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.
The persistent popularity of that idea, though, probably has something to do with the more insidious implications of the other meaning of the term plastic applied to such surgery. Yet, the truth is that most reconstructive surgery is not done for cosmetic reasons. And yet, somehow, the notion lingers. Something about the association of such surgery to celebrities perceived as clinging on to past beauty and glamour draws so many of us to a judgment which invites the term to roll glibly off the tongue. A kind of subtle disapproval pervades the use of this term, as we raise a leery eyebrow in regard of those celebrities that employ such surgical methods. When we observe celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong we're seeing more than just the outcome of a failed operating procedure.
We are certainly intrigued by the picture of the charmed who have fallen from grace; the rich who apparently are unable to find or maybe even afford a competent surgeon; the beautiful who paid the price for their deal with the Lucifer's scalpel. As though there is some subliminal retribution for the years of our admiration and sense of inferiority. The tables are suddenly turned and the beautiful now have become mere frogs. Princes and princesses into frogs, the fairy tale in reverse. So seems to be the comeuppance for celebrities and a faint sense of redemption and vindication for many of us who have viewed them from afar.
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.
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 episode though took a surprising turn at the end. Only once the surgery was completed did the protagonist surgeons discover that their patient was a pedophile. Without any realization of the consequences of their actions, they eliminated the one natural obstacle that had previously hindered his capacity to draw children into his influence. It was indeed a dark and striking choice for the pilot show of a series that would focus so much on the beauty-pursuit of the rich, famous and handsome.
And so I find myself wondering if that story actually captures a deeper truth. Or, at least, a more primordial suspicion about plastic surgery: might we suspect, even if only secretly, that it hides something true? Something dark and sinister? Perhaps the popular fixation on celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong actually taps into a suspicion that something real has been revealed. Has a disguised ugliness been duly disclosed? Might we believe on a deeper level that the princess or prince was always, in some way, really a frog and only now we finally see 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.
The persistent popularity of that idea, though, probably has something to do with the more insidious implications of the other meaning of the term plastic applied to such surgery. Yet, the truth is that most reconstructive surgery is not done for cosmetic reasons. And yet, somehow, the notion lingers. Something about the association of such surgery to celebrities perceived as clinging on to past beauty and glamour draws so many of us to a judgment which invites the term to roll glibly off the tongue. A kind of subtle disapproval pervades the use of this term, as we raise a leery eyebrow in regard of those celebrities that employ such surgical methods. When we observe celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong we're seeing more than just the outcome of a failed operating procedure.
We are certainly intrigued by the picture of the charmed who have fallen from grace; the rich who apparently are unable to find or maybe even afford a competent surgeon; the beautiful who paid the price for their deal with the Lucifer's scalpel. As though there is some subliminal retribution for the years of our admiration and sense of inferiority. The tables are suddenly turned and the beautiful now have become mere frogs. Princes and princesses into frogs, the fairy tale in reverse. So seems to be the comeuppance for celebrities and a faint sense of redemption and vindication for many of us who have viewed them from afar.
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.
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 episode though took a surprising turn at the end. Only once the surgery was completed did the protagonist surgeons discover that their patient was a pedophile. Without any realization of the consequences of their actions, they eliminated the one natural obstacle that had previously hindered his capacity to draw children into his influence. It was indeed a dark and striking choice for the pilot show of a series that would focus so much on the beauty-pursuit of the rich, famous and handsome.
And so I find myself wondering if that story actually captures a deeper truth. Or, at least, a more primordial suspicion about plastic surgery: might we suspect, even if only secretly, that it hides something true? Something dark and sinister? Perhaps the popular fixation on celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong actually taps into a suspicion that something real has been revealed. Has a disguised ugliness been duly disclosed? Might we believe on a deeper level that the princess or prince was always, in some way, really a frog and only now we finally see 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:
Also check out his controversial contribution to The Don Draper Haircut site on the reasons for the success of the hit TV show Mad Men.
No comments:
Post a Comment