home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
053094
/
0530640.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1995-02-15
|
6KB
|
123 lines
<text id=94TT0692>
<title>
May 30, 1994: Essay:The Stylishness of Her Privacy
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994
May 30, 1994 Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
ESSAY, Page 70
THE Stylishness of Her Privacy
</hdr>
<body>
<p>By Lance Morrow
</p>
<p> Vaclav Havel was talking about the mouth-breathing heavies who
ran Czechoslovakia during the communist years.
</p>
<p> One of the worst things about them, Havel said indignantly,
was their awful taste. Havel gestured around a sitting room
in his presidential residence in Prague. The room was handsomely
simple and bathed in morning sunlight. "This was hideous when
they were here," he said. "The furniture, the curtains..."
Bad taste, he suggested, corrupts government.
</p>
<p> I thought of Havel's idea when Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis
died, and wondered what it is that good taste does.
</p>
<p> In Havel's mind, brutality, stupidity and kitsch all belonged
to the same local gang: dead-drunk communists and evil smells,
ghastly heavy velvet drapes and torture. Havel's formula was
a variation on Stendhal's rule: "Bad taste leads to crimes."
</p>
<p> It depends, of course: Bad taste in what? There were Nazis who
came home from work at Auschwitz and listened to Mozart. An
elegant emperor may also be a sadist or an idiot or a weakling.
If good taste were the qualification for leadership, the greatest
Presidents might be interior decorators.
</p>
<p> I am not sure about the bad-taste rule as it applies to styles
of government, except in the way that it points to a sometimes
desirable elegance of leaderly thought, or might remind Americans
of a President long ago who designed his own house at Monticello.
</p>
<p> But surely Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis proved something about
the rules of good and bad taste as they apply to that strange
and sometimes rotten religion of the late 20th century--celebrity.
It is a religion that, as she knew as well as anyone, demands
human sacrifice. Somehow, she managed to escape. And the escape
was the most stylish and elegant part of her life.
</p>
<p> Young Mrs. Kennedy, in her early 30s, in the pillbox hat, or
the bloody pink suit, or the black veil, became one of the urdivinities
of the paleotelevision age. By the time she died, she was still
arguably the most famous woman on earth. Who else--Madonna?
Princess Di? (The falloff in quality is steep.)
</p>
<p> It may seem an odd way of appreciating Jacqueline Kennedy, but
think for a moment what she might have been had she possessed
a different character. And, for that matter, what her children
might have become, given their fame, their money, their trauma--their excuse. Instead, she was what she was, and they are,
admirably, one gathers, what they are, thanks to their mother.
Important things are unfakeable.
</p>
<p> She had excellent taste in art and music, of course; the "classy"
(to use John Kennedy's word) side of Camelot--the stylish
redecorations, Pablo Casals at the White House and so on--was her doing mostly. But it seemed to me that over the years
her truly superb taste expressed itself in what might be called
the stylishness of her privacy.
</p>
<p> Part of John Kennedy's charm derived from his reticence, from
a sense one had of something withheld. That was his personality.
In a more difficult way, in an earned way, Jacqueline Kennedy's
achievement was what she was able to withhold. Celebrity Zen,
perhaps: the mystique of reticence.
</p>
<p> She belonged to a time--a tragedy--when large literary lines
did not seem off, or ridiculous, as they might now. Hamlet and
Lear, "if worthy their prominent part in the play," wrote Yeats,
"do not break up their lines to weep." She, magnificently, did
not break up her lines to weep. There was another thought that
was associated especially with her husband: Courage is "grace
under pressure." But that line applied to her in some truer
way than it applied to him. She earned it in a harder fashion.
</p>
<p> Jacqueline's father-in-law Joseph Kennedy went off to Hollywood
decades ago and figured out the fundamental rule of the Age
of Celebrity: "It doesn't matter what you are, it only matters
what people think you are." The principle works for the short
run, which is usually the only run that celebrity needs. Jacqueline
Kennedy endured in the long run. Even in the earliest days after
the Inauguration in 1961, she located the saner and contrary
principle in a memo she wrote to her press secretary: "I feel
strongly that publicity in this era has gotten completely out
of hand--and you must really protect the privacy of me and
my children."
</p>
<p> She was a civilized woman (John Kennedy was about half-civilized).
Her civilized quality derived in large part from her insistence
that her life belonged to her and her children. It is hard enough
for a celebrity to be sane; fame is a distorting, corrupting
and even psychotic environment. People in a healthy community
gossip about people they know. It must disturb something in
human nature to gossip so addictedly about people one doesn't
know--all of those brightly painted, artificial familiars.
</p>
<p> Jacqueline Onassis was clearly a sane woman. She kept a seemly
silence. And for all the fragility she may have suggested in
the big, round sunglasses and the head scarf, she wore some
inner armoring; she possessed an eerie talent (a strategy of
self-protection well known to those who handle dangerous animals)
to make herself disappear, to dematerialize. If you saw her
on the street, she would seem to abstract herself out of public
attention, a kind of elegant vanishing. She would be, as she
finally is now...elsewhere.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>