MetaChat - Who (or what) do you know?

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

13 February 2007

Who (or what) do you know? Settle something for me, would you? Is it more important to know who an actor or other entertainment personality's familial relationships are or what films they've been involved in? →[More:]Like is it more important to you to know that Isabella Rossellini is the daughter of Ingrid Bergman or that she played a legless beer baron in The Saddest Music in the World?

post by: TrishaLynn at: 13:39 | 30 comments

In that case i have to go for Ingrid but that's a toughie.
In the case of, say, Laura Dern, i'd have to say just knowing David Lynch.

posted by ethylene 13 February | 13:42

Neither one is really important, but different people are going to place the importance on different things, obviously. Is someone trying to tell you that you aren't a "true fan" because you don't know an actor's personal history? Just a guess...

posted by iconomy 13 February | 13:42

Um?

OK I guess if it's a situation like iconomy is saying then I myself don't care about the actor's personal history at all. Although if you're trying to have an in-depth discussion and can bring up "Well, XYZ had an abortion at the age of 14, so that obviously informs her performance in ABCmovie" then yeah, I can see why people might think that was important.

posted by gaspode 13 February | 13:46

I like to know the back story, I will admit. I like to know who produced what albums, and that Stevie Ray Vaughan played the solo on DAvid Bowie's "Modern Love". Stuff like that. Same goes for actors I expect.

posted by richat 13 February | 13:48

Oh, but to answer the ACTUAL question, I would have to say that neither is really important. You either like to know that stuff, or you don't. I would argue that to a perosn who doesn't care, both the actor's previous work and bigraphical info are trivial.

posted by richat 13 February | 13:50

For me this kind of gets into the "I don't know anything about art but I know what I like" territory, at least as far as music goes - I don't know backstories or what band this guy used to front or which band this girl use to play for, and I don't know anyone's names - I just like the music. So I always feel stupid when people are discussing bands. I think it just doesn't interest me enough. But for some reason I'm able to retain ridiculous amounts of info with regards to film/actors/celeb gossip, so I always have something to contribute and know lots of trivial details, who's been married to who, and whose uncle is a famous so-and-so.

posted by iconomy 13 February | 13:54

Important how? Understanding the actor and why they perform the way they do? Or just being able to appreciate them...?

posted by Specklet 13 February | 14:06

What a strange question. At least it seems very strange to me.

But to answer it simply: I care about movies, so I moderately care about what movies an actor has been in. Because I care about the individual movies themselves, primarily, but if I like a particular actor I'll care about it for the actor's sake.

How people involved in show business are related to each other, or are friends, is peripheral information of only passing interest to me. Unless, of course, it actually makes a difference with regard to moviemaking. Which sometimes relationships do.

And I care, of course, when it's people I know.

posted by kmellis 13 February | 14:19

At work, we only have so much space to give a short overview of who or what a person is, in reference to a filmed production. So what I'm really asking is for organization's sake, which would be better for that short description? Especially if more than one person shares the same name?

posted by TrishaLynn 13 February | 14:21

What they've worked on.

posted by kmellis 13 February | 14:22

And no, I'm not telling you which one I prefer and why.

Yet.

posted by TrishaLynn 13 February | 14:24

Well, wouldn't you want the more notable? That's going to vary by person, because not everyone can be related to Ingrid Bergman. Personally, I am more concerned about their own accomplishments, since I would be watching them, and not their relatives.

posted by wimpdork 13 February | 14:29

I think most actors who are related to other famous actors like to prove themselves based on their own merits; I'm almost always surprised when I find out a famous actor or director I like is related to someone famous, because they usually don't make an effort to talk about it (understandably).

In other words, it's more important to me to recognize that Sofia Coppola directed The Virgin Suicides and Marie Antoinette than it is to recognize that she's the daughter of Francis Ford Coppola.

posted by muddgirl 13 February | 14:35

I agree with muddgirl. I would like to judge actors and directors on their work, not their family connections -- that is, I love the Sofia and Francis Ford Coppola, but Nicholas Cage is a whole other (unwatchable) beast at this point, and knowing that he's part of the Coppola family doesn't change the fact that he's become a crappy actor. The family thing is a red herring when evaluating people's work.

posted by occhiblu 13 February | 14:41

(I mean, my father's a fairly successful businessman, but I don't put his accomplishments on my resume, you know? I want to be judged on who I am and what I've done, not known just because I'm related to someone else.)

posted by occhiblu 13 February | 14:42

At work, we only have so much space to give a short overview of who or what a person is, in reference to a filmed production. So what I'm really asking is for organization's sake, which would be better for that short description? Especially if more than one person shares the same name?

I thought this has been settled for ages:

In Bite My Throat With Wooden Teeth Isabella Rossellini (Blue Velvet, Saddest Music in the World) stars as a masochist with a fixation on all things George Washington. So when she meets Emilio Estevez (TV's Renegade), a down-on-his-luck Washington impersonator recently kicked out of Colonial Williamsburg, the sparks really begin to fly.

Rather than:

In Bite My Throat With Wooden Teeth Isabella Rossellini (daughter of Roberto Rossellini and Ingrid Bergman, did it with David Lynch for a while but never married him) stars as a masochist with a fixation on all things George Washington. So when she meets Emilio Estevez (Charlie Sheen's brother), a down-on-his-luck Washington impersonator recently kicked out of Colonial Williamsburg, the sparks really begin to fly.

posted by Lentrohamsanin 13 February | 14:43

I would like to judge actors and directors on their work, not their family connections

Because that's how Sofia Coppola became a famous director- on the strength of her accomplishments.

HA HA HA HA HA, HE HE HE HE, HO HO HO HO.

Nope, nepotism is alive in well. It's all about who you know, so that's what I prefer to know.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 13 February | 14:47

I see. Definitely what they've worked on is more important to note that who they're related to.

posted by Specklet 13 February | 14:48

I agree that nepotism exists, but it exists everywhere, in every industry. That doesn't mean Sofia Coppola should *continue* to get judged on that -- how often does it come up for Nicholas Cage? Yet I hear it said about her all the time. (It should surprise no one that I see this as a means of discrediting women's achievements....)

posted by occhiblu 13 February | 14:49

Lentro: Here, have an Internet. And one of my babies. And a wafflecopter.

I'm definitely pasting that into an email...

posted by TrishaLynn 13 February | 14:50

Well yes, TPS, of course Sofia Coppola used some of her dad's connections to get along in the business. But if The Virgin Suicides had been utterly sucktastic, I wouldn't have seen Lost in Translation just because "Oh, That's FFC's kid."

I admit that there are some entertainers who are pretty much completely defined by their family (The Osbornes, some of the Jacksons). So it mostly depends.

posted by muddgirl 13 February | 15:01

How often does it come up for Nicholas Cage? Yet I hear it said about her all the time.

I don't think that's the same thing. He's an actor- people know who he is. Directors generally aren't famous. The only reason she is director-famous is because she's related to people who are famous- she wouldn't get nearly as much press if she wasn't.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 13 February | 15:13

Hey, she's an actor, too! Don't you remember The Godfather 3?

. . .

On second thought, I guess she's not an actor.

posted by Atom Eyes 13 February | 15:23

Except that Francis Ford Coppola is well known enough to be the referent. Spielberg. Lynch (who's been used as a referent in this thread). Woody Allen (granted, also an actor).

I don't know. I do suspect Sofia Coppola may be a bit of a special case, but I still believe that a lot of the pat-on-the-head dismissiveness she gets is because she's a woman who had the audacity to go into directing, and people just make the assumption that she's resting on family connections rather than talent.

I think interesting parallels could be drawn with the misogynist crap that Paris Hilton gets -- tons of male heirs do really stupid shit all the time, but don't get the press and the pile-ons. And you could argue that she's sought out the publicity, but there's still the question of why the media (or we) cares.

posted by occhiblu 13 February | 15:32

I think interesting parallels could be drawn with the misogynist crap that Paris Hilton gets

You've chosen a poor example here. Paris Hilton has an army of publicists tasked with keeping her in the public eye. This is why the media cares-- because every day they have highly-paid professionals calling them and sending them press releases about her. It makes their lives easy when they have column-inches or airtime to fill-- they can just cut and paste the latest press release.

Oh, and then there's the fact that she's constantly involved in something (sex tapes, allegations of racism, feuds and catfights with other female "celebrities," etc.) juicily idiotic. Or idiotically juicy.

posted by dersins 13 February | 17:28

You've chosen a poor example here. Paris Hilton has an army of publicists tasked with keeping her in the public eye.

What's really funny is that it's just one guy- Elliot Mintz. The NY Times did an article about him- he sleeps all day, and then follows her around all night. What a job!

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 13 February | 22:14

But the issue is that a woman born into a rich well-connected family does nothing with her life, and she's harassed for being lazy and not using her wealth or fame for something useful. A woman born into a rich well-connected family not only makes a movie, but is the first woman (I think?) to get nominated for an Oscar as a director, and *she* gets called out for being lazy and using her family connections.

And of course Hilton has a publicist. Everyone has publicists. My company has a publicist and we send out press releases once a week. I've yet to see anything come of it.

(And please tell me you're not trying to deny sexism by claiming "catfights" are newsworthy!)

posted by occhiblu 13 February | 23:22

According, to imdb, she's the third woman ever to be nominated for best picture. Sorry 'bout that.

posted by occhiblu 13 February | 23:25

TrishaLynn, in the situation you've described I'd go with what movies they've been in.

I find the extra stuff interesting and, like iconomy, seem to soak it up like a sponge. When it comes to stuff like entertainment, you want me on your Trivial Pursuit team.

Re: Sofia Coppola. I'm sure she got an opportunity to direct just because of who her father is, but Sofia's the one who had to prove that she was good at it.

posted by deborah 13 February | 23:36

Also, Sofia Coppola isn't talentless. I think she's a pretty good director. Even if you think she's not that good, she's still not so devoid of talent as to prove nepotism. It's hard to make a movie that's good enough not to be obviously very bad. If this weren't the case, then Jennifer Lynch would be as much a success as Sofia Coppola is. But she isn't, because she's not a competent film director. Or she wasn't, at least.

posted by kmellis 14 February | 00:44

← whining thread || I retract my whining thread!! →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN