I tried to avoid the coverage of the recent celebrity deaths, one in particular (hint: he did the moonwalk).  Try as I might, the media over-saturation leaked through every time I tried to visit a website or check the news.  Still, between thumping my head against the wall, I had time to think about the way that our culture mourns the death of the famous.

Image Credit: Sjors Provoost

Life

During life, pretty much everyone and everything is fair game.  You can say whatever you want about a person.  People are allowed to have a variety of opinions.  For example, before his death, it was certainly okay to discuss Michael Jackson in the context of pedophilia, mental disease, and just plain looniness.  You didn’t have to like his music, or care that he existed.  If you built a shrine to him in your front yard, you might be considered a bit of a loon yourself.

On the other hand, you were more or less equally free to like and defend him.  Many people came to watch his trial and show their support.  Many people continued to love his music.

In another example, most people would consider Richard Nixon one of the worst presidents in history (behind Andrew Jackson, of course).  While he was alive, you were free to say this, and people in the media did.  You could call Robert McNamara the architect of the tragedy in Vietnam, and blame him for thousands of deaths.

But everything changes when somebody dies.

Death

For some reason, when someone famous dies in our culture, they must be eulogized.  Any indication or intimation that the deceased was not an exemplary person is not tolerated.  Although the period of time is different for each person (and changes with the news cycle), it seems that the weeks immediately following someone’s death are a time of hagiography, when their life is rewritten to show only their virtues.

When Michael Jackson died, there were shrines built on the sidewalk.  Everyone wailed and gnashed their teeth, even though Thriller was 25 years ago.  No media outlet dared to comment upon his various troubles (I even avoided mentioning them just now).  He became Saint Michael, his flaming sword replaced with a sequined glove.

Even when Richard Nixon died, there was an attempt to rehabilitate his image.  I saw a rerun of a Larry King interview that focused almost entirely on his opening of China in 1972.  The NY Times ran several articles that talked of Robert McNamara’s incredible compassion (in his defense, he did markedly increase aid to Third World countries during his tenure at the World Bank- there were still a lot of dead people in Vietnam).

Instead of progressing through the five stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depression or sadness, and acceptance) our culture seems to skip directly to sadness and stay there.  We (or at least the media) then expresses this sadness in the most maudlin and lugubrious ways that they can imagine.  Just when you think it will end, someone will discover a new angle (what about the children?) and focus on that until every conceivable soft-focus piece and on-site report have been exhaustively filed.

Why do we do this?  It seems that we have the rule exactly backwards.  It makes no sense to say nice things about people after they’re dead.  After all, they’re dead, and they can’t hear you.  Any insult you give will fall on deaf ears.  Any appreciation or respect, which may have lifted their day or put a smile on their face, is now wasted.  There are only a few instances (Johnny Cash and Richard Pryor come to mind) I can think of when celebrities were given a tribute before they died (and of course again after, because the news can’t resist the ratings pull of manufactured grief).  Both involved long, obviously terminal illnesses.

After the News Cycle

Once a sufficient amount of time has passed, then profiteers set their sites on attacking a person’s legacy.  Even as everyone is smiling and saying wonderful things about the deceased, you can bet there is a tell-all book and movie in the works that reveals new and shocking new truths about the person’s life.  The movie Frost/Nixon and the recent release of the White House tapes have re-villainized Nixon (he didn’t need much help).  I am willing to bet almost any portion of money that there are Michael Jackson books and movies in the works.

Everyone the celebrity ever talked with, worked with or slept with will be tracked down to fill in the salacious details that will once again provide grist for the news/entertainment mill.

Again, this seems like something we do backwards.  The goal should be to have an accurate portrayal of the person both while they are alive and after they die.  People in the public eye are rarely one-dimensional caricatures that can be easily categorized as hero or villain.  They are complex, and have both good and bad qualities that should be taken into account when evaluating their life.

The Money

A cynical person (and I am one) would say that the entire public grieving cycle is driven not by concern for the person, but by money.  There are too many celebrities to worry about while they’re alive.  Once they are dead, the news has one cycle of soft-focus grieving, with tribute shows and tearful interviews.  Not long after, boxed sets of music or movies appear, along with commemorative items.  The money rolls in.

Then, once the positive angle is played out, the movies and exposés appear.  This gives the industry another chance to capitalize on celebrity death, but selling a whole new gamut of products focused on the negative.  More money rolls in.

None of this would happen if we kept a balanced perspective on a person’s life, both while they were alive and after their death.  But there is no profit in moving quickly to acceptance.

Instead, the grief cycle must be kept going as long as possible.  By the time the money stops, there should be another corpse to cash in on.