Personal Opinion:
Keira Knightley is one of my favourite model celebrities - and for a very good reason.
Keira is down-to-earth and if that defines a lady, I doubt it could be considered bad, because the actress embraces and protects her values. Values that are, in my opinion, positive and exemplary. Of hardwork, simplicity, realistic and charitable.
She has since made her view on wedding known, saying she probably would not be wedding as she could not imagine a real-life wedding that could beat any of her screen weddings.
As she considered marriage and altered her position slightely on wedding, she revealed she favoured sizeable or budget weddings.
Hear her in a chat with Chris Gardner of Wonder Wall's Celeb Gloss.."I'm not a big wedding type, It (fame) could all go away, like, very soon." How more realistic can a celeb get?
And to prove just how consistent she is, the 28 year old married her husband, James Righton in a low key wedding in Mazan Hall, Masseilles, Southan France on May 4, 2013.
Not that I have always been vigilant about the star, but according to reports, six months after her wedding, she has already recycled the dress for the third time - no doubt teaching others a valuable lesson.
Uncharacteristically, she has been dubbed `frugal' and unless the term has been embellished to connote some positive meanings, it seems a misnomer for a lady who supports not less than 11 known Charities. Seems rather hardly frugal.
Keira Knightly isn't the only millionaire star that warms the hearts of many `down-to-earth-people' lovers, like me.
Taylor Swift is another, as does Eneli Sande and a host of others whose skill and decorum have ensured their skills are marketable to model proportions. Leona Lewis and Adele - millonaire super chat topers and platinum selling singers, are among stars that would not sexualise their talent and yet are hugely successful.
And if this isn't a strong enough evidence to support my view that `sexualisation' of career does not actually sell - but only talent does, I wonder why anyone would buy a song that either lacks rythm or meaningful lyrics. What would people listen to and if there is none, what and why should they pay for the effort?
The furoro, no thanks to `twerking', following the release of miley cyrus' wrecking ball and `We Can't Stop' videos may have settled, but listening to both songs, how many people would buy it now, but would not have done so had she kept her clothes on?
I doubt there are many. The truth is that when a product is good, it sells. Even marketers find it easier to believe in, and to tell the public about it.
Wouldn't her fans have bought wrecking ball if the video was simply contained of tear-filled eyes on the serious face of a singer with beautiful and voice with meaninful lyrics? Could they even have snubbed listening if it was only released on vynil?
One valuable lesson to be learnt from sexualisation is that it does not necessarily sell - only talent does. Unfortunately, in show business, it often gets the credit.
* Twitter: @bensonagoha.
No comments:
Post a Comment