June 5, 2017

"The pop star wore a white outfit adorned with colorful photos of the Manchester victims who died in the May 22 attack..."

"... they could be seen around her collar, wrist and draped across her back in the shape of a heart."

It's a hard task, dancing and entertaining to the theme of death by terrorism. What can you do? Make it about the victims. How? Put a photograph of each one. Wear an outfit made of photographs. What else can you do?

I thought of the ice dancers Irina Lobacheva and Ilia Averbukh skating about September 11th, at the 2002 Winter Olympics (only 4 months after 9/11), in costumes representing destruction:

It's not easy. You're called upon to entertain the crowd and to embody something that must be represented as the polar opposite of entertaining, and yet you must, at some level, realize that there is a horrible, sick entertainment value to the terrorism — titillation stirring up the next attack and ratings for the news media that will stream coverage of the next event you'll be asked to commemorate in a costume.


rhhardin said...

It's not the polar opposite of entertaining but a mixing of genres.

David said...

Maybe you just don't do the show, at least not then.

traditionalguy said...

Terror done right attracts a huge audience that stays around for years. It draws until the last Congressman has done his best interview kabuke and the Commission Report has been analyzed.

Attention is a many splendored thing.

Achilles said...

Importing Muslims is a threefer for progressives: reliable voters, destabilized society, and the need for a more intrusive police state.

Bob Ellison said...

After a terrorist attack, there are three goals for entertainers, perhaps not in this order:

1) Show that the show must go on. Entertain and help the audience feel better.

2) Show grief and empathy for the victims.

3) Don't give any showtime to the terrorists. Don't even show anger. Leave that to non-entertainers.

It sounds as though Grande did rather well, and quickly.

David said...

apparently she raised $3 Million to help the victims so perhaps that's a reason to do it.

Ann Althouse said...

"It's not the polar opposite of entertaining but a mixing of genres."

As I said in the post, it "must be represented as the polar opposite of entertaining."

But it is entertaining, in a "horrible, sick" way that they've got to fight and deny and feel great anxiety about realizing.

Brookzene said...

Bob Ellison gets it.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Of course Brooksie, Ariana Grande is 90 lbs soaking wet, her job is to be cute and make people smile. Pulling terrs out of their warrens at 3am to put them to the question and climb their social networks is for those rough men that Orwell wrote about. Their daughters may be AG fans, so there's that.

steve uhr said...

I saw the entire show. A lot of joy and tears on the beautiful young faces in the audience.

Drago said...

Joy and tears and love do not stop radical islamists bent on destruction.

We didn't "love" our way up the cliffs at Normandy on June 6, 1944.

Bob Ellison: "3) Don't give any showtime to the terrorists. Don't even show anger. Leave that to non-entertainers"

Yeah, why show anger about the purposeful targeting of young girls for annihilation. Why, only a monster would show anger about that.

Scott M said...

It's not easy.

No, it's not, and maybe one performer in a generation can nail it. Under the weight of almost guaranteed epic-fail, it's probably better to simply keep to your normal routines and costumes and, if you must, if you feel compelled, do something verbally.

William said...

Due to the press of other events in my life, I was unable to watch the concert. Afternoon naps just don't take themselves. I know from past experience, however, that you can always count on pop performers to take a stand in favor of love and beauty and transgendered bathrooms. From what I've read they didn't let the home team down.......I'd like to further refine a suggestion I made earlier. I think just one of the performers should get a Je Suis Charlie tattoo of the Prophet. It should, however, be prominently displayed. This would be a clear gesture of defiance and courage. The Mayor of London should be photographed hugging the tat bearer. All those Muslims who claim that they're against terrorism could also be shown hugging the tat bearer. This would reassure all of us that Muslims don't harbor views that are antithetical to western civ and transgendered bathrooms.......My earlier suggestion was that all the performers should get the tat, but, on further reflection, I think just one performer should be the designated tat bearer. It should be considered a great honor, like winning a Grammy or MTV award. Clearly, the first tat bearer should be Ariana Grande. After she gets assasinated by some madman who is no way representative of Islam, there should be another benefit concert. At that concert, the next tat bearer will be announced and will proudly show her Je Suis Charlie tat to the audience. Monster ratings and the record sales of both the current and past tat bearer will go through the roof. Not that commercial considerations would be any part of this.

vanderleun said...

And it is William for the Win, Ann for the persistant schoolmarming that she does so well.

rhhardin said...

But it is entertaining, in a "horrible, sick" way that they've got to fight and deny and feel great anxiety about realizing.

News depends on its being entertaining. Otherwise it's all city council meetings and no audience.

Being entertained is pretty broad in its scope. Resisting know-nothing newsbabes is pretty easy for some and not for others, I guess. There's no fight on my part. I threw out the TV in 1971.

The interesting, entertaining, stuff for me isn't feelz and celebrities but dynamics of various systems, including social systems; and their failure, which is really entertaining. Systems theory at work.

How much could be improved by snipping certain feedback paths, like the women's vote.

rhhardin said...

Separate entertainment from governing.