Few stars have mastered the tricky feat of bowing out gracefully and leaving the audience wanting more. Take Jamie Lee Curtis and Meg Tilly, both of whom have been making the interview rounds this week to promote their books and to assure us that they’ve given up acting to take up lower-profile careers as authors. Indeed, Tilly hasn’t acted for over a decade; I’m betting Curtis’ retirement will last about as long as Jay-Z’s, but who could blame her if she’d rather not make Christmas with the Kranks II?
At the other end of the spectrum, we have Kevin Federline, who, despite the lack of any discernible demand for his presence, won’t leave. Sure, it may prove satisfying to watch him get coldcocked by George Eads this Thursday on CSI (YouTube has a preview clip that will also double handily as Federline’s Emmy highlight reel next fall), but beyond that, he’s not much fun, even as a punching bag. His lone talent, of course, consists of being Kevin Federline. That’s also his job, and every press mention of him marks a successful day at the office. So here at PopWatch, we’re only making the problem worse.
I was indifferent to the gossip columns of Lloyd Grove, who submitted his last ”Lowdown” item to The New York Daily News yesterday, but I admired his policy of banning mention of boldface names he thought were a waste of ink. (Pariah No. 1 was Paris Hilton; No. 2 was Brad Pitt, who, despite some actual evidence of talent and achievement, apparently struck Grove as a trophy husband and a frivolous, superfluous person.)
So I’m wondering if PopWatch shouldn’t embark on a similar policy. Are there some folks who should be banned from further mention on this blog? If so, should a certain husband of Britney Spears be the first person we shun, or is someone else more deserving? Or should we let Sir Popozao and others like him stay in our good graces, in the hope that someday, someday, they’ll do something remotely entertaining and worthwhile?