The term `plastic surgery` is an interesting one. It can be taken a couple of different ways and, indeed, probably in some sort of slippery semantic sense both ideas are implied. Referred to here is both the sense of plastic as an actual material produced by the chemical industry, but also plastic in the colloquial sense as fake, 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.
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.
And, indeed, it could be put another way, slightly more stylized. For, at the point of such distressing surgical outcomes, one might well intone that those who live by beauty shall die by beauty. Metaphorically speaking, you understand! This may well 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 punch line, if you will, was that it was only after the surgery was complete that the surgeons learned that their patient was in fact a pedophile. They had unwittingly eliminated the one obstacle to his capacity to lure innocent children into his devices. It was an interesting choice for a first episode in a series that would primarily indeed focus on the rich, famous and beautiful clientele.
Does that story capture a more primordial suspicion about plastic surgery: that maybe it`s hiding something dark? Something sinister? Perhaps the fascination with celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong actually taps into a suspicion that something true has been revealed. That a disguised ugliness has been unveiled. That the princess or prince was always secretly been a frog and only now we finally see the truth.
Possibly I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. It is something to think about though, don't you agree? Could it be that the widespread fascination with celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong actually says something rather significant 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.
And, indeed, it could be put another way, slightly more stylized. For, at the point of such distressing surgical outcomes, one might well intone that those who live by beauty shall die by beauty. Metaphorically speaking, you understand! This may well 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 punch line, if you will, was that it was only after the surgery was complete that the surgeons learned that their patient was in fact a pedophile. They had unwittingly eliminated the one obstacle to his capacity to lure innocent children into his devices. It was an interesting choice for a first episode in a series that would primarily indeed focus on the rich, famous and beautiful clientele.
Does that story capture a more primordial suspicion about plastic surgery: that maybe it`s hiding something dark? Something sinister? Perhaps the fascination with celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong actually taps into a suspicion that something true has been revealed. That a disguised ugliness has been unveiled. That the princess or prince was always secretly been a frog and only now we finally see the truth.
Possibly I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. It is something to think about though, don't you agree? Could it be that the widespread fascination with celebrity plastic surgery gone wrong actually says something rather significant about the very concept of celebrity and about us.
About the Author:
Mickey Jhonny, in addition to contributing to Celebrity Plastic Surgery Gone Wrong, also writes for the blog Celebrities with Eating Disorders. To see his most recent article, click here .
No comments:
Post a Comment