Where there’s smoke

AUNOR. Stardom comes with responsibilities.

Smoking is part of the country’s social landscape, despite efforts to curtail the vice due to its horrendous medical and health consequences. So, many were caught with their proverbial knickers down recently, when Nora Aunor was roundly lambasted for smoking in public—or, more specifically, on the cover of a magazine.

To heat the issue up even more, Anne Curtis also got flak within the month for another “smoking gun” photo, this time for a “sophisticated” pictorial shot in Paris.

What’s all the smoke, fire and brimstone all about? Nora and Anne are celebrities—and “therefore” role models—so, if they’re seen smoking, it subliminally makes the vice look “OK” and even, ah, chic, thus perhaps inadvertently sending out the message that others should “succumb” to it, too.

Loyalists

That’s why the people who’ve rained on the two stars’ parade have been so incensed. And that, in turn, has irritated other people, including the stars’ loyalists, who accuse the accusers of over-reacting, to the point of dictating to the celebrities involved how they should live, and what they are permitted to inhale. —Why, one dissenter seethes, that’s downright communistic!

For their part, both Nora and Anne have apologized, but the furor has yet to completely die down. What does this say about how some of us perceive celebrities, the example they set, the freedom they enjoy, and the “limits” to that freedom, precisely due to their status as celebrities?

First off, smoking has been proven to be dangerous to people’s health, so everyone should do his best not to smoke. But, some people don’t have the will power needed to stop “cold-turkey” and suffer for two weeks before the addictive urge subsides and can be brought under more or less permanent control.

So, for these relative “weaklings,” laws and ordinances have been passed to limit the ill effects of smoking, particularly on other people. Thus, nonsmoking zones have been prescribed, including many indoor venues, because second-hand smoke has been found to be similarly pernicious. So, if you’re a real addict, you may often have to go outside to inhale your fix of nicotine (which, unfortunately, exposes you to the additional danger of inhaling the polluted urban air!).

Despite those caveats, we still see people smoking, but we don’t raise a fuss about it—otherwise, we’ll be fussing and fighting 50 times a day! —But, when it comes to celebrities, some people do raise a fuss, due to the “role model” factor that kicks in.

The “role model” proponents’ logic could go this way: Celebrities enjoy a lot of perks, but with them should come some responsibilities, like setting a good example, because celebrities are so visible, especially in the media, which magnifies the “desirability” and “cachet” of what they do a thousand fold.

—So, stars should always be on their best behavior when they’re out in public.

Argument

On the other hand, some stars don’t buy that argument, pointing out, “All we owe the public is a good performance.” Their logic: The “contract” between them and their viewers is professional, not personal.

A third party might comment: That’s the theory, but in practice, the personal bond cannot be denied, especially in these parts, where the star-viewer relationship is much less professional than in other climes. So, there are responsibilities that come along with the perks of stardom, and they include setting a good example.

If so, what does that do to a star’s vaunted freedom? It places an implicit limit on it, and stars who don’t see the reality through the smokescreen beclouding it are fated to remain contentious and controversial. —And, who’s the star whose career won’t suffer after getting all that flak for long?