.
These types have a haunting, obsessive effect on
people. Whether in public or in private, they seduce us, making us
want to possess them both physically and psychologically. But how
can we possess a person from a dream, or a movie star or political
star, or even one of those real-life fascinators, like a Warhol,
who may cross our path? Unable to have them, we become obsessed
with them—they haunt our thoughts, our dreams, our fantasies. We
imitate them unconsciously. The psychologist Sandor Ferenczi calls
this “introjection”: another person becomes part of our ego, we
internalize their character. That is the insidious seductive power
of a Star, a power you can appropriate by making yourself into a
cipher, a mix of the real and the unreal. Most people are
hopelessly banal; that is, far too real. What you need to do is
etherealize yourself. Your words and actions seem to come from your
unconscious—have a certain looseness to them. You hold yourself
back, occasionally revealing a trait that makes people wonder
whether they really know you.
The Star is a creation of modern cinema. That is no
surprise: film recreates the dream world. We watch a movie in the
dark, in a semisomnolent state. The images are real enough, and to
varying degrees depict realistic situations, but they are
projections, flickering lights, images—we know they are not real.
It as if we were watching someone else’s dream. It was the cinema,
not the theater, that created the Star.
On a theater stage, actors are far away, lost in
the crowd, too real in their bodily presence. What enabled film to
manufacture the Star was the close-up, which suddenly separates
actors from their contexts, filling your mind with their image. The
close-up seems to reveal something not so much about the character
they are playing but about themselves. We glimpse something of
Greta Garbo herself when we look so closely into her face. Never
forget this while fashioning yourself as a Star. First, you must
have such a large presence that you can fill your target’s mind the
way a close-up fills the screen. You must have a style or presence
that makes you stand out from everyone else. Be vague and
dreamlike, yet not distant or absent—you don’t want people to be
unable to focus on or remember you. They have to be seeing you in
their minds when you’re not there.
Second, cultivate a blank, mysterious face, the
center that radiates Starness. This allows people to read into you
whatever they want to, imagining they can see your character, even
your soul. Instead of signaling moods and emotions, instead of
emoting or overemoting, the Star draws in interpretations. That is
the obsessive power in the face of Garbo or Dietrich, or even of
Kennedy, who molded his expressions on James Dean’s.
A living thing is dynamic and changing while an
object or image is passive, but in its passivity it stimulates our
fantasies. A person can gain that power by becoming a kind of
object. The great eighteenth-century charlatan Count Saint-Germain
was in many ways a precursor of the Star. He would suddenly appear
in town, no one knew from where; he spoke many languages, but his
accent belonged to no single country. Nor was it clear how old he
was—not young, clearly, but his face had a healthy glow. The count
only went out at night. He always wore black, and also spectacular
jewels. Arriving at the court of Louis XV, he was an instant
sensation; he reeked wealth, but no one knew its source. He made
the king and Madame de Pompadour believe he had fantastic powers,
including even the ability to turn base matter into gold (the gift
of the Philosopher’s Stone), but he never made any great claims for
himself; it was all insinuation. He never said yes or no, only
perhaps. He would sit down for dinner but was never seen eating. He
once gave Madame de Pompadour a gift of candies in a box that
changed color and aspect depending on how she held it; this
entrancing object, she said, reminded her of the count himself.
Saint-Germain painted the strangest paintings anyone had ever
seen—the colors were so vibrant that when he painted jewels, people
thought they were real. Painters were desperate to know his secrets
but he never revealed them. He would leave town as he had entered,
suddenly and quietly. His greatest admirer was Casanova, who met
him and never forgot him. When he died, no one believed it; years,
decades, a century later, people were certain he was hiding
somewhere. A person with powers like his never dies.
If you want to know all about Andy
Warhol, just look at the surface of my paintings and
films and me, and there I am. There’s nothing behind
it.
—ANDY WARHOL, QUOTED IN STEPHEN KOCH,
STARGAZER: THE LIFE, WORLD & FILMS OF ANDY
WARHOL
The count had all the Star qualities. Everything
about him was ambiguous and open to interpretation. Colorful and
vibrant, he stood out from the crowd. People thought he was
immortal, just as a star seems neither to age nor to disappear. His
words were like his presence—fascinating, diverse, strange, their
meaning unclear. Such is the power you can command by transforming
yourself into a glittering object.
Andy Warhol too obsessed everyone who knew him. He
had a distinctive style—those silver wigs—and his face was blank
and mysterious. People never knew what he was thinking; like his
paintings, he was pure surface. In the quality of their presence
Warhol and Saint-Germain recall the great trompe l’oeil paintings
of the seventeenth century, or the prints of M. C.
Escher—fascinating mixtures of realism and impossibility, which
make people wonder if they are real or imaginary.
A Star must stand out, and this may involve a
certain dramatic flair, of the kind that Dietrich revealed in her
appearances at parties. Sometimes, though, a more haunting,
dreamlike effect can be created by subtle touches: the way you
smoke a cigarette, a vocal inflection, a way of walking. It is
often the little things that get under people’s skin, and make them
imitate you—the lock of hair over Veronica Lake’s right eye, Cary
Grant’s voice, Kennedy’s ironic smile. Although these nuances may
barely register to the conscious mind, subliminally they can be as
attractive as an object with a striking shape or odd color.
Unconsciously we are strangely drawn to things that have no meaning
beyond their fascinating appearance.
Stars make us want to know more about them. You
must learn to stir people’s curiosity by letting them glimpse
something in your private life, something that seems to reveal an
element of your personality. Let them fantasize and imagine. A
trait that often triggers this reaction is a hint of spirituality,
which can be devilishly seductive, like James Dean’s interest in
Eastern philosophy and the occult. Hints of goodness and
big-heartedness can have a similar effect. Stars are like the gods
on Mount Olympus, who live for love and play. The things you
love—people, hobbies, animals—reveal the kind of moral beauty that
people like to see in a Star. Exploit this desire by showing people
peeks of your private life, the causes you fight for, the person
you are in love with (for the moment).
Another way Stars seduce is by making us identify
with them, giving us a vicarious thrill. This was what Kennedy did
in his press conference about Truman: in positioning himself as a
young man wronged by an older man, evoking an archetypal
generational conflict, he made young people identify with him. (The
popularity in Hollywood movies of the figure of the disaffected,
wronged adolescent helped him here.) The key is to represent a
type, as Jimmy Stewart represented the quintessential
middle-American, Cary Grant the smooth aristocrat. People of your
type will gravitate to you, identify with you, share your joy or
pain. The attraction must be unconscious, conveyed not in your
words but in your pose, your attitude. Now more than ever, people
are insecure, and their identities are in flux. Help them fix on a
role to play in life and they will flock to identify with you.
Simply make your type dramatic, noticeable, and easy to imitate.
The power you have in influencing people’s sense of self in this
manner is insidious and profound.
Remember: everyone is a public performer. People
never know exactly what you think or feel; they judge you on your
appearance. You are an actor. And the most effective actors have an
inner distance: like Dietrich, they can mold their physical
presence as if they perceived it from the outside. This inner
distance fascinates us. Stars are playful about themselves, always
adjusting their image, adapting it to the times. Nothing is more
laughable than an image that was fashionable ten years ago but
isn’t any more. Stars must always renew their luster or face the
worst possible fate: oblivion.
Symbol: The Idol. A piece of
stone carved into the shape of a god, perhaps glittering
with gold and jewels. The eyes of the worshippers fill the
stone with life, imagining it to have real powers. Its shape
allows them to see what they want to see—a god—but it is
actually
just a piece of stone. The god lives in their imaginations.
just a piece of stone. The god lives in their imaginations.
Dangers
Stars create illusions that are pleasurable
to see. The danger is that people tire of them—the illusion no
longer fascinates—and turn to another Star. Let this happen and you
will find it very difficult to regain your place in the galaxy. You
must keep all eyes on you at any cost.
Do not worry about notoriety, or about slurs on
your image; we are remarkably forgiving of our Stars. After the
death of President Kennedy, all kinds of unpleasant truths came to
light about him—the endless affairs, the addiction to risk and
danger. None of this diminished his appeal, and in fact the public
still considers him one of America’s greatest presidents. Errol
Flynn faced many scandals, including a notorious rape case; they
only enhanced his rakish image. Once people have recognized a Star,
any kind of publicity, even bad, simply feeds the obsession. Of
course you can go too far: people like a Star to have a
transcendent beauty, and too much human frailty will eventually
disillusion them. But bad publicity is less of a danger than
disappearing for too long, or growing too distant. You cannot haunt
people’s dreams if they never see you. At the same time, you cannot
let the public get too familiar with you, or let your image become
predictable. People will turn against you in an instant if you
begin to bore them, for boredom is the ultimate social evil.
Perhaps the greatest danger Stars face is the
endless attention they elicit. Obsessive attention can become
disconcerting and worse. As any attractive woman can attest, it is
tiring to be gazed at all the time, and the effect can be
destructive, as is shown by the story of Marilyn Monroe. The
solution is to develop the kind of distance from yourself that
Dietrich had—take the attention and idolatry with a grain of salt,
and maintain a certain detachment from them. Approach your own
image playfully. Most important, never become obsessed with the
obsessive quality of people’s interest in you.