Here’s How Marlon Brando Got His Beach Body Back. You’ll Never Believe What Happened Next.

so the weight of our top celebrities weighs heavily upon our overburdened minds. weighty thoughts, to be sure, especially when we can ill afford the extra baggage. so we do what we do, by which i mean we weight-shame them and weight-bait their failings. women come off worse than men, which is the case always and everywhere, but it’s never not negative for nobody.
it hasn’t been like this since time immemorial, because while weight is a fact, our perceptions of it are historically, socially, and culturally constructed.1 the big were once beautiful, whereas today they’re shamed. except now there’s so much “big IS beautiful” stuff out there, featuring these beautiful people who would be acclaimed beautiful semper ubique et ab omnibus, that is meant to counteract that. the easiest think piece2 to write is something dismantling the whole “fat is ugly” ideology that is now probably held only by angry thinspo types and catty old school fashion peopple. it’s easy; it’s shooting fish in a barrel; it’s troll-proof.
except as i’ve written elsewhere, those people still say “beautiful is beautiful,” whether it’s men or women or whatever. those people are all beautiful. the people we’re force-fed (!!!) are always beautiful. the media stream into which we each step but once requires beauty; the selfie allows us to approximate it, control it, perhaps even convey it. i am surrounded by beauty. “we live in a beautiful world,” sings the insufferable chris martin3, and i guess he’s as right as any other cliche-spewing stopped clock.
yet here’s the thing, because there’s always a thing. i can’t say “there’s always a thing,” much less proceed this slowly, in the shit that actually i’m paid to write4, but, ermahgerd, who would pay me to write anything at all?5 anyway, back to the thing at hand, which is still there, a 5,000-pound elephant in the room: we’re still saying “________ is beautiful.”
when in fact ugliness is a thing that’s possible, and as a possible thing it should be amenable to admiration, or at least admired more than it presently is, when it is at best merely tolerated and at worst pitied. in those dark ages when my father was playing pro football, he was a chiseled 220-pound adonis; by the time he died, he had transmogrified into 300+ pounds of sheer bearded weird. his sister went from homecoming queen to a doppleganger of the mother from “what’s eating gilbert grape.” while not entirely conscious strategies, they were, i contend, their ultimate (i.e., final, last) strategies for surviving a world that does not give two shits about us. because it doesn’t, you know? not for the beautiful, big or otherwise, and certainly not for the unlucky ones who aren’t even that.
so the transformation of marlon brando or orson welles from what they were to what they became, has-been actor/directors now too big to fail or succeed, warrants attention not for what was lost but for what happened. neither pursued a course of steroids or radical plastic surgery or the like as a way of recapturing lost youth already captured on film. they just became something else, like linda ronstadt, like faye dunaway, like kathleen turner. yet of course it’s harder for women, which is the case always and everywhere, so it was worse for those three, but in some ways it was maybe the worst of all for welles and brando because so much–everything!–was expected of them.
but is any celebrity ever ugly? asks the voice in my head that accompanies me always and everywhere6. the voice is insistent: brah, your argument here is failing because it’s weak, it’s nonexistent. they’d never run it under a clickbait headline, whoever “they” are. or maybe it’s just that anyone who announces himself or herself, who speaks to me in any way that resonates, isn’t beautiful or ugly, but simply and truly is, and that is can change, at least sometimes…and who are we to contemn those changes, and who are we to contemn staying the same?7
i wish i could be more certain or get angrier about matters like this. if my anger were raw and unpolished, i might have a noble purpose: an enemy to be overcome, a foe to vanquish, a wyvern/wereboar/owlbear to slay. but i have nothing besides time and money, with less of both each day, and eventually i’ll become something else, perhaps even the mother in “what’s eating gilbert grape,” and you’ll only know me as that or nothing at all.
–rory calhoun
- quick aside: i was in this bullshit graduate seminar, which i suppose could’ve been any one of them except for the good ones, and somebody said race was historically constructed (true) and then a bunch of other people chimed in to say that she needed to add that it was “culturally” and “socially” constructed. so whenever i write that something is historically constructed, i tack on those other words too, because why the fuck not? #yolo
- think pieces used to be called “opinion pieces” til we just collectively stopped using that term because it’s so web 1.0. frank rich, that old SOB, wrote opinion pieces; me, i write think pieces, hot takes, instant responses, five seconds in heaven. srsly brah DO U EVEN LIFT?
- he also manages to rhyme “bones” first with “stones” and then with “homes” because why the hell not.
- “paid to write” is pushing it. i’m paid to write the words that go underneath headlines. these words, after being dispatched from my laptop’s lips to god’s ears, are thereafter edited into near-oblivion. based on these headlines, people send me h8 mail, most of it homophobic, either because they assume i’m gay (in which i case i direct them to gore vidal’s multifarious remarks on the subject) or because there’s something seriously wrong with them.
- e.g., https://youtu.be/FArZxLj6DLk?t=1m10s
- the truest friend i’ve ever had, a regular old yeller, etc.
- and who are we to contemn this repeated use of an archaic verb like “contemn?”











