I always had a hard time sitting through Chris Farley's movies. There was a string of Friday nights a few years ago when the owner of the VCR had rented "Tommy Boy" for the enjoyment of all. I saw that movie way too many times (I would have left the party, but these were my friends). Farley's sidekick David Spade has found a much more agreeable place as a sarcastic secretary on NBC's "Just Shoot Me," sparing us another round of those "I can't believe the boss made me take care of the fat guy" movies.
Not too much uproar or even interest in the death of Chris Farley over this holiday season. While he tried to emulate the tempestuous short life of John Belushi (also, coincidentally, dying at age 33, just like Belushi), Chris Farley never had that great film role (or maybe it was just that he never got the good scripts?) endearing him to a generation of comedy loving movie-goers.
At work, we had a couple of amusing discussions about the perils of being really fat and taking drugs. I'm not sure if the point was that someone who was as large as Farley shouldn't be taking drugs on top of eating as much as he did, or what. This came on top of the equally amusing discussions about the new company mandatory drug testing policy for new hires (including the list of current employees who probably wouldn't pass if the policy was extended to all workers). Maybe the moral is this: If you're trying to emulate a famous person in your field, try to be as creative as they were before you copy their self-destruction act.
To underscore the possible non-importance of Chris Farley's death (and, in just a second, to stop kicking a dead horse), MSNBC ran a special about John Belushi the day after Farley's body was discovered. Flipping a couple of channels over to Headline News, I might have been told about a much more upsetting development in world news: the late Princess Diana's family is suing Di's (also dead) boyfriend's family.
I've always wondered about the term "Wrongful Death." I know, it's a law term describing death in terms of fault. The idea here is that if someone dies before their body naturally gives out, someone is to blame. Someone surely is to blame when the most famous person in the world dies unexpectedly in a car crash. But does this (accidental) act need to be sued over for years to the tune of a string of tribute albums?
Will Diana's family feel better when they get millions of dollars from another family afflicted with the same tragedy of losing a loved one? And if they lose the lawsuit, will they feel better for dragging out every evil deed the dead people did during their short lives? Does the world need the spectacle of a multi-million dollar lawsuit that will only make some rich people a little poorer and enrich other rich people (not to mention the lawyers)? Not exactly the best example of the redistribution of wealth. Here's my answer:
Get over it.
I know it's a little harsh. I understand the grief of losing loved ones. My grandfather died this year in a car accident. And you know what? My mother and grandmother are doing pretty well. They've accepted it, dealt with it and moved on--as have the other children, grandchildren, sisters and others afflicted with the loss of Grandpa. Guess what? The family didn't sue anyone.
A lot of people died in 1997. More people will die in 1998. Did you know Denver Pyle (Uncle Jesse on the Dukes Of Hazzard) died a few days ago? Someone is going to die tomorrow. Famous people will keep dying along with the not-so-famous ones. The deaths may be the fault of someone or they may be health related. Either way, the answer to getting over death isn't money--it's time.
Maybe the best example of this can be found by looking close to Diana's home. Her sons (the princes) are doing admirably well. They don't get photographed as much as they used to, and they got to meet the Spice Girls.
Maybe death ain't all that bad.
Matt Worley wrote an "In Case of Death" note before flying to see his parents a week ago. Don't ask.