But Murphy's history, both of recent and long before this, will at some point be taken into account.
No, what will be taken into account are the medical facts of her case. Whether there are drugs in her system or not is not that difficult to determine. And whether they're found or not, her past rumored history (and rumors are not always facts, you know) will not enter into whatever final determination is made.
In other words, there's no autopsy in history that's said "you know, we could have actually tested for stuff, but given her history, we thought we'd just call it drugs and be done with it."
@raincoaster: You're telling me you're a dick. Lose the troll act. Anyone with a passing knowledge of her biography knows she has had a pattern of drug use and abuse, which, when it damages your career, your relationships, and your health, is a pretty fucking good indicator of addiction.
In film school I always imagined I'd base a film on my mother one day and cast Murphy in the main role. There was a strong resemblance and her best roles were along those unhinged-yet-sympathetic-and-humorous lines. I was going to help her win that Oscar, oh yes I was.
And this is when a celebrity death is the most emotional: when that star is caught up in your delusional narcissistic fantasies.
This isn't on the "I used to have pictures of her all over my wall, and doodle Mr. Brittany Murphey on my notebooks" level, but I got a little sad.
I hate to hear about people losing loved ones at such a young age and this happening during the holidays makes it even worse. Her poor mother. It is being reported that she is the one who found the body. So sad.
No matter what happened here, expect the gossip industry to turn its focus onto her husband, Simon Monjack, but fast. Been reading old newspaper articles, etc. and his past shadiness is gonna haunt whatever investigation there is into this death.
The one thing I have learned from watching "Intervention" is how insidious but mostly well intentioned the enablers are, including family and friends.
Surprising she made it to 32.
@Novaload: I haven't seen intervention, but have dealt with a recent death in the family due to drugs. We tried everything, including "tough love," but it's so hard to watch someone you love suffer. So, we failed, obviously. I don't know...ultimately people make their own choices. But the medical system doesn't help--he was hospitalized twice the week before he died for OD.
They kept kicking him out once he was "clean" because he didn't have insurance.
@honey's dead: No, you didn't fail, just as, if your relative had gotten clean, it wouldn't have been your success. It was a situation over which you had little to no control. We do the best we can with the people we love, but you're right, we can't make their choices for them. It's easy to second-guess our own and other people's actions, but so hard in the moment to know what's best. I'm sorry for what you had to go through.
[Edited to add] Also, you're right, the medical system with respect to any kind of mental health issue (which is what addiction is, ultimately) is completely fucked up.
@MissNormaDesmond: Thanks--I didn't mean to make this about me. Some people just can't cut it in this world. Extra sensitive. Murphy struck me as that type--frail and sad.
@MissNormaDesmond: Yes it is. You cannot hold a person in the hospital for more than 72 hours without court order, and at any point, if they are of legal age, they can check themselves out. And the hospitals are way too happy to comply. Obviously, Murphy wouldn't have had a problem with insurance, but unless she wanted to get help, no one could force her. Physically and pyschologically.
@honey's dead: Oh you didn't fail. Absolutely not. I've been there with a friend, and it's not your failure. I'm so sorry you lost someone in your family. Peace to you.
@honey's dead: Maybe you would find some comfort in watching intervention. It helped me; we have had the same problem in our family.
The insidious thing about addiction is that the addict gradually takes over, manipulates, controls the family and friends. At the point of intervention, the family is saying, this is it, we will not walk down this road with you one step further--we don't want you to walk over that cliff edge, but we know deep down we can't stop you.
Tough love only works in the context of intervention. You really have to be prepared to cut off the person, which seems so harsh; but nothing else registers with addicts--and even then, there are no guarantees of course, but you learn that you do not have to let their self-inflicted suffering cause you to suffer and deprive you of your life and your plans; and that giving in to their pain only enables them.
I hope you find peace--as you say, you can't stop them and the medical system surely failed. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings with my o.p., it was a little blunt.
I worked on a film in which Ms. Murphy played the role of the titular character, "The Dead Girl." Her work, albeit as a hot mess of human being who was addled in ways that drugs only touch on, was harrowing. And from what I recall, she was a consummate professional. Faint praise in the wake of such needless loss...
It's interesting how these types of posts always yield a very similar dynamic in the comments--some individuals express great sadness; others express disbelief that anyone could care that much about the passing of a relative stranger and note that this kind of outpouring is somehow obscenely out of proportion; the two fractions clash (virtually); after some invectives are tossed around, a middle ground is established.
No middle-ground here. Anyone who can snark about the death of anyone not at Hitler-Levels has serious issues and might want to step off to an island full of people who behave the same way.
@Uncle_Billy_Slumming: I'm sorry if I offended you... I was responding to some earlier comments made about the insincere nature of offering condolences when celebrities die, only I realized later that I should have responded/linked to them directly.
@Uncle_Billy_Slumming: I agree--snark is not my default response either when it comes to anyone's death. Whether you're crestfallen or briefly melancholy or you just don't give a whit, there's something to be said for decorum. The ability to remember and both celebrate + mourn is what sets man apart from animal. Thus spake Nietzsche.
@snugbug: Nice observation. I tend to think of TV or Movie land as its own separate reality in which I have lots of of dear friends (i.e., various characters). If an actor from one of my favorite shows should die, I feel as if I have lost I close friend. For me, my sense of loss has little to do with the actor/actress as, for obvious reasons, I have little connection to that person's life, family, friends. But this does not make the loss any less real, just different. There is something of the Matrix in all of this or perhaps Visistadvaita Vedanta.
@rumpofsteelskin: I think that's right, although it's spelled "geistig anspruchslos." It's a compound adjective that, word-by-word, means "immaterial, modest."
@Uncle_Billy_Slumming: I think we sorted out the matter of "lowbrow" in German, but I admit sometimes I feel really stupid commenting on Gawker. I don't get all these snarky allusions--such as this one. I also tend to be earnest sometimes, to my deficit. I love words and love foreign languages. At the end of the day, I'm just a Euro-trash immigrant who makes a living writing in English, but I suppose no matter what I say, I'll never be as witty as the lot of you.
@Uncle_Billy_Slumming: For me, the snark is not directed at the person, rather at the fact that many people use death threads to overindulge in mourning, metaphorically tearing their hair and gnashing their teeth to show just how much this person affected THEM.
So if we're getting all Kantian up in here, it could be said that the most superinflated death keens are in fact treating the death not as an end in itself, which would be ethical, but as a means. A means to bolster their own vanity as a feeling and thinking person. Something which I find absolutely horrible. Death should be respected, and grief parceled out to the extent that it's necessary. Too much grief is vanity.
@Pope John Peeps II: You have a very "stiff upper lip" approach to mourning. If that's how you deal, then that's fine. But in pleanty of places in this world, showing grief by teeth gnashing and chest beating is the norm (I come from such a culture, it's how we process grief). And that really should be ok too. How can you feel entitled to voice your personal disgust at this kind of grieving, and then not extend the same courtesy to the people you are criticising for exhibiting their grief?
Moreover, I see no one here tearing their hair and gnashing their teeth on any kind of symbolic level. The general sentiment is "hey that's sad" followed by maybe a few personal anecdotes about how someone knew her or felt about her work. Where is the inappropriateness in that?
@Six and a Quarter: We're talking about previous threads. Not this one. See above. In particular see the Heath Ledger thread. Also not mentioned: The david foster wallace thread, which was as I recall the ne plus ultra of vainglorious grief.
And if that's appropriate to your culture, do it. That was my point. Do what's appropriate. But appropriate for the person you're mourning. Don't just go out there for yourself.
@Pope John Peeps II: I get your meaning better now in context as this thread does not stand up as the best examplar of your original point. Haven't read the other articles that you mention.
Have to say, the last two sentences of your original post sounded self-righteous and hypercritical. "Too much grief is vanity" is a pretty clear proclamation of your own disdain for any excessive display of emotion.
Shouldn't we steer away from describing morning in terms of appropriateness and focus on maybe hoping for genuineness?
@Six and a Quarter: Shouldn't we steer away from describing morning in terms of appropriateness and focus on maybe hoping for genuineness?
That's what I'm talking about. That's exactly what I'm saying. You're just using a different word in your same context.
But speaking of semantics, let's get to the heart of it: genuineness isn't necessarily appropriate. Genuine to the person doesn't mean a lot if the person is the problem. Sometimes being told from the outside is the only way we can recognize that maybe we aren't necessarily doing things right, with right emotions. That's what appropriate is for. It's for public displays. Sometimes society is what lets us know that we're a little off.
For ex. Talking about your breakup is genuine. Talking about how shitty your boyfriend was because his mother used to neglect him and how you deserve so much better..... well that could be genuine, but maybe it shouldn't be, because it's coming from a bad place, so it's perhaps not appropriate.
@Pope John Peeps II: I'm completely on board with this, especially in smaller circles and communities. When someone loved dies and another, who didn't know them or talk to them at all makes a big show of mourning.
Secondly, I really do get your meaning, and might concede that there exists some platonic ideal for social appropriateness that we maybe should all try to adhere to. But aside from dictating to others how they should feel, which doesn't go over very well when the Christians try to do it (see Catholic guilt), I can't imagine who is fit to police the appropriateness of others.
For myself, when I grieve, my emotions are genuine, and I strive to have the presence of mind to act appropriately according to ocassion. By your standards I may fail at it, but a lot of that has to do with my subjective emotional state when I receive bad news.
And without getting into an esoteric discussion of psychology as it relates to trauma, I'll just say that people severely affected by the death of a person they don't know, to the level which you might describe as uncalled for, could actually be "affected." Those people could be self-involved, narcissists guilty of emotional kleptoparasitism. Or they could just be people who are already sad and who are vulnerable to any additional perceived sadness, incapable of maintaining the veneer of propriety.
12/20/09
No, what will be taken into account are the medical facts of her case. Whether there are drugs in her system or not is not that difficult to determine. And whether they're found or not, her past rumored history (and rumors are not always facts, you know) will not enter into whatever final determination is made.
In other words, there's no autopsy in history that's said "you know, we could have actually tested for stuff, but given her history, we thought we'd just call it drugs and be done with it."
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12:26 AM
I'm just saying she was a user who didn't appear to be making any effort to stop using.
And everybody here already knows what a jerk I am, THAT at least is not news.
12/20/09
And this is when a celebrity death is the most emotional: when that star is caught up in your delusional narcissistic fantasies.
This isn't on the "I used to have pictures of her all over my wall, and doodle Mr. Brittany Murphey on my notebooks" level, but I got a little sad.
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
Surprising she made it to 32.
12/20/09
They kept kicking him out once he was "clean" because he didn't have insurance.
12/20/09
[Edited to add] Also, you're right, the medical system with respect to any kind of mental health issue (which is what addiction is, ultimately) is completely fucked up.
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
The insidious thing about addiction is that the addict gradually takes over, manipulates, controls the family and friends. At the point of intervention, the family is saying, this is it, we will not walk down this road with you one step further--we don't want you to walk over that cliff edge, but we know deep down we can't stop you.
Tough love only works in the context of intervention. You really have to be prepared to cut off the person, which seems so harsh; but nothing else registers with addicts--and even then, there are no guarantees of course, but you learn that you do not have to let their self-inflicted suffering cause you to suffer and deprive you of your life and your plans; and that giving in to their pain only enables them.
I hope you find peace--as you say, you can't stop them and the medical system surely failed. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings with my o.p., it was a little blunt.
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
[defamer.gawker.com]
[gawker.com]
It's interesting how these types of posts always yield a very similar dynamic in the comments--some individuals express great sadness; others express disbelief that anyone could care that much about the passing of a relative stranger and note that this kind of outpouring is somehow obscenely out of proportion; the two fractions clash (virtually); after some invectives are tossed around, a middle ground is established.
12/20/09
12/20/09
No middle-ground here. Anyone who can snark about the death of anyone not at Hitler-Levels has serious issues and might want to step off to an island full of people who behave the same way.
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
So if we're getting all Kantian up in here, it could be said that the most superinflated death keens are in fact treating the death not as an end in itself, which would be ethical, but as a means. A means to bolster their own vanity as a feeling and thinking person. Something which I find absolutely horrible. Death should be respected, and grief parceled out to the extent that it's necessary. Too much grief is vanity.
12/20/09
Moreover, I see no one here tearing their hair and gnashing their teeth on any kind of symbolic level. The general sentiment is "hey that's sad" followed by maybe a few personal anecdotes about how someone knew her or felt about her work. Where is the inappropriateness in that?
12/20/09
And if that's appropriate to your culture, do it. That was my point. Do what's appropriate. But appropriate for the person you're mourning. Don't just go out there for yourself.
12/20/09
You are obviously in the wrong place.
Ululating to commence shortly.
12/20/09
Have to say, the last two sentences of your original post sounded self-righteous and hypercritical. "Too much grief is vanity" is a pretty clear proclamation of your own disdain for any excessive display of emotion.
Shouldn't we steer away from describing morning in terms of appropriateness and focus on maybe hoping for genuineness?
12/20/09
12/20/09
That's what I'm talking about. That's exactly what I'm saying. You're just using a different word in your same context.
But speaking of semantics, let's get to the heart of it: genuineness isn't necessarily appropriate. Genuine to the person doesn't mean a lot if the person is the problem. Sometimes being told from the outside is the only way we can recognize that maybe we aren't necessarily doing things right, with right emotions. That's what appropriate is for. It's for public displays. Sometimes society is what lets us know that we're a little off.
For ex. Talking about your breakup is genuine. Talking about how shitty your boyfriend was because his mother used to neglect him and how you deserve so much better..... well that could be genuine, but maybe it shouldn't be, because it's coming from a bad place, so it's perhaps not appropriate.
12/20/09
12/20/09
Secondly, I really do get your meaning, and might concede that there exists some platonic ideal for social appropriateness that we maybe should all try to adhere to. But aside from dictating to others how they should feel, which doesn't go over very well when the Christians try to do it (see Catholic guilt), I can't imagine who is fit to police the appropriateness of others.
For myself, when I grieve, my emotions are genuine, and I strive to have the presence of mind to act appropriately according to ocassion. By your standards I may fail at it, but a lot of that has to do with my subjective emotional state when I receive bad news.
And without getting into an esoteric discussion of psychology as it relates to trauma, I'll just say that people severely affected by the death of a person they don't know, to the level which you might describe as uncalled for, could actually be "affected." Those people could be self-involved, narcissists guilty of emotional kleptoparasitism. Or they could just be people who are already sad and who are vulnerable to any additional perceived sadness, incapable of maintaining the veneer of propriety.
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09