All hell broke loose for Johnny Depp a couple of weeks ago, with an interview he gave to Vanity Fair. In the article, he stated his strong dislike for photo shoots - standing in front of a camera and posing made him extremely uncomfortable. And that’s when Johnny stuck his scuffed boot in his mouth:
“Well, you just feel like you’re being raped somehow. Raped. The whole thing. It feels like a kind of weird – just weird, man.”
The “Word Police” immediately leapt out from every corner to attack his use of the word “rape” in describing still photography. The insensitivity of the man – the callousness! As a woman, I certainly don’t think rape is trivial, but I did kind of understand what he was getting at. I mean…I feel raped by corporate America, the financial system and our government practically every day of my life – but I don’t mean it literally…it’s a word – often used to express a variety of assaults. And I think that’s what Johnny meant. Naturally, his response to the outcry was to offer the prerequisite canned response of regret for his inappropriate comments. But Johnny wasn’t finished being criticized.
More recently, in Salon, Mary Elizabeth Williams made reference to another quote from this infamous interview:
“Basically, if they’re going to pay me the stupid money right now, I’m going to take it.”
Mary’s point was that with the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations shining a spotlight on the extreme wealth inequality in this country – maybe we shouldn’t be spending ever-increasing amounts of our money on movies, pro sports and other entertainment venues where individual people are making ginormous amounts of money. Though she didn’t hold Johnny personally responsible for any of the financial problems the rest of us are going through these days, she was suggesting that perhaps things have gotten too far out of whack in the entertainment business. Maybe Johnny doesn’t need to make $50 million for his next movie. Maybe $10 million would suffice. And maybe movie studios should recalibrate these people’s paychecks to a more reasonable level of fabulous riches. I agree with Mary.
And…well…not to pile on Johnny Depp, but…why not, I’ve got nothing better to do today – there was another quote from the interview that completely boggled my mind. As far as I can tell this little nugget has been overlooked by almost everyone else who has been taking Johnny to task. The interviewer, Nick Tosches, asks Johnny why he works so much. Depp’s got movies lined up like jets on the tarmac at JFK – one movie after another – he’s like the Terminator of acting – he never stops. And that’s when Johnny says this:
“Basically, if they’re going to pay me the stupid money right now, I’m going to take it. I have to. I mean, it’s not for me. Do you know what I mean? At this point, it’s for my kids. It’s ridiculous, yeah, yeah. But ultimately is it for me? No. No. It’s for the kids.”
The kids? The kids? I read this and my head nearly exploded. He’s got two children. Two! He’s not Angelina Jolie, for pity’s sake! How much money do these kids need? Is a couple hundred million dollars not enough? What do they have, gold-plated coloring books and chinchilla bedspreads? Will they both need their own Caribbean islands to go along with the one their dad owns? I mean, how spoiled are his children? My two daughters would be happy with a hell of a lot less than $200 million, I’ll tell you that much. And I wonder, does he toss and turn at night, fretting over how he’ll make ends meet? If he never lands another movie role again, and has to retire with only $300 million in the bank, will he have to start clipping coupons so the family doesn’t go hungry? Will his poor children have to spend the rest of their lives cutting corners?
For some reason I thought he was a bit better than this insatiable love of money. I’m not sure why I thought this, but I did. He’s made some fine movies in the past, even if he has slavishly, whored himself with the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels. Maybe it was his thoughtful, pleasant demeanor in interviews that made me think he was an okay kind of guy. Or his torn pants and battered boots – just an everyman residing in Funkytown, USA. And much was made in this interview (and others) of his intelligence and the “depth of his reading.” Everything “from Baudelaire to Beckett to Burroughs.” It occurs to me that perhaps he ought to open up a newspaper and find out what’s going on in the rest of the world. Maybe then he could teach his children something besides how to count to a quarter billion.
And, hell…there could be any number of reasons why a person loves to work: Because it’s fun, or you employ hundreds or people, or have to support your extended, freeloading family, or you’re building a charitable foundation to do great works that would relieve the suffering of countless people. He could have said any of that. Or, simply – “I love what I do! I could never give it up!” That would be fine! I’d take that. But your children? Give me a break! And if it’s not for his children, or even his love of acting, but merely his worship of cold, hard cash, then it would be refreshing to hear the truth for a change. But whatever he might choose to say, he doesn’t have to drag his children into his bottomless greed. It’s unseemly.
And sure, he’s just an actor – big deal. Who cares? There’s truth in that. But a famous actor that grants interviews and hopes you’ll pay money to see his movies, while he travels to his private island on his yacht, or while sitting in a London mansion, chain-smoking and chugging wine while opining that his children are in need of a half a billion or they won’t feel satisfied….well, it kind of attracts notice and gets under my skin. And at the end of the day, he might want to concern himself with his burgeoning image as a superficial, sickeningly out-of-touch actor, let alone with the condition of his soul.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And, on a personal note...I'd like to give a big, warm shout-out to Scanner, who, some time ago took the time and had the patience to teach me how to do a link. Much appreciated!
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall
libbyliberalnyc
Seer
Jacob Sugarman
Laura Bloom
Steven J. Gulitti
Salon.com
Comments
I view him as a handsomer version of Leonard Di Caprio, who might be a star but who is not a great actor. In fact, I am only commenting because you wrote this blog, Kate. Otherwise I would have looked passed it. Cheers.
Why is that important?
Because if the OWS movement is going to gain traction with the rest of the world then it's got to be intertwined into the rest of our lives. Using the star power of a Johnny Depp to make a point about distribution of wealth is how writers and editors can help.
Strident lists of demands from the people in the streets, advice from those who last went to a demonstration when Crosby, Stills and Nash were young, or straight reporting of how many showed up at the rally and how many got arrested are not gonna help push this forward.
Most editors and writers haven't figured this out.
You have. Glad you're back.
Roger - As always, a real treat to hear from you! And your kind words have always meant more to me than I can say here without become all gooey! I agree with your points on the OWS movement and the wealth inequality. As far as I'm concerned, bit by bit, or giant degree by giant degree, we need to bring this whole thing down a serious level or ten. It's gotten so out of whack, as I said, and it makes no sense anymore, if it in fact ever did. Just not sustainable as a society or even an economy.
On the first point, I agree heartily. We sometimes are way too sensitive about language, overreacting to any exaggerated analogy. Anyone who is interviewed frequently, and tries to keep the comments fresh, is going to eventually stick his foot in his month.
On the second point, I agree with most of what you said, with one caveat. If Depp accepted $10 million less to make a film, the producer wouldn't spread that money out to the rest of the crew, he would just cut the budget by $10 million, keeping it in his, or the studio's, pocket.
A movie these days may cost 150 million, or more. So, even with the couple hundred million he's got from Disney, not from his other films, many of which were very artistic, including the one you kipped your title from (and the stab at Leo, after his performance in same? not a great talent?), if he decided, like that wonderful guy Mel Gibson, to finance his own artistic endeavor it would take all his cash. Now, I understand nobody needs that kind of dough, per se ... but we ain't talking about nobody here, as we say in the Islands, "He Somebody!"
It is called FU money in the business, if you want an example of someone who can write like a MoFo, look at James Cameron, read his interviews, and see how he describes Titanic finally giving him the financial wherewithal to make Avatar the way he, not some studio bean counters, wanted to, and, then look at the results.
It is one thing to harp on inequity, I just marched with OWS SF the other day- straight up the street from the Fed. It is another to say you want to be part of an industry (writing, publishing- and the inevitable film deal that comes after widespread success at this) and then turn around and pretend the price of fame, to keep children insulated from Paparazzi or worse, doesn't take a hundred million bucks, because it does.
Personally, as an OWS'er who is also a capitalist, I love he took down Disney! They've screwed half the actors and 90% of the writers in Hollywood- a coup in my book.
So, which is it? You want to be a writer, or not?
As for writing - well...I don't really consider what I'm doing here a pathway to some sort of success. Perhaps that's why you're here, and why others are here - and if that's the case, I wish all those seekers the best of luck or the best fate has to offer.
Additionally, even if I were hoping against tiny hope to be a part of the big entertainment-industry club, (which I'm not), I reserve my right to call someone out as being self-involved and living in an ivory tower. This is not the first interview during extremely harsh times for the majority of people, in which Johnny Depp has exhibited an amazing lack of humility and connection to the larger world in which he lives, and through which he accrues his gigantic income.
Nobody NEEDS the kind of money Depp gets, but the studios are willing to pay those absurd amounts because they know he is a world-wide draw. What I don't remember hearing about is any cause with which Depp has connected in the way that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Sean Penn and many others have. But I wouldn't assume he doesn't do anything.
Lezlie
I want to write something about how annoying ANY answer is when it included "it's for the kids." It's usually something annoying and self-serving.
"What do they have, gold-plated coloring books and chinchilla bedspreads?"
Hell yeah. I hope there is more exploration into the film industry and that kind of ridiculous wealth. And pro sports...ugh. Too wealthy and fat cat like
anyway, I think what happened was that ever since he got that weird X scar on his head, he was actually partially lobotomized. its as good as explanation as any.
Depp has since apologized, and it seemed well done and actually felt, for the "rape" thing, saying he wished he'd said "violated" instead.
Eh, he's a cute (too cute by half) moobie star, who cares.
The ugly truth is that capitalism has its priorities completely out of whack. But as long as the public is capable of buying bread and circus, that's not likely to change. The question is, how much longer are they going to be able to?
To be fair, Johnny Depp is a much better actor than most people in the industry thought he'd be. He's also taken on roles in small films for little or no money. I'm thinking of one in particular -- can't recall the name of it off the top of my head, but it was some weird-ass Jim Jarmusch black and white western.
The salaries of stars have gotten completely out of hand, as have the budgets for splashtaculars like Avatar and the Pirates franchise. Then again, senseless splashtaculars seem to be about the only movies the vast majority of the public will pay $10 and up to see in theaters. As Louie B Mayer is purported to have said, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
And Bush the Lesser and the current crop of Republican candidates prove just how true that is.
Which is not to say that this particular interview might not have been exactly what it appears to be. Just to remind all of us that we're reading written words, unable to listen to the man himself or see his body language while speaking those words who's tones we can't hear ;).
Having traveled fairly deeply into the fan world of Keanu Reeves I've learned that trusting everything I read, no matter who it's written by, is not the best way to get at the truth of his matter - I'd imagine it's much the same for Depp and any other celebrity :).
Rated for entertainment is usually just that.
fernsy - You can stew with me!
L Southeast - My daughter is also in the movie business - though not an actor. I'd have no problem - believe me! - if she were making a boatload of cash.
Beth - I do agree with you about the old "it's for the kids" or another "favorite" (NOT) "it's all about the children" - I'm with George Carlin on the whole kid-worshipping thing.
vzn - Thanks...I was indeed going for humor - if only in my own mind.
Myriad - I never said I wouldn't take stupid money...oh, yes indeed, I would. I just simplistically like to hope that people (especially in the arts) would show a bit more thoughtfulness about it all.
Tom - Well...I'm not in the vast majority either. A couple of misfits, perhaps. I've never gone along with the herd, whether it's about movies that are a "must see," or some other consumer product.
Seer - I'm pretty sure this interview was straightforward, although I don't believe everything (or sometimes anything) I read. The writer was a good friend of Johnny's and the godfather of his son. Pretty sure that he wasn't out to do a hatchet job.
Oahu - I don't explain his similiar relationship with Brando. They can all have a veritable lovefest together...basking in the glory of each other. They are just people - that are familiar to a mass of humanity - nothing exceptional in some sort of magical way.
Yes they're paying him stupid money for what he does. But he's a damn good actor, unlike Tom Cruise who only plays Tom Cruise.
Affectations and weirdness and foot-in-mouth and stupid money aside, he's done some amazing work, and for that I'm grateful.
"In response to a scare within Depp’s own family, in March 2007, he donated $2 million to the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, which treats children who are suffering from the rarest, most complex and often life-threatening conditions, as thanks for the treatment his daughter Lily-Rose received at the facility after contracting an E. Coli infection that caused kidney failure."