News broke yesterday that the 11 year
marriage of
Tom Cruise and
Nicole Kidman is over. The couple have two adopted children (Connor and Isabelle), have appeared in several
movies together, and are quite popular actors. Nicole was born in
Australia and has lived here for most of her life, and, as such, Tom has become our "favourite adopted son".
Newspapers, television news programs and magazines are having a field day with the information. It's front page news in rural, regional and city papers and the lead story for news shows. Almost every article or piece includes a filmography of both actors, as if their previous works may be important in the break-up.
But the real question is: Why is there such an interest in the split? Were they the depiction of the true 'modern couple', both working, successful, beautiful, and, if so, does the separation threaten the image of success the public has built? Or is it just curiosity, sticking our noses in other people's business, into the business of two people we'll probably never meet but most people want to be? Do we need to know everything that's going on in these superstar lives to make our mundane lives a little more exciting? Voyeurism is very now, darling.
And why is the media so concerned with the split? There are two points of view on the subject, both of which echo popular and oppositional arguments of the role the media plays in society:
- a) That the media sets the agenda and tells us what we will be interested in. This view claims that the public is nothing more than what the media, and hence the institutions which run it, want it to be: ie, "the ruling classes keep the lower classes down, man". In this case, the Tom and Nicole split would be published in an effort to remind lower classes that a life too glamorous for them exists beyond their reach, and that humans are supposed to be entertained by stories of faraway people and places, because, ultimately, that will sell papers and earn advertisers' money in the long run. This argument (vastly simplified here) claims that people are programmable, and that the media fulfils this role.
- b) That the media reflects what people are naturally interested in. This runs on the notion that people have an inherent interest in the world around them, and that myths, stories and other forms of entertainment fill the voids which may exist in other parts of their lives. In the past, people have been interested in the private lives of public figures, and as such, have proved that human curiosity raises revenue for publishers. Hence the broadcast of information about the Tom and Nicole separation will merely prove old economical theories which are intertwined with sociological ideologies.
So why do we care? Really, what is it about this 'golden couple' that has caused such a ruckus? Are we trained to be interested, or is it just our wacky human nature?
Or am I the only one who gives a shit?