The Mystique of the Hollywood Recluse

19 Sep

By Guest Author Littlebells,

The mystique of the Hollywood recluse in the world of fame and fortune can be viewed as negative, people assume you must be a recluse if you shy away from constantly being stalked, photographed, written about, or interviewed.  Recluse as defined by Webster’s Dictionary states,

Marked by withdrawal from society.”[1]

Does that mean if you are a recluse, you have contact with no one from the outside world?  Do you live in the mountains and communicate with wolves, bears, and deer?  There are many people who are private and don’t like big crowds, but they haven’t fallen off the social planet.

There have been many celebrities throughout the decades who have been listed as “reclusive”: Greta Garbo, Howard Hughes, John Salinger, Harper Lee, Doris Day, John Hughes, and Lauryn Hill.  There is an aire of mystique surrounding the “not knowing” of a person’s private life.  Are these celebrities truly reclusive or people who aren’t into the attention and limelight?  Perhaps they just want to do what makes them happy and go home at the end of the day without any other duties.  Are they obligated to make their personal lives and desires public?

  • Greta Garbo made 28 films in her career but retired in 1941 and relocated to New York City.  She rarely attended award shows or did interviews.[2]   She never indulged paparazzi or gave interviews.  She had very famous friends that she would travel with and lived a very happy solitary life outside of Hollywood.  She died at the age of 84.[3]
  • Doris Day was the “girl next door.”  With that blonde hair, twinkling smile, and beautiful voice,she was beloved by many.  When she left the film industry more than 30 years ago, she never looked back.  She settled in Carmel, CA and is a major supporter and advocate of rescuing and healing abused and mistreated animals.  She even opened her own organization.  She loves what she does and does not seek or want attention.[4]
  •  John Hughes was the man who brought the reality of teenage emotions to the screen.  He took teens seriously and wanted to capture their dreams, hopes, and realities while adding comedy to the mix.  He is most known for hit films such as Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, and Pretty in Pink. In 1994 he moved to the mid west with his wife and children.[5]  Rumor is that he was fed up with the HW lifestyle and did not want his children growing up in it.  He once told a friend of Roger Ebert, regarding being a recluse,

I haven’t disappeared, I’m standing right here.  I’m just not in Los Angeles.”[6]

  • Perhaps Webster should modify their definition to: one who seeks to live a normal life amid fame and fortune. 

Please join our discussion Tuesday 9/20/2011@7pmE&12UTC

Advertisements

108 Responses to “The Mystique of the Hollywood Recluse”

  1. Four String (@4stringbassgirl) September 19, 2011 at 8:16 AM #

    This is refreshing, especially in the case of John Hughes. He wanted his family to have a normal life which seems very hard in LA just judging by celebs’ kids getting into the business and many times getting screwed up.

    • littlebells September 19, 2011 at 11:59 AM #

      4string–I agree with you! I truly admire those parents who are willing to put their career on hold or even halt it, for the sake of giving their kids a normal life. I know Bon Jovi is still very much a public figure but he is one of the few celebrities who does not allow his children to be photographed. As far as I know. 🙂

  2. comic relief September 19, 2011 at 3:31 PM #

    LB,

    When so much of the media is obsessed with claiming that the desire to perform is synonymous with an ongoing obsession with attention, you’ve thankfully done the exact opposite. The nicest thing about your treatment of this subject is you are so careful to sympathize with your subject’s natural desire for seclusion.

    Because you are SO generous, I’m sure you aggressively avoided bringing any attention to any issue that might inspire a desire for privacy. These reasons could be (on the positive side): the need for working reflection, the need to hone inspiration, or the need to advance personal-development. On the less conventionally positive side a personality might need room for self-definition, might need solitude to work through private obstacles, or just might need privacy to breathe.

    I think many of these necessities may have eluded the fourth of the personalities you discussed. Despite his many public successes, here’s a clip of the Aviator’s meditation on Hughes’ attempts to reign in one of his personal challenges.

    • comic relief September 19, 2011 at 4:38 PM #

      Obviously, I meant sometimes director Howard Hughes not director John Hughes.

    • littlebells September 19, 2011 at 7:05 PM #

      Hi CR,

      Glad you liked the article. Yes, there are many reasons why celebrities want to stay out of the HW public eye. It could be for a myriad of reasons. I’m glad you mentioned Howard Hughes. I’m sure like he, there are others who suffered from disorders that would not have been dealt well by HW. Nor should they even be discussed or handled by HW.

      I just don’t like that because people stay out of the limelight they are considered recluses. They are just recluses from the mass fans and crazy paparazzi and tabloids. Other than that, I think most do socialize, but within their own boundaries.

  3. ozzie20 September 19, 2011 at 6:24 PM #

    Great article! I can’t wait for the discussion. It’s an interesting topic!

  4. Francesa September 19, 2011 at 8:44 PM #

    In regards to Howard Hughes…One wonders if he would be in his prime today, would the self imposed solitude happened. We have come along way in regards to some of his alleged disorders. We haven’t come full circle, but along ways.
    Also, there are a lot of celebrities that do not live in HW, just so they can raise their kids with some sense of normalcy. Kyra Sedwick & Kevin Bacon, Tom and Rita Hanks to name a couple. I remember reading once that Paul Neuman and his wife Joanne Woodward stated the only reason there marriage lasted as long as it did was because they never lived in HW.

    • littlebells September 19, 2011 at 9:12 PM #

      THank you, Francesa! And that is one of the smartest thing i think any celebrity could ever do. 🙂

      However, these celebrities do make appearances at award shows, parties, talk shows, other interviews, etc…it’s the ones who refuse to do any of these that make them so mysterious, even though they are just regular folk.

      • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 10:56 AM #

        Francesa,

        ok, I just re-read your post, and yes these celebrities have been able to be in the limelight and raise their kids in a normal environment. You gave some great examples. They have been able to find that balance. I think for some they just can only find normalcy by completely removing themselves from the environment that hinders them. 🙂

  5. comic relief September 20, 2011 at 2:45 PM #

    I think the evidence of a good topic is it frequently starts before the scheduled time.

    Francesa, I don’t want to be the bringer of bad news but Paul Newman lost his son Scott, (a product of a marriage prior to Joan Woodward) to a drug overdose. Though he, like Paul, were both professional actors I think it’s hard to argue that fame or an overdose of attention did him (or them) in.

    This proves again that performing celebrities have the same needs of privacy outside of the spotlight that everyone else does. I agree Hughes problems might have been better handled today than then. But I suspect the same need for personal boundaries were equally necessary.

    I posted a link, but you’ll notice next to article you see the same articles about celeb over-exposure saturate the public’s appetite for celebrities. Thanks so much for the needed break LB.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1063705/Paul-Newmans-hidden-heartache-How-Hollywood-giant-got-sons-drugs-overdose-death.html

    • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 6:33 PM #

      CR,

      You are correct in that just because you are out of the limelight doesn’t mean your family is going to escape from real life problems. Those come regardless. HOpefully having the privacy makes things some what easier.

  6. Open Book September 20, 2011 at 6:55 PM #

    HI Everyone,

    Welcome to our discussion tonight. New and returning visitors please jump in anytime we would like to hear from u.

    • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:02 PM #

      Hi OB!

      How are you?
      🙂

    • Lurker September 20, 2011 at 7:10 PM #

      Hi OB and LB.

      LB – Great article.

      I think you did a great job highlighting those who chose to remove themselves from the LA scene many years ago.

      I do wonder if they could have been as successful in our time due to the ‘instant access’ of the internet and electronics/cell phones etc.

      • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:15 PM #

        OooooH, Lurker, that is a great thought! I can only imagine that Garbo would completely have shut down or hired the most top secret security team ever. I really only mentioned a few of the many celebrities who backed out of the limelight. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be, or costly for that matter, to live “normally. I think for those whose “day” has kind of passed, it might be easier, but for those in the thick of it, or just getting started, it has to be tremendously difficult.

        • comic relief September 20, 2011 at 7:28 PM #

          I think like Garbo some some just get tired. John Hughes and Dorris Day seemed like they had a lot to say, said it, and then needed to rest, retire, or recede.

          The media keeps telling us the need for fame multiplies or these individuals have an insatiable hunger for our attention and this seems (to me) to be entirely unlikely.

      • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:15 PM #

        Thank you by the way. 🙂

      • comic relief September 20, 2011 at 7:16 PM #

        Hi Lurker.

        • Lurker September 20, 2011 at 7:17 PM #

          HI CR!

  7. comic relief September 20, 2011 at 7:06 PM #

    Hi,

    OB and LB.

    Ever since reading the article, I just can’t stop thinking about this topic.

    • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:09 PM #

      Good CR! I hope that it’s in a good way. I wanted to write about this topic, or at least bring it to light, because I’m so sick of celebs (those desperately seeking attention) selling themselves to the tabloids. Between them and the “recluses” there is such a stark contrast.

      What has got you thinking most?

      • comic relief September 20, 2011 at 7:12 PM #

        Definitely in a good way. The media seems to suggest that you can only have more attention, exposure, and visibility. Your article suggests celebs sometimes get their fill.

        • Lurker September 20, 2011 at 7:16 PM #

          HI CR!

          ? for you – do you think the over-abundance of media really driving this need for ‘more-more-more’ ?

          Back in the 50s there was media in print and 3 network news channels. Now we have the inernet, print media, cable news and entertainment channels. It seems to me that there can’t be enough to spread around that many sources without the media generating some of this ‘need’.

          • comic relief September 20, 2011 at 7:21 PM #

            “Back in the 50s there was media in print and 3 network news channels.”

            🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

            I think it’s media producing and audiences consuming.

            Both tend to flatten out HW celebrities, as though it doesn’t take time to build strong story lines, develop characters, or rest from any of these processes.

            • Lurker September 20, 2011 at 7:29 PM #

              Very true! If you only have 1 min or a few paragraphs – how deep can you go?

              You’re smiling at my 50’s comment ! Ha
              I was sort of referencing back to the Greta Garbo and Doris Day reference LB raise in the article.
              Very different time period than today with news.

              However, I was a bit caught off guard yesterday when Former Pres Clnton commented about 20 years ago and pointed to the 90’s – yikes!!! 😉

              • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:36 PM #

                OMG, you’re right Lurker! it really was 20 years ago!!! hahahahahahaha!!!!

                Greta Garbo once did an interview with Paul Callan of the London Daily Mail at the Cannes Film Festival. He started his interview with “I wonder…” and she remarked, “Why wonder.”, got up and left. I was actually pretty impressed by that. haha!

                • ozzie20 September 20, 2011 at 7:44 PM #

                  I knew I loved her for a reason, lol!

        • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:17 PM #

          Oh I definitely believe celebs get their fill!!! I don’t blame you. It must be exhausting to always be “on”.

        • Open Book September 20, 2011 at 7:25 PM #

          I think actors like everyone want to grow and change with their work overtime. I mean u hope!! I mean it’s boring to see stale performances as audiences. So I think it goes both ways actor’s can get fed up with being type cast or limited and in turn audiences get crap. So it behooves us as consumers to give actors their respect and privacy when asked.IMO!!

          • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:30 PM #

            Absolutely 100%, OB! It can be very difficult trying to grow and change and experiment when people are constantly getting glimpses of your private life. One needs that solitude and that can be solitude out in the wild or solitude in a busy place where no gives two flying figs who you are or what you do. It’s just finding that solitude that matters.

            There are a few actors/actresses I think could truly benefit from getting away from the HW eye for about a year or so.

          • Parisienne September 20, 2011 at 9:30 PM #

            OB,

            ITA with you 100%

  8. Open Book September 20, 2011 at 7:10 PM #

    Great article and topic LB.

    I’m a firm believer that artist need to detox in between jobs to fully give audiences their best work. Otherwise it’s easy to get eaten up by the HW machine. Boundaries is hard to establish for actors starting out their careers given how insatiable fans can be with anyone new but it’s up to the actors to know what they need to stay grounded in reality and if moving out of LA is necessary do it. I guess all I’m saying is that u can’t let peer pressure dictate what u need to stay sane and have a career.

    • comic relief September 20, 2011 at 7:14 PM #

      I agree. Earlier, I was trying to help out by saying what some of those reasons for seclusion might be.

      • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:21 PM #

        OB and CR, ITA. I think one must truly be in the mindset of “taking care of their emotional, spiritual, and mental needs”. No one else can. And it extends to more than just celebrities. I think every career can take its toll and you have to do what is necessary to find that balance and harmony to keep one at their best. I think the more you take care of yourself (and that includes points you mentioned earlier, CR) the more productive and better one will be as a person and an actor.

        • comic relief September 20, 2011 at 7:23 PM #

          Well said.

        • Lurker September 20, 2011 at 7:25 PM #

          I completely agree that every career can take its toll. Sometimes the higher demanding careers require down time and time to unplug and they are not all celebrities. It just depends on how much it takes from you and how the work schedule places demands on your emotional and physical well being. These are jobs all over the spectrum, from IT to Healthcare to Military and Public Service(Fire Police) etc.

          • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:27 PM #

            ABsolutely! Shoot, I have a really good point, but can’t seem to word it right in my brain…I’ll come back to this point! haha! 🙂

        • Parisienne September 20, 2011 at 9:43 PM #

          LittleBells,

          Well said!

  9. littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:24 PM #

    Obviously without knowing celebrities and their own unique personalities, I’m sure that some who seek seclusion may be in part to just not liking crows or people at all for that matter. Some really may be hermits and hire out people to come and go bringing them food and doing other tasks. I don’t know. But I think on the whole it is just a means to get away. I personally think it’s terrific if an actor can do his or her work peacefully while creating a “safe place” from the HW machine. 🙂

    Are their other actors or actresses that fall into this “recluse” title? (Again, I’m not a fan of the title)

    • Lurker September 20, 2011 at 7:31 PM #

      I read an article somewhere recently that Andy Garcia has seemed to insulate his family and private life from his acting career. I’m not sure I would classify that as a recluse.

      • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:39 PM #

        And that, Lurker, is why I hate the title recluse! Just because you aren’t giving the public and tabloids what they want doesn’t mean you are a recluse. A recluse is one who completely withdraws from society. There’s no association with anyone!

        I also read about Daniel Day-Lewis, whom I dearly love, and he is considered a recluse. He was quoted as saying he’s busy raising his sons. “How can you be a recluse with kids in the house?”

        • Lurker September 20, 2011 at 7:47 PM #

          Well you can’t. Its just that you stay focused on what’s important in your life. And from my own personal experience (as I’ve been accused lately of being reclusive), it’s that I’m focused. Sometimes that means withdrawing from things that are time wasters and being social. It doesn’t mean you’ve stopped living, just that you’re not being the social butterfly. I don’t understand why that’s not acceptable to many.

          • Parisienne September 20, 2011 at 9:51 PM #

            Lurker,

            ITA with your point on being focused. I’m totally 100% focused right now on my work and all that entails. I’ve given up being socialable because I choose to better myself and people don’t understand that. Its not acceptable to many because what you and i are doing is not what they would do for themselves and so it is foreign to them.

        • ozzie20 September 20, 2011 at 7:52 PM #

          As I said to LB yesterday, it’s the press who think it’s reclusive, not the actual celebrity. They’re busy getting on with their life away from the cameras. The only thing that has gone away (to some extent because it never fully goes) is the intrusion by the press.

    • comic relief September 20, 2011 at 7:37 PM #

      I’m beginning to think specifically actors either make a commitment to their craft or make a commitment to being visible and accessible celebrities.

      Of Leonardo’s new J. Edgar hoover trailer, how can you prepare for work like that if you don’t remove yourself from so much visibilty all the time?

      • Lurker September 20, 2011 at 7:44 PM #

        Wow, that looks incredible! First time I’ve seen the trailer.
        I’m interested….

        So CR, following on your comment, do you think then that actors have to fall into 2 camps then?
        If so, I might have add that I think those that have “talent” fall into the first group and those that are border line or have lackluster careers are falling into a second group. More defined by gossip/media attention. As if that has anything to do with talent.

        Maybe that’s why I get so irked with ‘reality tv’ and them being classified for being media hounds with ZERO talent.

        • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:47 PM #

          Lurker you said, “I think those that have “talent” fall into the first group and those that are border line or have lackluster careers are falling into a second group.”

          APPLAUSE! APPLAUSE! APPLAUSE!!

        • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:47 PM #

          And I can’t even go there with reality TV. It disgusts me beyond all comprehension.

          • Lurker September 20, 2011 at 7:49 PM #

            Here here!! I agree!

            • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:53 PM #

              (Side note: I was watching The Soup, Lurker, and saw a clip of Jersey Shore. If there had been anything in my stomach I would have thrown up.)

              • Lurker September 20, 2011 at 7:58 PM #

                Ewww, I would throw up too!

              • comic relief September 20, 2011 at 7:59 PM #

                I tend to agree with the talent assessment. But even if that isn’t so, working on your work should be some sort of necessity.

                For those reasons I expect so acting celebs to disappear ocassionally.

            • ozzie20 September 20, 2011 at 7:55 PM #

              I agree with the two camps.

      • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:46 PM #

        Thank you, CR, for that. I believe Leo takes his privacy extremely serious. I know he has fun and does normal stuff, but he knows when to pull back and focus on his work and what to do to make himself better.

        After watching “Drive” and a few other of Ryan Gosling’s movies, I think he does the same. yes he is still out in the public enough to get pictures and such, but on the whole, he keeps his distance.

        IMO, I think those who are constantly putting themselves out there to be scene are wasting time that could be used for discovering self and honing their skill. How can you work, make a billion of public appearances, and then have time to decompress and get away?

      • ozzie20 September 20, 2011 at 8:10 PM #

        Wow, Leo is almost unrecognisable in that! It looks like it’s going to be a good movie. Is this being released in time for award season? If so, I can see it winning alot!

      • Parisienne September 20, 2011 at 10:00 PM #

        CR,

        Thank you for the trailer. I cannot wait to see this film! As far as the time for prepardness for this type of role would be extensive, IMO because J. Edgar Hoover was a real person I would think that Leo had to do extensive research into his life and find out what type person he was in public and private as compared to a role of a fictional character.

  10. ozzie20 September 20, 2011 at 7:31 PM #

    Hi all! My headache’s threatening to rear it’s ugly head again, so I probably won’t be commenting much. I’ll mostly be trying to keep the remaining brain power on understanding what’s going on, trying to type my short circuit it!

    • Lurker September 20, 2011 at 7:32 PM #

      Hi Ozzie!

      • comic relief September 20, 2011 at 7:37 PM #

        Hi Ozzie!

        • ozzie20 September 20, 2011 at 7:41 PM #

          Hi Lurker and CR! Hope you’re both well!

        • comic relief September 20, 2011 at 7:44 PM #

          Hang in there healthwise, there’s no need to rush.

          • Lurker September 20, 2011 at 7:49 PM #

            Hang in there Ozzie!

            • ozzie20 September 20, 2011 at 8:01 PM #

              Cheers!

  11. littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:52 PM #

    I think those that choose to stay out of the limelight get bad raps. They are either considered unbalanced, selfish (for not meeting consumers demands), or weird. Not all, but some. Everyone has their “theory”. And then the gossip and rumor mills begin. If you think about it, that says a lot about the waste of brain power our society uses. Why not concern our thoughts with how we can better our community, neighborhood, relationships, etc…???? I mean, who cares that Harper Lee only wrote one book, refused all interviews? Good for her. She wrote a profound book that affects us still to this day and she gets to live peacefully. 🙂

    Is there another word that could be used instead of recluse? I’m genuinely asking. There has to be something else….

    • Lurker September 20, 2011 at 7:55 PM #

      Some adjectives might help us find a better word: focused, selective, diligent, introspective.

      • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:57 PM #

        Thank you Lurker! My brain is tired, so I knew someone would help me! haha!! 🙂

      • comic relief September 20, 2011 at 8:11 PM #

        heres some more: reflective, thoughtful, insightful, meticulous, plotter, efficient

        • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 8:13 PM #

          I love it!!! Unless you are mountain man, I no longer am using recluse! HAHAHA!! 🙂

          • Open Book September 20, 2011 at 8:31 PM #

            I think recluse has negative connotations to it that’s why tabloids like to use it. It also suggest celebrities are trying to avoid fans when they are just trying to stay grounded.Yes! I think all the other words tabloids could use instead of recluse is too complimentary to the actor.

  12. littlebells September 20, 2011 at 7:59 PM #

    What celebrities do you appreciate that have stepped out of the limelight? What do you admire about their desire to focus on themselves, family, friends, and career?

    • comic relief September 20, 2011 at 8:01 PM #

      Kate Blanchett.

      • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 8:07 PM #

        Excellent choice. I know she is very fierce about protecting her family.

    • Lurker September 20, 2011 at 8:05 PM #

      Julia Roberts seems to have pulled away after she married.

      • ozzie20 September 20, 2011 at 8:15 PM #

        Johnny Depp?

  13. littlebells September 20, 2011 at 8:05 PM #

    CR, earlier you said, celebrities “might need solitude to work through private obstacles”. I think Lindsay Lohan is a perfect example of this. I don’t pay much attention so I don’t know what her status is at the moment, but I wish she could get away for at least two years to overcome her obstacles. And sometimes, I think someone may even need to remove themselves completely from a career if it is a trigger.

    • comic relief September 20, 2011 at 8:15 PM #

      How would I know in the big picture.

      Hate to say it but he tabloids make it appear that Ms. Lohan frequently chooses the second of the two camps.

      Musical artists seem to be able to retreat fairly efficiently. I don’t think actors are as fortunate.

  14. littlebells September 20, 2011 at 8:09 PM #

    OB! Where did you go???

    • Open Book September 20, 2011 at 8:18 PM #

      Hi LB-

      I’m here I’m reading everyone’s great comments.

      I’m also having trouble with my computer, which is running kinda slow today.

      • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 8:19 PM #

        Oh good! No worries, I know how that can be. 🙂

  15. littlebells September 20, 2011 at 8:13 PM #

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/268288/can_celebrities_lead_private_lives.html?cat=9

    What do you think of the last paragraph on page 2?

    And I’m going to add Johnny Depp to this list of celebrities. 🙂

    • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 8:14 PM #

      and the comments are interesting to read too, if you want to discuss…

    • Lurker September 20, 2011 at 8:22 PM #

      I have some mixed feelings on that last paragraph in that article.
      Are they saying that all celebrities have to be ‘on their P’s and Q’s” when out ? Does that mean ON? Why can’t they just be like regular people?
      Its sounds like the article authori is inferring that they have to worry about being ‘caught’ in some slip up because they are being stalked.
      Who could live like that?

      • Littlebells September 20, 2011 at 8:29 PM #

        I agree Lurker. Regular people do stupid stuff or make big blunders in public ALL THE TIME. I don’t get why celebrities have a responsibility to maintain a clean image. I get that studio heads WANT them to, but 1) that’s stupid and 2) unfair. And why do they deserve to have their privacy intruded upon because of said slip ups. That is just society’s way of trying to control their celebrities. IMO. And no one can live like that. At some point they are going to lose it ( shaving heads and such). I don’t blame them.

        • Open Book September 20, 2011 at 8:44 PM #

          I think it’s like Imprisoning someone because they have a career in the public eye. So many people want to vicariously live through actors and these Tabloids can be relentless in trying to create drama where there is none and consumers eat it up and fall for it. These actors are not saints and have vices just like anyone. As long as they aren’t violating laws who cares if they are caught picking there nose. But quite frankly can u say these tabloids & stalkers are obeying laws?
          .

          • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 8:50 PM #

            No I can’t, and I agree with your comment, OB. It makes me question the need for drama and chaos….Why are people so miserable? The only thing I ask of an actor is that they don’t phone in their performance. That’s all. Pick your nose all you want.

  16. comic relief September 20, 2011 at 8:19 PM #

    Unfortunately, I have to go. Great article LB.

    • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 8:20 PM #

      Ok, CR! Thanks so much for all your wonderful comments and insight. 🙂

      • ozzie20 September 20, 2011 at 8:37 PM #

        Bye CR!

  17. Lurker September 20, 2011 at 8:40 PM #

    Hey LB, I need to go. Great discussion!

    • Open Book September 20, 2011 at 8:45 PM #

      See u late Lurker.

      Have a great night!

    • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 8:45 PM #

      Ok! Thank you Lurker for all your wonderful comments. Have a great evening! 🙂

      • Open Book September 20, 2011 at 8:48 PM #

        LB

        I have to go also. Great great discussion and article. I will come back tomorrow and comment as well.

        Take Care!

        • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM #

          Thank you! 🙂 have a good evening.

  18. littlebells September 20, 2011 at 8:47 PM #

    OB and Ozzie,

    I have a few more minutes before the dinner timer will go off. Any other questions or comments before I feed the troops???

    • Open Book September 20, 2011 at 8:48 PM #

      No I’m good.

  19. littlebells September 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM #

    Well everyone as we finish for tonight, I would just like to add this:

    Actors are just like everyone else. They deserve privacy and the need to be alone whenever that is needed. Give them a break and appreciate their work.

    Also, for any new or returning readers, please feel free to comment at anytime after this discussion. Even if it’s months down the road, we will always check in and get back to you. 🙂 thanks for stopping by!

    • ozzie20 September 20, 2011 at 9:12 PM #

      Night all!

  20. Parisienne September 20, 2011 at 10:19 PM #

    Hello All!

    I’m sad that i missed such an excellent discussion. I have much to say on this topic. 🙂
    Now before I begin: Whoever moderates this board, if i say anything that is found offensive to you, please delete it as you seem fit.

    I totally agree with CR on the fact that actors fall into two categories: Those that are serious about their craft or those that make a commitment to being visible all the time. With that said I also think there is a third category: Those that SAY they are serious about their craft but lack talent and therfore have to resort to using the media and other aspects of their career to stay relevant.

    • littlebells September 20, 2011 at 10:34 PM #

      *snort* to the second paragraph. 😉 And only because I agree and my brain waves are in sync with yours.

      • Parisienne September 20, 2011 at 11:08 PM #

        of course they are, as usual. 🙂

    • Open Book September 21, 2011 at 8:28 PM #

      Paris- No worries!!

  21. Parisienne September 20, 2011 at 10:39 PM #

    I’m going to have to break this up: The screen is acting funny, my apologies.

    Regarding the private lives of celebrities and their work. As i mentioned above, Leo I’m sure did extensive research on J. Edgar Hoover and the time period and that entails “disappearing”. Leo also does not splash his private life across the tabloids or go out of his way to create antics.

    Now regarding R’sten: Sorry I have to go there. I’m interested in seeing how the entire thing plays out.

  22. Parisienne September 20, 2011 at 10:53 PM #

    Anyone with logic knows and can see that R’sten is PR. They are not really a couple. With that said, Their “private” lives are completely speculated upon ALL. THE. TIME.

    Regarding Rob, if anyone has seen any of his work prior to Twilight, he is a good character actor. However, his films are tainted by his link to Twilight. For example, the WFE premiere and the kiss that never happened or her showing up on the set of Cosmopolis and sitting in his trailer until the cows came home in order to perpetuate a lie.

    How can he prepare properly for anything when there are constantly paps on his sets and fans and Kristen? He can’t.

    • Parisienne September 20, 2011 at 11:00 PM #

      Every move either of them makes is directly tied to the other one. So IMO R’sten stifles Rob’s creativity. Kristen, on the other hand needs to start over or leave HW. IMO.

      • Open Book September 21, 2011 at 8:46 PM #

        Paris-

        I 100% agree u can’t focus properly among this R’sten chaos. Especially for an actor who’s trying to stretch themselves personally and professionally. I think when actors are under the spotlight like R most play it safe and do a bunch similar work to keep from getting judged to harshly. The only problem with that consumer’s get bored and it goes down hill from there. However, I admire R’s choices he’s made outside of the Twilight franchise while being under this kind of pressure. Now, if R can make these kinds of choices under this crazy pressure, then imagine what awaits after Twilight and R’sten is over. A Diamond in the rough he is.

        • Parisienne September 21, 2011 at 9:06 PM #

          that’s true Open Book, ITA 100%

  23. littlebells September 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM #

    Jodie Foster!!! How can I forget her? She’s definitely fought to keep her private/family live away from all spectators. And she has stayed classy.

  24. BMihaelll September 25, 2011 at 9:24 AM #

    Hi there! I simply wish to give an enormous thumbs up for the great data you might have right here on this post. I will probably be coming again to your blog for more soon.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: