MovieChat Forums > Jamie Lee Curtis Discussion > Privileged Nepo Babies

Privileged Nepo Babies

posted 2 years ago by HarveyManFredSin (4877)
18 replies | jump to latest

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/jamie-lee-curtis-criticises-nepo-160731670.html

We call out white privilege. We call out male privilege. We call out Christian privilege. And we call out straight privilege. And I have ZERO problem with that. I recognise that these structural/systemic privileges exist.

But why do Hollywood 'liberals' like Jamie Lee Curtis and Lily Allen suddenly take offence when anyone calls out 'nepo-baby privilege'? Is it because they can dish out recriminations and blame, but when it actually comes to taking it (i.e. accounting for their own *immense* privilege) they can't take it?

Jamie Lee Curtis talks about how her parents 'came from nothing'. Good for *them*! *They* worked hard to get where they did in the entertainment industry. But how is that an alibi for Jamie's *own* nepo-baby privilege?!?

Also, it seems ironic that Jamie believes she shouldn't be held to account for her nepo-baby privilege, on account of her parents' self-made status, when she played a similar character in Knives Out, who claimed to be 'self-made', when in fact she was benefiting from her father's own hard work as a self-made million-selling author.

Spoiled Hollywood brats need to finally wake-up and realise, they're not the 'good guys' in all this. *They're* the powerful, privileged, spoiled ones. *They* represent the conservative status-quo, not some sad, lonely, low-to-middle-income, unconnected 'incel' living in a basement (the common hate-figure for the 'progressive' [sic] media).

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

jamie lee curtis is not nepo baby. she actually have talent.

will smith and judd apatow's kids are example of nepo baby. none could act and are in film because dad.

people need to learn that talent run in family. if parent have talent then kid sometime have it if they lucky. having actor who have famous parent does not always equel nepo.

martin sheen have 4 kids. 2 of them becomes stars because they inherit his talent. his other 2 kids try to be actor but cant because they have no talents.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

The term 'Nepo Baby' doesn't preclude talent. There are plenty of talented people who don't get the same opportunities as those individuals with rich and/or famous parents with significant connections.

It isn't an attack on anyone. It simply highlights the advantages an individual has when they're able to get their foot in the door.

Also, saying that 'talent runs in the family' is a disturbingly elitist and eugenicist notion. I wonder how many supposedly 'progressive' Hollywood types believe in such regressive ideas. Such notions keep the poor and disadvantaged down, suggesting that they deserve to be shut out of elite professions, because they 'don't have any talent in the blood'. The Nazis would be proud of such rhetoric.

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

saying talent run in family is not nazi. it is just genes. it is nature.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

"It is just genes"

That's eugenicist talk. You're dismissing people because they weren't born to a rich and famous mummy and daddy. That's PATHETIC.

As the late great disabled campaigner and left-wing journalist Dawn Foster said "If I've heard of yer da, I don't need to hear from you" [with the exception of Jesus].

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

talent is something you born with harvey! it is what seperate me and you from humphey bogarts.

acting talent is not just come from hard work, it is gift!!

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

I don't know.

I think you can learn to act. I think *charisma* and being able to appeal to an audience, is something that's harder (maybe impossible) to *learn*.

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

we all movie fan harvey and reason we movie fan is because people we admire in movie are born with talent we can never have!! it is gods gift and they use it well and give us great film to watch.

[–] Martoto (5042) 2 years ago

Jamie Lee Curtis couldn't get a job except from her friends even after her break out role in the mega hit Halloween 1978.

Trading Places 1983, where she had to play a hooker, was when she became a success.

I'm not aware of Jamie Lee Curtis taking offence. She actually acknowledged it herself that she was something of a nepo baby. One of the reasons she got the role in Halloween (she was not the first choice) was that there was some marketing value in having the daughter of the murder victim from Hitchcock's Psycho playing the potential murder victim in John Carpenter's tiny budgeted independent borderline exploitation movie. It's not like JLC just fell into a comfortable and lucrative job without trying.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

"One of the reasons she got the role in Halloween (she was not the first choice) was that there was some marketing value in having the daughter of the murder victim from Hitchcock's Psycho playing the potential murder victim in John Carpenter's tiny budgeted independent borderline exploitation movie."

Aren't you admitting that it was a benefit for her to have a famous/well-connected parent?

And, once again, I'm not denying her talent or her hard work, but I am pointing out that having famous and/or well-connected parents *does* help you get your foot in the door.

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

having famous parent can get your foot in door (like will smith son) but it cannot give you 45 year careers like jamie lee curtis. she star in many classic film.

and previous viewer was wrong. jamie lee win part in halloween by audition, not because parent. advantage of having janet lee as parent come AFTER she win part fair and squares.

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 2 years ago

so... sounds like all posters agree with

"*does* help you get your foot in the door."

its then up to that person to make a go of it .
I dont think its practical to strart writing lawas to ensure that nobody helsp anyone to get a foot in the door

[–] Martoto (5042) 2 years ago

Who said it didn't? I'm pointing out the false premise that she is either ignorant or in denial, or prickly, about it.

Having a relative or a friend in ANY industry is usually advantageous to following them in that industry. The more successful or higher up that person is the better.

The only time it should be a problem is when "nepo baby"'s talent or work ethic doesn't merit them keeping their position.

And like it or not, the entertainment industry can be a bit of a popularity contest. More than other industries. Some people have advantages in that area of varying kinds. Connection or a resembleance with a known commodity is just one of them.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

So, it's not a problem if only people who are from wealthy and connected families are able to succeed? 🤦‍♂️

Jesus Christ! We really do SIMP for the celebrity class, don't we?

Fucking stop it! We hate poor white people. We hate poor men. But wealthy celebs who were only able to get opportunities thanks to mummy and daddy, are A-OK, with your people.

[–] Martoto (5042) 2 years ago

Where is your evidence that only wealthy and connected families are able to succeed?

And where the fuck did I approve of the situation if true? I'm just acknowledging the reality of the situation in contrast to your naïve and ill informed notions.

[–] Kowalski (75736) 2 years ago

DANNY TREJO GOT FAMOUS AFTER A LENGTHY PRISON SENTENCE.

OPRAH GREW UP WEARING POTATO SACKS FOR CLOTHES.

DEMI MOORE LIVED IN A TRAILER PARK.

DICAPRIO GREW UP BORDERLINE POOR IN EAST LA.

JIM CARREY WAS A JANITOR.

[–] Martoto (5042) 2 years ago

And what about the stars and well known whose parents had unremarkable careers. Never has beens who nevertheless worked in the industry and who helped their children find their footing at the beginning of their career?

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

What is your point?

Isn't this the same argument used by white men to justify white male privilege (i.e. "Look at Oprah. Clearly, Black women can succeed.") A few isolated examples doesn't negate systemic privilege.

[–] Kowalski (75736) 2 years ago

THEY ARE NOT ISOLATED...THEY ARE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WITHOUT RESEARCH...I AM SURE IF I LOOKED INTO IT I COULD FILL THIS PAGE WITH HUMBLE NAMES WHICH BECAME FAMOUS.