Hollywood's Star System The star system, brought forth in the silent age of film, survives in the land of Hollywood. The star is the most important part of the picture, not the picture itself. It is the culture of the movie or TV business, but is it worth it economically today? Are actors paid too much? Millions of dollars per picture is the status quo, plus a percentage of the final dollar tally. Are there profits in the movies only with a star as a main character, or can movies still earn money without a well-known name at the helm? According to a study by S. Abraham Ravid, “movies with stars in them are no more profitable than movies without stars” (Surowiecki, 2001). So where does that leave us with Al Pacino and friends? General welfare …show more content…
Beneficence can be seen today in such programs as scholarships, philanthropy, children's aid, welfare of animals, disaster relief, etc. (Beauchamp, 2016). Consequently, it is a duty to give of yourself, usually money, for the benefit of others; a form of altruism or humanitarianism, to help those with a greater need. While the beneficence argument is not against the imbalance of wealth itself that occurs, a limited argument for the star system, it is, however, blatantly against the star system when the wealth is not used in charity to others. Tony beats, steals, kills, to obtain what he wants – money – only for himself and no other, via the unethical dealing of drugs. Aristotle's theory of envy tells us “envy is pain at the good fortune of others” (as cited in D'Arms, 2017). The Roman Catholic faith details envy as one of the seven deadly sins. Brusseau goes on to discuss the virtue argument against the star system, advocating the prevention of wealth extremes (2012, p. 783). Acquiring a tremendous welath will evoke emotion from many sides, respect, happiness, greed, or “cloaked envy” (Brusseau, 2012, p.784). Virtue ethics does not propose a list of morals to follow, but to be of virtuous character; to be good, do good. Tony does
Peter Singer a philosopher and professor at Princeton University who wrote the essay titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, where he argues that wealthy people have a moral obligation to help provide to developing nation’s resources that would increase their standard of living and decrease death due to starvation, exposure, and preventable sicknesses. John Arthur’s essay argues that Singer says that all affluent people have a moral obligation to give their money to poor people to the extent that the wealthy person would be on the same level as the poor person, poor people have no positive right to our assistance, and wealthy people have a negative right to their property, which weighs against their obligation.
The stars, particularly Hollywood stars, made a huge contribution to attracting vast numbers of people to the cinema.
By handing out money to a beggar, you are “only saving yourself from annoyance…” (Pg. 15) Carnegie states that nobody improves by almsgiving for you will only aid the person’s addiction. As an advocate of Social Darwinism, Carnegie believed in competitive natures within his workers. He believed in a definite separation of classes and it was not only needed, but also
Singer’s belief that everyone should give away all excess wealth to eliminate as much suffering as possible conflicts with the idea of competition and, therefore, reduces the productivity of human civilization. Peter Singer, a professor of moral philosophy, stated in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” that it is everyone’s duty to participate in philanthropy since it is morally wrong to not help someone who is suffering. Singer thoroughly explained the details of the “duty” of philanthropy: “we ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility - that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift.” If this philosophy is followed, and the poor beneficiary experienced the same level of comfort as the wealthy benefactor, then what incentive would the beneficiary have for
Throughout his essay, Singer argues that we must reject the common sense view of giving to charity. The common sense view of giving to charity is one that is supererogatory; it is not obligated for us
The star system was an important part of the Studio System in classical Hollywood cinema. From the 1910s, stars were born. Studios create new personas, new names and new backgrounds for the stars. A new image, whether or not it had anything to do with how the person really was in real life, would be invented for the new stars. The stars would be distinctively different and moviegoers would be able to recognise them individually. The Hollywood studios, that the stars are under contract with, managed their publicity, roles, lifestyles and even fan clubs. During the classical Hollywood period, the stars themselves did not have much say in the films that they appear in. The companies would choose the role they deem most suited to boost their popularity.
Often times, the middle and upper classes underestimate the amount of poverty left in our society. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer reaches out to the lucrative to help the misfortune. Although Singer believes that, the wealthy has a responsibility in providing help to the less fortunate, Singer conducts theories in which he explains how we as Americans spend more on luxuries rather than necessities. If the wealthy are fortunate enough to go out to fancy meals, they should be able to provide food for a poor family or medicine for the children. The negative attributes outweigh the positive due to the lack of supporting detail from the positive in which helps us better understand that helping people is the right thing to do rather than sitting back and doing nothing but demands that Americans donate every cent of their extra money to help the poor. According to Singer, if we provide a foundation for the misfortune we will not only make the world a better place but we will feel a relief inside that world poverty will soon end. The argument singer gives has no supporting details in which he tries and persuade the wealthy to donate money to the poor without clear thoughts.
Recognize that the "Culture of Hollywood" is based on motion pictures as big business as well as entertainment.
A well-known expression is that money can’t buy happiness, yet people fantasize of winning the lottery, living in their dream house, and possessing enough tangible objects to feel satisfied with their lives. Most are under the preconceived notion that the absence of wealth and power translates to hardship and despair. This, however, is not the case, because a self-effacing lifestyle is not an indication of a lower quality of life, and often is better than one of great fortune. People yearn to have the financial independence and capabilities of those in higher ranking positions, and are willing to abandon their morals and own personal well-being if it means being successful. It seems that by reaching a level of wealth in which money is no longer
A penny saved may be a penny earned, just as a penny spent may begin to better the world. Andrew Carnegie, a man known for his wealth, certainly knew the value of a dollar. His successful business ventures in the railroad industry, steel business, and in communications earned him his multimillion-dollar fortune. Much the opposite of greedy, Carnegie made sure he had what he needed to live a comfortable life, and put what remained of his fortune toward assistance for the general public and the betterment of their communities. He stressed the idea that generosity is superior to arrogance. Carnegie believes that for the wealthy to be generous to their community, rather than live an ostentatious lifestyle proves that they are truly rich in wealth and in heart. He also emphasized that money is most powerful in the hands of the earner, and not anyone else. In his retirement, Carnegie not only spent a great deal of time enriching his life by giving back; but also often wrote about business, money, and his stance on the importance of world peace. His essay “Wealth” presents what he believes are three common ways in which the wealthy typically distribute their money throughout their life and after death. Throughout his essay “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie appeals to logos as he defines “rich” as having a great deal of wealth not only in materialistic terms, but also in leading an active philanthropic lifestyle. He solidifies this definition in his appeals to ethos and pathos with an emphasis on the rewards of philanthropy to the mind and body.
Singer’s argument may have swayed many people to donate their dispensable income to children in need despite the fact that it has many fundamental flaws. He argues that we should give away the majority of our earnings to charity. Since Singer wants the reader to donate such a large amount of money, the readers are given no choice but to contribute nothing whatsoever. His solution is not realistic and does not take into account the long-term financial impact this type of donation contribution system would have on a country’s economy.
Tinseltown is a slang term used as another name for Hollywood. Hollywood’s association with the film industry has made it a magical place for some Americans who seek fame, therefore giving it the name Tinseltown. Although the term was used around the 1970’s, Tinseltown is still popular today. Iconic buildings and places such as the Chinese Theater is one example. Today’s Hollywood is no longer a Tinseltown, but more like a “TinselCity.”
unemployment; competition for roles is often intense. While formal training is helpful, experience and talent are more important for success in this field. Because of erratic employment, earnings for actresses are relatively low.
Different people hold different views about whether celebrities deserve the money they obtained. Most people just see the performers’ perfect shows on the stage, or the musicians’ excellent performances in the concert hall; however they did not see the hard works that celebrities need to do behind the stage and spotlights. The people who do not know how hard that they prepare for a show, a TV show, a movie or a concert, think all celebrities do not deserve the incomes that they get and earn money easily and highly, but they use their efforts to get money as normal people. As the old saying states, “no gain without pain.” The famous and professional celebrities who have high reputations may need to stay up late to practice his performance again and again before going on the stage. People always believe a person’s efforts determines the applause that he deserves. All the efforts
Peter Singer practices utilitarianism, he believes the consequence of an action matters more than the reason behind the action. Singer is trying to convince his audience to donate their money to end world poverty. He believes it is moral to give as much money as the person can give, allowing them to purchase just enough for them to live on, and this will be the right action to take. Singer is aiming toward the United States to contribute more to charity. Singer does not consider specific aspects that do not support his argument and causes his argument to not list specific aspects of his belief. Singer’s argument is not a good argument because he does not consider the ramifications of people donating their surplus of money would do to the economy; is it our duty to feed the poor; and that our moral intuitions are not consequentialist at all when it concerns what our rescue duties entail.