Leanne is a graduate and hopes to train to become a journalist. She enjoys reading different types of books and being scared out of her wits watching horror films.
Leanne isn't impressed with celebrities' cheesy claims about certain brands. Has acting gone too far for the sake of earning big bucks?
I don't believe celebrities. They lie. I don't think Charlize Theron dyes her own hair. If she does, I don't believe she does it using a high street brand, complete with clear plastic gloves. I don't believe Scarlet Johansson's life is improved by lip gloss, and if I ordered a case of martini, George Clooney most certainly wouldn't deliver it.
Why do they do it? An increasing number of celebrities put their name and face to a product they've probably never used. They make money, as do the advertising companies and we part with ours in the process. It's by a large stretch of the imagination that those living a life of wealth and luxury get too worked up about a lip gloss, without some substantial motivation behind it. It seems they are not content with earning six figure sums before they hit the age of 21 and need to top up their annual earnings with a nice bit of endorsement. They don't really need the money, but then I don't know how much mansions and small dogs cost so perhaps they do.
But I guess we must spare a thought for the poor little things that have to cope with paparazzi, snapping at every turn, day and night, without a moment's peace. They seem to quite like having their picture taken to advertise shampoo or moisturiser on their own terms, but out in public, now they need their 'space'. They can't complain they don't want to be in magazines if they're filling up advertising space. If we have to see pictures of them everywhere, it only seems fair that in a few they look like they haven't passed a mirror in two days. It makes us feel that bit better. The paparazzi don't work to a strict moral code, but that doesn't bother me too much when I pick up a magazine. These starlets have made their bed and can lie in it. Mike Skinner knows it; a grand does indeed not come for free.
Advertising companies don't shell out money for known failures. A famous face will guarantee success as opposed to unknown actors, probably paid a margin of the fee. But you're not telling me that people go to DFS because Martin Kemp sits on a sofa and tells them to? Does it really matter which face is in the advert? A face we recognise grabs our attention as we walk by or flick through - it's a case of get someone, anyone that makes us do a double take and the companies are quid's in.
"They don't really need the money, but then I don't know how much mansions and small dogs cost so perhaps they do."
The models want to be actors and the actors want to be models. The lines of what they actually do get blurred. They pretend they're like us, but they probably don't wash their own hair or call up to chase car insurance quotes. Unlike the rest of us, they don't seem to have a single occupation.
The more famous faces endorsing different products, I feel the less likely we are to believe them as actors. After years in the shadows Teri Hatcher's back in weekly episodes of Desperate Housewives. We are drawn into a fictional world and get hooked on the character's dilemmas. The actors want us to believe them. Being in the show has apparently given Teri Hatcher and some of her colleagues, a license to hit our screens during the ad break as well. If we are to believe them as their character is it then best to advertise mascara in the break?
We should remember what these faces do for a living. They act. That is their (very expensive) bread and butter. They demand large fees; in return we expect credibility and passion for their art. A patronising tone on how to keep blond locks bright and radiant should not be in the job description.
Angry? Submit a rant