the cache of celebrities

There's this thing that I do, and I just realized that I do it, right now as I sit at the computer desk (no, not that).

I try to make connections between movie stars of a decade - or more - ago and the rising stars of right now, if that makes any sense. But not in that "Jessica Simpson is a Marilyn in the making." That's much too simplistic.

Take Dane Cook, for example. I know it seems that I blog about the guy obsessively, but I think he's one of the most intriguing celebrities out there right now, much better than Nicole Ritchie or Lindsay Lohan (although N.R. may starve to death soon and Lindsay Lohan always has the potential of overdosing or ending up in rehab, which is entertaining).

I think Dane Cook had the potential to become Jim Carrey. Not like Jim Carrey. Be Jim Carrey. He possesses a lot of the same characteristics as Ace, but it doesn't seem that the movie industry is very conducive to a star vehicle the same way Ace Ventura was over a decade ago. Employee of the Month certainly isn't going to make him break out.

Although I feel two things tugging at me while I sit here (again, it's not that). First of all, history makes everything in the present seem cut-rate: Dane Cook is a cut-rate Jim Carrey, Christina Aguilera is a cut-rate Madonna, Tom Cruise is a cut-rate Margot Kidder, etc.

And secondly, no star is like any othe star. It's just a marketing tool that studios use and entertainment venues adopt to keep the charade of "sameness" alive. The studios want to perpetuate homogeneity, so they try to trick you into believing this movie is good because so-and-so is sort-of reminiscent of this action star.

More importantly, entertainment channels and magazines are lazy, so they'll say anything that sounds easy or hackneyed, as long as the least amount of work has to be done to get the story out. So they'll compare stars of today to last generation nobodies or even this generation nobodies, because it's easy and the purpose is not to gauge the success of a star on performance, but on Q rating.

A "Q" rating presents a star's likability, visability, other 'ilities as a numerical value. Because of the rape case, Kobe Bryant ranks right there with Fidel Castro and Charles Manson.

Anyway, off topic. Entertainment reporters are only looking to sell the archetype, not the individual, to the point that these narcissistic people begin to embrace such crap and market themselves based on those overplayed generalities. Paris Hilton is an heiress - she even named her book something similar to that - and so on.

And that's what brings me to my original point: I look at today's up-and-comers because of those large, broad strokes that stars are painted with. And with every star's downfall is another's rise. Life is being made more simple for us, not more complex, because it's easier to deal with a reality where we have a few slots to fill - that was no typo - and give up on the rest. We only need a nerdy-ish leading man, so Tobey Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Topher Grace will have to battle it out for that particular place or the two losers will have to adopt other personalities (i.e. marketing tools).

What good movie has Jim Carrey made lately anyhow?