Today, I just complain about the need of articles about celebrities to create stories that aren’t there.
This is Disgrace Distract and Bother Me, a feature where I just point out minor things that annoy me in pop culture. Basically, think of it like the lowest level of criticism, then Remember to Forget is the middle, where it’s like, “Okay, this is bad, but not, like, offensively bad” and finally, Things That Turned Out Bad is for, “This is seriously messed up.”
Now, let me say right off the bat that I do not care that Dakota Johnson wasn’t ACTUALLY cut off by her parents financially when her father, the famous actor, Don Johnson, allegedly cut her off financially due to a rule he had where he would only financially support his adult children if they went to college (after Dakota Johnson failed to get into Julliard, she did not pursue college). It doesn’t bother me at all that her parents helped her financially when she was starting out. I don’t think that’s a bad thing at ALL. Why would I possibly care if Dakota Johnson got some help from her rich parents when she was starting out as an actor? It doesn’t matter at ALL.
HOWEVER, with that being said, why in the world is she being sold as BEING financially cut off when the very articles that talk about her being cut off make it plainly obvious that she WASN’T cut off?!
From a couple of major news sites that I totally respect, Variety and EW.com, check out these headlines:
From EW.com: Dakota Johnson recalls struggling financially after dad Don Johnson cut her off: ‘It certainly was not fun’
Both articles are based on an interview Johnson did for Elle UK with her current Materialists co-star, Pedro Pascal.
Here is the key quote where she discusses not getting into Julliard, and thus getting cut off by Don Johnson: “I didn’t get in and my dad cut me off because I didn’t go to college. So, I started auditioning. I think I was 19 when I did ‘The Social Network,’ and then little jobs and stuff after that. For a couple of years it was hard to make money.”
She then continues, “There were a few times when I’d go to the market and not have money in my bank account or not be able to pay rent, and I’d have to ask my parents for help. I’m very grateful that I had parents that could help me and did help me. But it certainly was not fun. The auditioning process, as you know, is the fucking worst.”
THAT’S NOT BEING CUT OFF!
Again, I think it’s PERFECTLY fine to help out your daughter while she’s trying to make it as an actor when you obviously have the means to do it, but then you don’t frame that as her being “cut off.” And this wasn’t ONE site, it was MULTIPLE sites, and really RESPECTABLE sites, too. We don’t have to work as, like, Dakota Johnson’s PR people here. It’s like those BS articles that newspapers do sometimes on “I was able to buy my own house at just 29!” and the article always involves, like, “I skipped breakfast for a year, I skimped on vacations, I reused my underwear for five years…oh, and I inherited $500,000 from my grandfather.” This is like that. It’s just misleading nonsense that contradicts themselves IN THE ARTICLES!
Ooooh, you know what this REALLY is? It’s framing Dakota Johnson, unintentionally, as the girl in the Pulp song, “Common People,” who wants to live like common people do, but as the singer of the song notes, she never will because her dad will bail her out anytime she needs it….
And again, I am not saying Dakota Johnson should be derided for taking money from her parents. It’s totally fine. Just don’t write articles about her being cut off financially when she wasn’t. It’s just that simple.
