The term `plastic surgery` is full of curiosity. There are a couple of possible different meanings it could be invoking. Probably in some sort of slippery way, I'm sure, at least two of these are implied in this common phrase. I'm thinking of the sense of plastic as an actual chemical product, but also "plastic" in the slang jargon of our time, referring to something as cosmetic, artificial or even phony.
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.
As to that other sense of "plastic" that is used more in an aesthetic, or sometimes even ethical sense, the fact of the matter is that the majority of reconstructive surgery is not even cosmetic. And yet, isn't there something about the association of such surgery to celebrities, trying so desperately it seems to cling to past glamour and popularity that leads many to have the description roll glibly off the tongue. Possibly might there be some subtle disapproval of the celebrities that use the surgery that explains the popular fascination with those examples of celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong which attract so much attention and scrutiny?
So intriguing is the picture of the powerful who have fallen; the wealthy seemingly unable to find or afford a competent surgeon; the gorgeous who paid the price for their deal with the devil's scalpel. It's almost as though we enjoy some vindication for the years of feeling our inferiority compared to their glamour and charisma. When the tables are suddenly turned those whose beauty once made us look like geeks now has them looking like frogs. A reverse fairy tale, princes and princesses into frogs. There almost seems to be something redeeming in it for us.
Or, to put it another way, slightly more stylized, those who live by beauty, die by beauty. Metaphorically speaking, of course! It may be the ultimate poetic justice.
But before we can say the final word on these gloomy reflections, consider a further possibility. Consider in fact if there may well not be something still darker and even more sinister. I first started pondering this scenario when recalling the popular FX television show that had a nice run last decade: Nip/Tuck. It is the story of a couple of superstar plastic surgeons, serving the rich, glamorous and gorgeous. However, the intriguing thing for me about this show is that the pilot episode was not focused on the pampered and prime clientele, but rather on a mercy mission to surgically save an unfortunate man with a disfigured face.
There was though a troubling twist at the end of the episode. Only once the procedure was complete did the surgeons discover that their patient was in fact a pedophile. Unwittingly, with all the best of intentions, they had eliminated the one obstacle which had previously stood in the way of his ability to lure innocent children into his devices. A dark story line it was indeed. And, wouldn't you agree, an intriguing choice for the inaugural episode of a series primarily focused 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.
As to that other sense of "plastic" that is used more in an aesthetic, or sometimes even ethical sense, the fact of the matter is that the majority of reconstructive surgery is not even cosmetic. And yet, isn't there something about the association of such surgery to celebrities, trying so desperately it seems to cling to past glamour and popularity that leads many to have the description roll glibly off the tongue. Possibly might there be some subtle disapproval of the celebrities that use the surgery that explains the popular fascination with those examples of celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong which attract so much attention and scrutiny?
So intriguing is the picture of the powerful who have fallen; the wealthy seemingly unable to find or afford a competent surgeon; the gorgeous who paid the price for their deal with the devil's scalpel. It's almost as though we enjoy some vindication for the years of feeling our inferiority compared to their glamour and charisma. When the tables are suddenly turned those whose beauty once made us look like geeks now has them looking like frogs. A reverse fairy tale, princes and princesses into frogs. There almost seems to be something redeeming in it for us.
Or, to put it another way, slightly more stylized, those who live by beauty, die by beauty. Metaphorically speaking, of course! It may be the ultimate poetic justice.
But before we can say the final word on these gloomy reflections, consider a further possibility. Consider in fact if there may well not be something still darker and even more sinister. I first started pondering this scenario when recalling the popular FX television show that had a nice run last decade: Nip/Tuck. It is the story of a couple of superstar plastic surgeons, serving the rich, glamorous and gorgeous. However, the intriguing thing for me about this show is that the pilot episode was not focused on the pampered and prime clientele, but rather on a mercy mission to surgically save an unfortunate man with a disfigured face.
There was though a troubling twist at the end of the episode. Only once the procedure was complete did the surgeons discover that their patient was in fact a pedophile. Unwittingly, with all the best of intentions, they had eliminated the one obstacle which had previously stood in the way of his ability to lure innocent children into his devices. A dark story line it was indeed. And, wouldn't you agree, an intriguing choice for the inaugural episode of a series primarily focused 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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment