Johnny and John are Dead
In case you haven’t heard it yet, both Johnny Cash and John Ritter have died. On a normal day, either one of these stories would be big news, but since they both died on the same day, the media is in an awkward position of having to juggle the two stories.
On the one hand, Johnny Cash was a revolutionary musician. He’s so influential, his prestige and talent can only be judged against that of Elvis, Sinatra, and the Beatles. Not only has he had a long, full career that’s spanned six decades, but he’s been able to do it while jumping genres effortlessly. He’s one of the few musicians that in the Country Music Hall of Fame and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Like he said in one of his hits, he’s “been everywhere, man.” As tragic as his passing is, you can’t say hid death was that big a surprise. He’s been having health problems for a long time.
John Ritter, on the other hand, although one of the most talented people to ever be in a sitcom, was definitely someone whose glory days were behind him. His brilliant comic timing and knack for physical comedy may have been great, but he wasn’t reinventing the wheel here. It was more like he had perfected the lessons taught by Dick Van Dyke. In the years since Three’s Company, he’s jumped from role to role in a way that always made him seem like an underused talent who was held back by typecasting. While Cash’s death was unsurprising, Ritter’s passing was a shocking reminder of how fragile life is.
Considering the timing of these two deaths, the media is surely in a position where it has to judge whose death is more noteworthy. What’s bigger news? The somewhat expected death of a legend or the stunning death of a sitcom star who many people would (unfairly) call “washed-up”? Based on the coverage this morning, it looks like the two deaths are getting equal coverage, which seems fair.
Cynics are often quick to dismiss the public outpouring of grief that accompanies news of celebrity deaths as a shameful byproduct of our celebrity-obsessed culture. I prefer to think of it as one of the few times that our increasingly shallow society is able to move beyond the bland MTV-inspired excitement and express some real emotion.
7 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Very good post. This is exactly what’s been in my head about the whole double-whammy.
I’m not going to jump in with any extra comments on Johnny Cash’s greatness (I could spend all day doing that) but I do think it’s important with John Ritter to point out that on the occasions when he was able to break out of his typecasting (such as when he played the gay best friend in Sling Blade) he proved himself to be a very competent actor, and not just in a humorous vein. I haven’t seen that teenage daughter show that’s going round, but likely it could have signalled a major comeback for him.
Comment by Danimal — September 12, 2003 @ 2:13 pm
Good point, Dan-o — I often forget that, much as he kind of grated on me from time to time (probably just because he made me think of “Three’s Company,” which I hated from the age of six), he actually did have real talent, and demonstrated it whenever given a legit chance. That “Teenage Daughter” show has always looked awful to me, but it did seem to be pretty popular, and good work for him.
I’m incapable of being objective about who’s death is more notable or devastating, as you well know. But as far as public outpourings of grief over celebrity deaths goes, you also make a good point: At least people are expressing their actual unprovoked emotion, at least in some cases, rather than marketing-driven false excitement. Plus, with a guy like Johnny Cash, or even John Ritter, to an extent, he’s been around long enough to have had a deep effect on the lives of lots and lots of people, even more so than your average famous person.
Comment by Brianotron — September 12, 2003 @ 2:42 pm
Okay, I can’t resist giving J.C. a shoutout in this public forum.
Johnny Cash is the only guy from his era who had continued to be important throughout the whole span of his life. I mean, Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard supposedly still shred, and Link Wray is actually out there putting the Boredoms and Mudhoney to shame with his blistering growling guitar sound (he started playing country just about three years after Johnny). But Johnny has continued actually to grow and change at several stages along the way, affecting not only music but also culture, social mores, the business side of music, even politics. In the late 60’s, early 70’s, he almost changed the way we think about the incarcerated and giving them a second chance. And as recently as last year, they were interviewing him about the state of the nation, as though he were a goddam pundit.
I dunno… this kind of reminds me of the day John Lennon died. Darby Crash of the Germs, who formed L.A.’s first and arguably most important punk band, and for better or worse transitioned this new “punk rock” sound into the fast, hardcore sound it would become, died the same day. But what with the whole hoopla of John’s being a famous Beatle (and being murdered on the street), the Darby Crash thing didn’t get the press it should have. In today’s case, John Ritter’s getting plenty of press, but still I think his death is overshadowed by the passing of this overall way more important artist, Johnny Cash.
Comment by Danimal — September 12, 2003 @ 3:54 pm
Yeah, but Darby Crash was way way way less famous than John Lennon. I would go so far as to say that Darby Crash is more famous today than he was when he killed himself, and that’s still not saying a lot. Whereas, in some weird way, Johnny Cash and John Ritter occupy almost the same percentage of fame, albeit in very different ways.
But yeah. You know that when Darby Crash got to the afterlife or wherever and found out about Lennon, he was like, “Goddammit!”
Comment by Kyle — September 12, 2003 @ 7:20 pm
I have to disagree with Kyle on the “Johnny Cash and John Ritter occupy almost the same percentage of fame” comment. The day they died, I heard several people ask who John Ritter was. And when I explained, they were like, “oh the Problem Child guy”.
Comment by Betty — September 14, 2003 @ 10:27 am
People had to ask who John Ritter was? They’ve never heard of “Three’s Company?” What is this media-desaturated parallel world they hail from?
Comment by Kyle — September 14, 2003 @ 1:57 pm
I’m sorry but how can anyone in their right mind not know who John Ritter was. He just happens to be one of the handsomest, sexiest, talented and sweetest men who ever lived on God’s green earth. Anyone who doesn’t know who this sweetheart of a man was in living in Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone.
Comment by Lori Henry — September 1, 2004 @ 6:27 pm