I saw one of those click bait articles pop up the other day about Kristy McNichol with a headline that read something like, "Kristy McNichol made a rare appearance in an LA park and she was unrecognizable." She is 63, and if you think she'll look like she did at 18 in 1980 when she starred in "Little Darlings" with Tatum O'Neal and Matt Dillon, then yes, she is unrecognizable. But I challenge anyone to be recognizable in their 60s compared to their teens, or 20s or 30s.
Time is a major bitch and I marvel at people's fascination with pointing out that celebrities haven't aged well. The only thing that ages well is a good red wine and even it goes bad here and there.
It's a primary reason I'm glad I was never famous. No one cares what I look like now because no one cared what I looked like when I was 18.
When my kids were little I tried showing them my school photos. All they did was laugh and say I looked funny. That put things in perspective.
Though I always got a kick when I saw photos of my parents as kids. Maybe it was because they didn't have a lot of photos of themselves growing up. But still, I didn't laugh and think they looked funny. I thought they were both very good looking people.
But back to Kristy McNichol, she dropped out of the Hollywood scene in the early 2000s saying she was dealing with bipolar disorder and she wanted privacy. She came out as a lesbian in 2012 which didn't surprise a great deal of people I'm sure. Not that it should matter or be anyone's business. So why should she have to suffer the indignity of the Paparazzi snapping photos of her at aged 63. I don't think she looked bad. She just looked older.
Not that I think there are a great deal of people who remember her who aren't in their 60s themselves. So I'm not sure what the hypocrisy of pointing out her aging on the Internet.
I can only take solace in being an old and unknown man. So I am basically invisibile.
There is something to be said for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment