Like you, I was heartbroken to discover that Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint aren’t lovers pals (I assume they also aren’t lovers except on the very rarest of red carpet after-party occasions. And even then it’s probably just a hand job underneath the punch table).
Actually, I wasn’t heartbroken. That was a little facetious sarcasm. Truthfully, like you, I don’t give a shit. And not only do I not give a shit, I have absolutely no opinion on the matter.
Which I will now discuss.
The article I read appears on the web site of the British newspaper publication The Daily Mail which I can’t be bothered (and don’t know how) to link to, but you can easily find it by yourself. Essentially, the Daily Mail article is desperately trying to develop the idea that two people who used to work together and now don’t work together are in a feud with each other where Daniel rarely speaks to Rupert, and when he does, it’s just (and I’m loosely paraphrasing) a polite “Hello” before he moves on to the next handjob. But (SPOILER ALERT!) Daniel admits to often texting Emma (the main chick in the Harry Potter movies). So what does this mean? The Daily Mail implies to ask. What sordid details remain hidden? How deep is the hatred to for these two young men who sky-rocketed to stardom together at a very early age? From inseparable childhood friends, to vengeful enemies: avoiding each other at all costs aside from the occasional bout of furious mutual masturbation.
Well, I suspect there is no conspiracy. No sordid scandal. No hatred. We love these boys, though, or at least the on-screen camaraderie they created (“We” being the viewing public, of which in this specific case I only slightly smugly distance myself from) and so the Daily Mail is frantically hoping to capitalize on our (your) emotions and sense of betrayal that such an iron-clad union could possibly rust.
But it hasn’t rusted. It’s just changed departments. Because as much as we like imagining that being an actor is on a level far removed from the reality of the McDonald’s fry machine worker, it isn’t. It’s more glamorous, the wages are better, and I’d like to think it’s personally, creatively, and artistically fulfilling, but when it comes down to it, acting is just a job. And unless you have some truly serious Hollywood juice, you don’t get to pick your co-workers. In your job perhaps you’ll develop a firm friendship with Steve in Accounting and you’ll join a bowling league together or rent cottages with each other’s families during summer vacation, but you’re just as likely not to. I certainly know none of my ex-co-workers speak to me. And there’s no reason for them to (even without the court orders). We just happened to be part of the same organization doing whatever tasks we were paid to do and no amount of “We’re really just like a big family: wacky, dysfunctional, and weird. But we get the job done. We work hard, and we play hard!” is going to change that.
What this all is leading to is that the Daily Mail article is irritating on two levels: 1) Of course, as a perfect example of utter nonsense trying to be passed off as anything not only worth reporting, but something that anyone should have any opinion on at all, and 2) as larger issue of society’s insistence that we all Care about each other.
Obviously, I agree that it’s a good thing that we’re taught that it’s wrong to knock down the elderly in the street if they’re over 75. We all are together in our belief of keeping that in the home where it belongs. And we all agree that murder and rape and violence and generally anything “mean” shouldn’t be done to other people. This is fine and, for the most part, doesn’t do any harm. But when these ideas and anti-bullying campaigns are blown out of proportion, they cease to carry the message of, “be nice to each other” and become warped into, “actively participate in everyone else’s happiness”.
This is fine and, for the most part, doesn’t do any harm when it comes to your own friends and family, but as a mandatory action in every situation it forces us to (quite often) fake concern which then appears disingenuous to the person we’re attempting to remind that we think they’re valuable and worthwhile. Of course we probably do think that in most cases, but the constant re-enforcement is a negative thing. It cheapens the sentiment and—more upsettingly—in some measure, is responsible for the culture of entitlement we’re living in.
If we were able to admit and accept the fact that we have no more interest in the person working the checkout at the store than they do of us, we’d vastly speed up the time it takes for us both to get on with our lives. If we admitted that we don’t really care that two people who used to be in films together; who we will likely never meet; who live lives entirely different from our own; who are safe and content and wealthy we’d be able to take our caring savings and deposit them towards someone or something that actually matters.
Like knocking down those 74 and younger.
- Neil
