Criticism Persists: Andrew McCarthy Continues to Carry Baggage from the 'Brat Pack' Moniker. His Perspective Explained.
Here's a paraphrased version of the text:
Warning: Contains mature themes and language.
The wound that apparently kept John William McCarthy bitter for all these years seems to stem from the infamous "Brat Pack" label. As he travels and meets his former acting pals, it becomes evident that most have moved past the term, either peacefully accepting it or leveraging it for long-term career success (looking at you, Rob Lowe, you ever-shining beacon of optimism). Even Emilio Estevez, the primary focus of the original piece, wasn't as upset about it as McCarthy is now. (Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson, and Judd, seemingly, remained uninterested in participating.).
McCarthy's documentary has faced criticism for being self-indulgent or melodramatic, missing an opportunity to explore the profound changes the group brought to Hollywood. Though some critiques hold water, I reckon McCarthy's perspective deserves consideration, as it's unusual to find a celeb ready to admit to having, well, feelings hurt. Most especially when said celeb is a man.
Being a famous American actor has long been a Faustian pact, requiring a perpetual dance of interviews and public appearances, accompanied by tolerating articles that may potentially defame or belittle you, colloquially known as a takedown piece.
Blum's article fits that bill, I'd say. It's damn good and entertaining, including exclusive access to Estevez, Lowe, and Nelson - a rarity in today's PR-controlled journalism world. However, there's a snarky undertone that suggests surprise at the young male stars' behavior regarding women and club privileges (their predecessors, the Rat Pack, set quite a rowdy precedent). Interestingly, McCarthy himself barely features - he seemingly just got rolled into the "Brat Pack" term by association, yet wasn't one of the group's ring leaders. Perhaps that's another piece to the puzzle of his resentment.
Over the years, I've observed first-hand - and been an active participant in - the way actors are grilled during endless interviews, answering the same questions over and over again. "The Brats" includes footage from these acquisitions, where an expressionless McCarthy and company frequently discuss the "Brat Pack" label. It looks excruciating, especially if, like McCarthy, you're a sensitive sort who desires to be perceived as more than just an entertainer; as he reiterates in the documentary, he wants to be truly "seen." In those days and today, mainstream coverage of celebrities generally seemed to fit a prechoreographed narrative - when was the last time an article firmly challenged your preconceived ideas about a celebrity?
The "Brat Pack" term was often used derisively, dismissing a new generation of teen actors. While it wasn't the first instance of sensational celeb news, it did contribute to an increase in the harshness of celebrity coverage, giving rise to a smear-centric industry that reveled in taken down entertainers like Britney Spears or Amanda Bynes when they struggled under the spotlight.
The same brand of cruelty has come to dominate social media, targeting publicly-facing individuals for mockery and degradation. It seems that the message is, if you want fame, then you have to endure it all. In fairness, McCarthy may have been overly sensitive about being labeled as part of a careless and irreverent clique, but must we expect every mainstream artist to have the hide of a buffalo? Isn't that counterintuitive to the role of an artist, who ideally should be in touch with their emotions?
A 2021 New Yorker article on Jeremy Strong reminds me of McCarthy's predicament. The piece criticized Strong for taking himself too seriously, for his Method acting technique annoying colleagues, and for garnering unfavorable attention. Strong countered by speaking out, feeling he'd been exposed and hurt. Jessica Chastain offers a thoughtful response, stating on X, formerly Twitter, that "The article was noticeably one-sided. Don't believe everything you read, folks. Snark sells, but maybe it's time we move beyond it."
Subscribe to CNN Opinion’s newsletter
- Sign up for our newsletter
- Join us on Twitter and Facebook
It appears McCarthy's intention behind creating "Brats" might have been more than just the film itself. I don't think he fully appreciates his versatility; he's not just a skilled film director, but also an accomplished travel writer, as evidenced in his conversation with Brooke Shields on her podcast last year. In the same interview, he discusses the significant role fear plays in his life and his strategy to manage it. Can you think of many public figures who openly discuss their own fears? wouldn't it be more engaging if men felt comfortable discussing this, potentially reducing the pervasive toxic masculinity that still rules our society?
I hope McCarthy finds closure with the label that's haunted him for years through the release of his documentary. Surprisingly, his strangely unpleasant hairstyle in "Pretty in Pink" was just a wig! A win-win situation, as it helped me personally accept his hairstyle, and it seems it helped many others too.
Read also:
In response to the criticism of being self-indulgent or melodramatic, McCarthy might argue that his documentary provides a unique insight into the emotions and feelings that celebrities, especially men, often keep hidden behind their public personas, demonstrating the impact of public scrutiny and criticism on their personal lives and mental health, revealing a depth of emotions and vulnerability that is seldom explored in the entertainment industry, offering an opportunity to challenge the stereotype of celebrities as emotionally detached and invulnerable, and opening a dialogue about the toll of fame on mental health and the need for empathy and understanding in public discourse.
In the face of the snarky undertone in the coverage of the Brat Pack, McCarthy could highlight the lack of nuanced analysis and the tendency towards sensationalism in the media's portrayal of young celebrities, arguing that such coverage perpetuates harmful stereotypes and contributes to the problematic treatment of public figures, particularly women and marginalized groups, and that it's essential to foster a more compassionate and nuanced approach to celebrity coverage, emphasizing the importance of balanced reporting and respecting the boundaries of privacy and consent, leveraging his own experience to advocate for a more empathetic and responsible approach to fame and celebrity culture.
