Take Miley Cyrus, Russell Brand, Lady Gaga and Robert Webb, put them all in one room together and observe.
Immediately you’d think you’d have provided Brand and Webb with enough material to last them a world tour. The total sexualisation of the crazy, bi-polar, ‘twerking’ sensations that are Gaga and Cyrus would be vented and satirised at the drop of the hat by any intelligent comedian.
But in all seriousness, these four characters have a lot more in common than we think. Brand and Webb make profit out of (pardon my French) not giving a flying Fuck about the impact of their impact. In fact, the more opinionated these comedians can be, the more attention they will probably get from the young sponges of Britain that soak up any eloquently put opinion and retweet it through support. (For example every member of OneDirection, followed by Ed Sheeran came up as the most influential celebrities on twitter, all before David Cameron. Click here to see more.)
Similarly, the craziness of the two women mentioned has sat them at the top of the charts, it probably wouldn’t be an absurd statement to suggest that without the psychotic sexually absurd music videos, and crazy ‘papped’ pictures, these girls would not be making the money they do. okay okay, Cyrus and Gaga are not an individual per say, they have an immense team of PR, managers, script writers that create this shocking persona. But, at the end of the day, they make money out of the publics desperation to follow something thats rebellious. Wether you love to ‘twerk’ or mock these money making booty shakers, I can guarantee their names will have been on your lips.
So are these great influential ‘stars’ a help or a hinderance upon society? Russell Brand has now stepped into the world of politics, writing for the NewStatesman. After an interview with Jeremy Paxman on news night, Brand urges people that a revolution is nigh, that the British public should not be voting. (To see Brand in action click here). Webb replied to Brand’s written editorial in the NewStatesman from a very saintly perspective, and it’s fair to say I think Webb’s liberal, take on Brand’s agendas is pretty spot on. (To read Webb’s input click here)
The truth is, these comedians as political spokesmen are dangerous to society. I am the young twitter obsessed generation, and to be honest with you, if Ricky Gervais told me to vote labour, I probably would be inclined to sway that way. Just like when Rihanna dyes her hair, so do hundreds of obsessed fans. Without any actual visual responsibility these celebrity characters can do what they want. David Cameron on the other hand, well he has responsibility. You might think that the first responsibility that falls under his job title is to be hated by anyone and everyone, but secondly he has a responsibility to better the nation. He cant say or do what he wants because he would get publicly annihilated. Imagine if David Cameron was a ‘twerker’? admittedly, the popularity of twerking would probably take a massive hit, but, I don’t think his Tory supporters would be ticking his box in the next election, wether his policies are good or not.
What I’m trying to say is, celebrities do not realise the impact they have on people, because they don’t really get any comeuppance. Miley Cyrus papped smoking a ‘naughty cigarette’ does not really show kids a role model that parents would appreciate. But, Miley Cyrus papped smoking a ‘naughty cigarette’ would in fact boost public attention, she would be in the limelight, which is right where she wants to be, popularity makes money.
Brand encouraging people not to vote for example, I’m not patronising my generation, but, a lot of people would not think any further into the debate, other than “Brand said don’t vote, I’m not going to.” I do have faith in my age group, but i don’t have faith in the vulnerability of us media obsessed zombies. we are too greatly influenced, and these comedians preaching a political agenda could be very dangerous.