Recently, Kim Kardashian wore Marilyn Monroe’s iconic nude illusion, rhinestone dress from the “Happy Birthday Mr President” song to the Met Gala for five minutes, grab a chunk of her hair on the way out and topped the night of by wearing a remake of another dress Marilyn wore to the Golden Globes. I, like the rest of the adults, saw this as disrespectful, dangerous to a piece of historical memorabilia, and gross because of the ugly bleached hair contrasting with the orange tan. Those less inclined to care about Monroe, proper archiving, or the gift of hair in a jar got off their own viral tweets about how annoying the backlash was, and by now I assume we’re mad at the Kardashian-Jenner litter for something else.
Maybe Kendall tried to end racism again.
But I’m so tired of this grift. I’m tired of people talking about this family that has never offered a damn thing culturally that wasn’t there or going to be there without them. Their fame codified the influencer as a celebrity pathway in an era where that was arguably already happening. They emulated the rise to fame of previous women like Paris Hilton but split between a large family. There is nothing about them that is independently interesting, it’s all in context of just how famous they continue to be with minimal reason.
That fame is clearly tenuous. People who earn their fame in any other capacity can do so without the stunts bi-monthly. When you’re famous for its own sake, the source needs to be repeated.
A very original look. Thank you Kher.
When I discussed fame in ‘Julia Fox and starfuckery’, I emphasised how much I enjoy famous people who clearly know how fame works. That remains true. I love a stunt. But unlike Julia Fox, or Lady Gaga, fame doesn’t even seem to be its own reward for Kim Kardashian. The empire she acts as the face of exists mostly to fuel itself and prop up countless business ventures. Unlike Julia Fox’s bizarre babbling, Kardashian interviews are poised and direct. It’s marketing, not authentic fame whoring.
I think that becomes clear when you scrutinise what exactly Kim is doing in terms of presentation. She emulates. There’s no real thought to Kim Kardashian as a cultural figure in her own right. I’m not arguing that having a stylist or being dressed by brands (or her one-time husband, Kanye West) would delegitimise a clear personal brand. Stylists are important to celebrities and more of them should be hired. However, repeatedly drawing from archival pieces, completely copying other people’s looks, that is a suggestion that there’s no personal attachment to her public presentation.
But it doesn’t matter.
Kim Kardashian is about as important to her brand as Jamie Lee-Curtis is for Activia. She’s the face of it, but with enough effort you could replace her with anyone. Her appearance, her voice, her attitude, none of it actually matters except in how it fuels the attention needed for these various enterprises to work.
So, let’s talk about Marilyn Monroe.
There’s a lot of talk about Monroe in the wake of her dress being worn. Lot of takes about her importance, her promiscuity, her public perception, and it’s mostly surface level. Or where it isn’t surface level, all but a fraction is repeating the same schtick about Norma Jean Baker that’s been the elevator pitch for her fans for decades.
She was an orphan!
She was smart!
She was a victim!
None of this is false, but it all feels irrelevant to the conversation at hand about Kim Kardashian. The comparison between the two isn’t disrespectful because Kardashian came from money, or has no discernible creative talent, or that she “doesn’t get” what the dress code was for the carpet. It’s disrespectful because she looked bad, and stupid because it didn’t even fit -despite her crash diet- because you can’t change the shape of a body you bought without buying a new one, and shipping would have taken too long (this joke is awkward but it’s mine).
Monroe’s feelings about her dress absolutely do not matter for this conversation. Whether she wanted it archived or not, she is dead and how she might have reacted means jack shit. Comparisons between the two are shallow, but Monroe’s imagined reaction to them isn’t actually that enlightening. The reason I dislike them is that they feel unearned.
The comparisons start and stop at the two women being sexualised and famous. That’s really it. Some try and dress it up by using phrases like “sex icons” and discussing fame effecting them badly, but if we want to be honest, this is the same comparison every famous attractive white woman make with Monroe. Every white girl with a budget has a moment with the fluffy blonde hair and Twitter pretends they’re brave and daring for doing it this time. For some, like Britney Spears or Brittany Murphy, the comparisons feel poignant in light of later tragedy, but they were still shallow to begin with.
To their credit, both Fergie and Christina Aguilera decided to pull from other blondes, like Jayne Mansfield, for their throwback moments.
Kim Kardashian wearing the dress was a choice made because she and her team knew it would get attention. Plenty of negative attention. Much like her recent work comments, it’s a clearly staged bait that everyone falls for every time to boost her name value a little bit more. I don’t think every mistake she makes is on purpose. That family is smart, however, they’re not geniuses. But these big, defined moments that happen to promote their new show that’s streaming on a platform that paid them a lot of money…well you’re smart enough to connect those two dots.
We’re not going to see this end any time soon. Cemented as celebrities, America’s newest dynasty will continue to wash, rinse and repeat until their kids are old enough to do it for them. Meaning we’re going to soon see an eventually 50 year old Kim Kardashian continue to wear other people’s clothes, say incendiary things for the sake of publicity, and probably get married a few more times. They’re very clearly playing you.
But you knew that.