The popular phrase`plastic surgery` can be seen as a peculiar one. There are a couple of possible interpretations of it and, indeed, probably this melding of meanings explains something of its popularity. What I'm thinking of is both the implication of plastic as a chemical-based material and also plastic in the colloquial sense as cosmetic, superficial, or artificial. A suggestion of something fake at its core.
As a general rule, though the chemically based material called plastic is used, plastic isn`t really so much the ideal ingredient. Skin grafts from other parts of the body generally provide a better effect. So its not inaccurate to call it plastic surgery in this sense, it is a little misleading.
And, as to plastic in the aesthetic or ethical sense, the truth is that most reconstructive surgery is not even cosmetic. But there is something about the association of such surgery to the celebrities trying to hang onto their glamour and appeal that leads so many of us to thoughtlessly let the description roll glibly off the tongue. Perhaps it is something like this subtle disapproval of the celebrities that use it that explains the widespread fascination with examples of celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong.
We are so intrigued by the image of the great who have fallen; the rich who apparently couldn't find a competent surgeon; the beautiful who paid the price for their devilish deal with the surgeon`s scalpel. It's almost as though ee gain some payback for the years of our inferiority-in-admiration, to coin an awkward phrase, when the tables are suddenly turned and those whose beauty once made us look like munchkins now has them looking like the frogs. Indeed, princes and princesses into toad, the fairy tale in reverse for celebrities, would seem to be the moment of redemption and vindication for many of us.
Or, you might want to think of it another way, slightly more stylized: those who have lived by the charms of beauty shall die by the charms of beauty. You understand we're speaking metaphorically, here! Surely though at some level, even if only unconscious, there is some kind of poetic justice being relished.
Consider though an even bleaker possibility: something more sinister yet may lie at the heart of it all. This prospect came to my attention recently in recalling that popular FX television show, Nip/Tuck. If you don't know it, you should. It was the story of a pair of superstar plastic surgeons, serving the rich, famous and beautiful. A fascinating fact though is that the pilot episode was not actually focused on the rich, famous or beautiful. Rather its story revolved around a mercy surgery to relieve a man with a horribly disfigured face.
The punch line, if you will, was that it was only after the surgery was complete that the surgeons learned that their patient was in fact a pedophile. They had unwittingly eliminated the one obstacle to his capacity to lure innocent children into his devices. It was an interesting choice for a first episode in a series that would primarily indeed focus on the rich, famous and beautiful clientele.
I find myself wondering if that story captures some primordial suspicion about plastic surgery: do we suspect, even if only unconsciously, that such surgery is an exercise in duplicity? Is something that is true, yet darker, being concealed? Even possibly something sinister? It may well be that the fascination with celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong does tap into just these kind of primordial suspicions. The dark intuition that a deep ugliness is being concealed. That the princess or prince has always been a frog and only now we have the opportunity to see the truth. And someone is trying to hide the truth.
Maybe I`m just making a lot out of nothing, but it is a thought worth contemplating. Might the fascination with celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong say something about the very concept of celebrity and about us.
As a general rule, though the chemically based material called plastic is used, plastic isn`t really so much the ideal ingredient. Skin grafts from other parts of the body generally provide a better effect. So its not inaccurate to call it plastic surgery in this sense, it is a little misleading.
And, as to plastic in the aesthetic or ethical sense, the truth is that most reconstructive surgery is not even cosmetic. But there is something about the association of such surgery to the celebrities trying to hang onto their glamour and appeal that leads so many of us to thoughtlessly let the description roll glibly off the tongue. Perhaps it is something like this subtle disapproval of the celebrities that use it that explains the widespread fascination with examples of celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong.
We are so intrigued by the image of the great who have fallen; the rich who apparently couldn't find a competent surgeon; the beautiful who paid the price for their devilish deal with the surgeon`s scalpel. It's almost as though ee gain some payback for the years of our inferiority-in-admiration, to coin an awkward phrase, when the tables are suddenly turned and those whose beauty once made us look like munchkins now has them looking like the frogs. Indeed, princes and princesses into toad, the fairy tale in reverse for celebrities, would seem to be the moment of redemption and vindication for many of us.
Or, you might want to think of it another way, slightly more stylized: those who have lived by the charms of beauty shall die by the charms of beauty. You understand we're speaking metaphorically, here! Surely though at some level, even if only unconscious, there is some kind of poetic justice being relished.
Consider though an even bleaker possibility: something more sinister yet may lie at the heart of it all. This prospect came to my attention recently in recalling that popular FX television show, Nip/Tuck. If you don't know it, you should. It was the story of a pair of superstar plastic surgeons, serving the rich, famous and beautiful. A fascinating fact though is that the pilot episode was not actually focused on the rich, famous or beautiful. Rather its story revolved around a mercy surgery to relieve a man with a horribly disfigured face.
The punch line, if you will, was that it was only after the surgery was complete that the surgeons learned that their patient was in fact a pedophile. They had unwittingly eliminated the one obstacle to his capacity to lure innocent children into his devices. It was an interesting choice for a first episode in a series that would primarily indeed focus on the rich, famous and beautiful clientele.
I find myself wondering if that story captures some primordial suspicion about plastic surgery: do we suspect, even if only unconsciously, that such surgery is an exercise in duplicity? Is something that is true, yet darker, being concealed? Even possibly something sinister? It may well be that the fascination with celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong does tap into just these kind of primordial suspicions. The dark intuition that a deep ugliness is being concealed. That the princess or prince has always been a frog and only now we have the opportunity to see the truth. And someone is trying to hide the truth.
Maybe I`m just making a lot out of nothing, but it is a thought worth contemplating. Might the fascination with celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong say something about the very concept of celebrity and about us.
About the Author:
Check out Mickey Jhonny's controversial contribution to The Don Draper Haircut site on the reasons for the success of the hit TV show Mad Men .
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment