James Franco/466

Per Courtney's request, I'm writing a (much delayed) blog about James Franco's attendance to the final 466 screening, "The Pineapple Express." Courtney mentioned that she was surprised that none of us at the screening had blogged about him as a celebrity sighting, which got me thinking about what constitutes a legitimate celebrity sighting. And while I saw him, which would technically equate to a "sighting," I still don't think it really counts... He was set up for us to look at and ask questions; he was there to be a movie star and promote his movie, and we were there to be fans and to learn from him. The balance is off -- whereas, if you spot a celeb in their natural habitat, eating dinner at your restaurant or hiking where you hike, or stopping at the same stoplight as you , you're on the same level; suddenly, they're just people, too, doing the same every day stuff. As Us Weekly puts it, "Stars: They're Just Like Us!" And most of the time, when we spot them around town, they are just like us... But for a star to come to a class, presented as a star, seated in front of us screening his multi-million-dollar movie, well, that's about as far from being just like us as one could get.

Pamela Anderson: Garage Sale

True story, this weekend Pamela Anderson is having a garage sale at her Malibu Estate.  I always find it interesting when celebrities do this, but this is the first of me hearing about one @ at the actual home of the celebrity.  Usually they are at a warehouse of sorts.  Anyway, I found this one really fascniating.  She owns so much furniture, duplicates of the same thing.  It makes me think if this some sort of hoax or stunt to sell stuff with her name attached. Either way, a bunch of questions come up when I think about this. Like does she need the money... probably.  Furthermore, this is such a common, "low rent" activity to do for such a high up celebrity, really makes you think. Especially, when typically when things like this have to happen they do it by private auction, NOT public yarding. Anyway, check it out, I am really gonna try to make it out there this weekend.

Big Breasted Sale

Final Exam Period

Hi everyone,

As a reminder, the final exam period for this class will be Tuesday, May 13 from 2-4 in our usual classroom.

Sometime before then, I will be compiling the final blog tally. If you have commented on posts made before the blog sheet was handed out, or if you have noticed a mistake in my count, please let me know so that I can check older entries. Otherwise, I am not planning on going back through all the old entries.

Good luck on your final projects! If you did not pick up your final project proposal today, then I have it. Let me know if you want it back, and we'll work something out.

Thanks,
Courtney

Core Response #5

Reality TV really pisses me off. I will be honest.  I think it does for this country the same things that cheap, high fat and calorie, preservative-packed fast food does.  It makes "instant gratification" obtainable and eliminates the desire for individuals to "challenge" themselves in a way that is probably more time-consuming, less convenient, but ultimately more satisfying.  America "plays dumb" when they watch reality TV. Even the name is ironic.  My favorite part of Couldry's article was his illumination of the point that we believe that we are seeing "real life" when we watch shows like "The Hills," when in reality, everyone on that show is put, unnaturally, in front of a camera.  Watch people at a party take pictures of themselves.  Very rarely do those photographs capture the expressions and body language of the individuals 5 seconds before the photograph was taken.  Bring out a camera and you see people put their arms around each other, smile big, make a pouty face, or do another one of the "stock" camera poses seen on Facebook. 

I feel conflicted about my anger toward reality TV, though.  There is something "elitist" in condemning it and who am I to say that anyone else's entertainment is less than valid?  I suppose I passionately believe that entertainment, at its best, can inspire thought, emotion, and growth.  When well done, it can challenge us as well as allow us to unwind after a long week.  It can cause us to look at the world from a perspective different than our own or make us laugh and cry.  Reality TV (at least the shows I've seen) are mindless, crass, forgettable.  

younger and younger...

I work at a private gym in West Hollywood where a lot of "top" celebrities workout.  I haven't written about it before because it seems to me to be a bit of a violation to write about them, but what I saw yesterday has stuck with me and I think would be relevant for the class.  There is a new client there who is 14 years old.  She is making the "push" to become a starlet.  There is something so disturbing about seeing a girl that age (she looks even younger than she is) doing weight lifting and running on a treadmill (for $200 a session).  Call me old-fashioned (or midwestern), but I sort of feel that a child that age should be in dance classes or on a sports team. Watching her look at herself in the mirror as she lifted weights and talk about tone in her arms made me sort of sad, and concerned for her.  If she is starting so young to be concerned with how "attractive" her body is, I can't help but think if she finds the "success" for which she is reaching, there will be some pretty serious psychological problems there.

When child stars grow up...

Drew Barrymore is one of the most notorious actors to overcome the perils of childhood stardom (she starting snorting cocaine at the age of 10 and was in rehab by age 13), but what happens to all the ones don't? I think in the past few years, the media attention on famous children has become even more intense -- the expectations for them are not just to represent a certain demographic or stereotype, but also to be a role model in their personal lives. And growing up is hard enough -- I can't imagine doing it in the public eye.

But beyond that, I am fascinated by what stardom does to the psyche, most notably in children -- when a person is so young, still figuring out who they are, and they are treated as if they are the most important person in the world, utterly unstoppable. For one, it completely disrupts the parent/child relationship, when the child becomes the breadwinner and the parent dependent on them -- Danny Bonaduce recently recalled a story in which his mother told him to go to his room, and he sneered at her, "They're all my rooms." He owned the house. And look what happened to him. He shows up naked at premieres, is in and out of rehab, and now makes a living on a reality show about making the next child star. And Dina Lohan is another perfect example; living off her child's stardom, so desperate to be a friend and an equal to her star offspring that she has completely forgotten to be a mother.

What really makes me nervous though, is what happens to all the children who reach their stardom peak as children, and then no one is interested in them when they are older? At such a formative period in their life, when they are treated as so important by so many people, and then forgotten about once they grow up, what happens then? It's almost as if they're taught that growing up is a bad thing, as if they failed themselves and the world when the inevitable happened. They don't have the coping skills a person usually learns as a child, because they were coddled and sheltered as stars, and then they are suddenly thrust into the world as has-beens. Falling from the top of Hollywood must be difficult enough; I think we don't pay enough attention to the implications of shunning child stars, and the actual psychological ramifications of this.

So what's next for Miley Cyrus? We've seen what happened to Britney, to Lindsay, to countless others... But maybe once she goes through whatever she's going through, maybe she'll come out on top, a star in her own right as an adult, like Drew. Let's just hope she's not the next Danny Bonaduce. I think it's best to just leave these kids alone; let children watch their TV shows, support their movies, and leave them out of the tabloids. I love Us Weekly and Perez, but at a certain point, the line needs to be drawn, and I don't think it is right to subject children to that kind of scrutiny.

Celeb sighting...

Spotted: Jonah Hill at RFD on La Cienega, Wednesday evening for a delicious vegan meal with some hipsters.

Notes: Funny is the new sexy.

Everclear, just another B-List sighting

I love B-List celebrities, and as my blogs have gone this semester, I have get my fair share of them.  This time I had the pleasure of sitting next to the lead singer of Everclear on a plane to Portland.  My friend and I spotted him in line and we discovered he had the seat next to us.  The attendant who checked the tickets asked us to confirm if that was really him, to which we rolled our eyes and said yes.  Art Alexis was on his cell phone the entire time and seeing as that I was sitting directly next to him I got incredible eve's dropping in.   He was blabbing about how the music industry has changed and how he is in the film industry now.  He loves getting dirty in Oregon and farming.  He also produces his own music and makes way more money doing it this way.  He was in LA getting financing together for his next "project" and was trying to get this guy interested in producing it, bragging about how much fun they have on set and how this film making thing is easy.  This kept on going right until we are about to take off, to which the same attendant made her way onto the plane and asked him if he wanted to be upgraded to first class for no fee. He looked over to me and my friend and said "Chiyah!!! ... NO, I don't want First Class for Free!?!?"  He got up and went to his "ultra nice" accommodations of Alaska Airlines First class from LA to OR.  The irony is he overpaid for his coach ticket by double of what I paid.  I know this because he left his ticket in his original seat: JACKPOT! I now own a piece of B-List Celebrity shit.  Furthermore, their new album came out the next day, which it was nothing but covers of songs that the band liked or were influence by...it sounded pretty bad.

An interesting "celebrity" experience

Tonight as part of my job at Program Board a star from VH1 came for a comedy show. It was really funny. He did not have any kind of outline or plan at all, I was impressed. We had to escort him around and take care of him. He is not the most famous person in the world, but he did fill a 300 seat room. I was surprised to see how he went between being a diva and not being a diva. As Justin had posted about earlier, it is interesting seeing and interacting with B-list and even C-list celebrities and the ways that some are divas and full of their own moderate fame and others don't really use or abuse their fame at all. I wonder how the role a star plays based on their image and their fan following play into the List they fall on and how they act about that ranking. With the number of types and levels of celebrity today it complicates and muddles the line of who and what is famous.

She's just being Miley...

Just to throw my two cents in on this whole Miley discussion... I definitely don't think there's anything wrong with what she did, but it was a terrible career choice.  If she was a few years older, this would be a different story, but the fact that she is only 15 years old makes all the difference.  These kids on the Disney channel represent a brand, and that brand does not promote posing almost nude for photo shoots.  I don't know how her father let her do this photo shoot though.  Up until now he has kept such a close watch on her, and she's usually so mature and intelligent when it comes to her career.  This whole thing makes me think of Jamie Lynn Spears with her pregnancy and its effect on Nickelodeon.  Both girls were pretty much icons for their respected channels, and then a scandal completely changed the public's opinion of them.  This photo shoot will generate the image of Miley as a sex symbol, and the Disney channel definitely does not market their shows this way.  

Reply to the Miley Cyrus Discussion

I took this photo from a blog entry on the Vanity Fair site about the Miley photoshoot. Initially I had just wanted to see what pics I could find but then I browsed through the comments by readers and was pretty shocked by the volume of outraged posters.
It seemed just slightly hypocritical that so many would use profanity and degrading terms to oust Miley for her misrepresentation of a wholesome kid-friendly idol. For example, the first comment about the article reads:

At 12:46 pm on April 28, 2008, dbram wrote:

Miley give me a break.

You did an interview with an adult magazine.

You did a photo shoot with one of the best celebrity photographers in the world. Someone who is known for racy shots.

You had your father and other "handlers" on the set with you.

And now you are embarrassed? Is this after your sponsors got pissed?

Give me a fucking break.

The point this commenter makes is a valid one, though, is Miley embarrassed because of the photographs or because of the reaction to them. Earlier, Jess talked about the difference between tween idol Daniel Radcliff's public nudity and Miley's as being art vs exploitation or male vs female but I think there is also an element of owning the event. Radcliff was not at all apologetic for his performance and, in fact, very adamantly stood by his decision to take the role. I think this made it easier for the public to live with this because it showed a certain professional maturity. And the implications of their nudity is different. Radcliff performs nude as an expression of his character and a fulfillment of the vulnerability of that psyche. Cyrus, even though not exposing an part of her body, tenuously holds the sheet over her bare top which imbues the image with an inherent seductive sexuality and sensuality. Really, she is more covered than if she were wearing a swimsuit so it is not an issue of nudity but an issue of sexuality. I think the adult public that are concerned for the children that look up to her are reacting against the implications of the photo and not the photo itself which plays into the issue of age, since Daniel was 18 before he took the role and Miley is still a minor. What I take away from this situation, is how deeply touchy the American public is about taboo issues of sexuality; especially, female sexuality and the representation of it in their stars. The reaction shows that people are taking Cyrus very seriously as a key influence on their children and the public expectation of childhood.

Olivia

Core Response

I was particularly struck by the article by Sconce, "See you in Hell, Johnny Bravo!" This article centered around the celebrity reality show CELEBRITY BOXING. I remember seeing advertisements for this show, but never had any interest in watching it. After reading the article, there were some interesting assertions made about the trend in reality TV to have "has been" celebrities come back for a last chance at fame. During the time of a celebrity's time at the top, they are there to fit some kind of mold or desire. Now with the increase in celebrity reality shows, these stars come back as artifacts of those past personas. The article talked about the fight between the Partridge and Brady families with the actors who played the main sons. Their fight was more than Danny and Greg fighting decades later, it was the ideas that they stood for coming back to see which would win out head to head. This semester has shown us that stars fit a certain mold at one point or another, Elvis being white trash or Marilyn become an icon of sex and blondness and so on, so this emergence of celebrity reality shows is a desire to see these molds interact directly with one another. VH1 has created the marketing term of CELEBREALITY to describe their shows like Surreal Life and Celebrity Rehab. At the end of the article Sconce quotes Todorov discussing the idea of hesitation, ration and irrational, real and hyperreal, and other pairings that cause us to stop for a second and think, what are the rules that are in play here or realizing we do not know those rules and accept that. With these shows, I think that there is a disbelief as to what is really happening, but we do not know what is real so we accept it for what it is, a hyperreal edited piece of "real" fiction.

Reality TV

Reading Nick Couldry's article on reality TV ("Teaching Us To Be Fake") got me to thinking about the different reality shows I've subjected myself to- and in some cases, have been involuntarily subject to. These shows consisted of the following, not in any particular order, but a few that I'm sad to say kept my attention for more unexpected consecutive weeks than was necessary: The Real World/Road Rules (and all the subsequent "face/off" and challenge shows that threw them all into a situation of who's who of previous seasons), The Apprentice, America's Next Top Model, American Idol, and Laguna Beach/The Hills. Sadly, these are the shows that I know I watched more consistently than any others, and all throughout my viewing of these shows, I found myself constantly justifying my viewership to others (but perhaps more so to myself) because of the absolute absurdity and so-called "realness" of it all. Though I've always understood that reality TV is scripted or contrived in some way, I found myself not able to turn away from the screen whenever one of these programs came on, and then, soon, I found myself tuning in the following week or catching up on missed episodes on-line. I suppose in some ways, I watch it for what Couldry elaborates on in his article about reality TV being utilized to conduct experiments and obtain some understanding of human nature. Yet what I feel these reality TV shows do is do more than chronicle or capture human nature through these exceptional spaces and situations- negating the notion that the camera apparatus and lens function as a totally unbiased and naked eye- but they reflect on the historical, social and industrial context in which these shows are being conceptualized, produced and exhibited to audiences. Couldry talks about the power dynamic within this particular genre of TV, specifically referring to it as the "govermentality" shared both by performers and audiences, and then also of audiences watching these performers carry out certain regimes for their very entertainment on TV. His use of the word "govermentality" helped me to remember a more recent reality TV show called "Kid Nation," in which 40 kids (aged 8-15) were put on location called the "Bonanza Creek Move Ranch," with (little to) no adult supervision, as their challenge was to create and sustain a viable society. Though I didn't have the chance to watch any of it while it was still on the air, what I heard about it was that it echoed parts of William Golding's Lord of the Flies and also became more about consumer culture propaganda than social experimentation. When I first heard about the show, I thought how curiously genius and horribly cruel to recruit such young kids to parade around in a fake society, testing the waters for how far a reality show can push expectations as well as nerves. But then I got to thinking about shows like Laguna Beach, The Hills and whatever like shows exist of its nature; these shows are contrivances made to emulate the real and entertain the masses, period. But should there be a line that is drawn with age when casting for and creating reality TV? Perhaps there's a certain amount of reality exposure that a kid as young as 8 shouldn't be subject to, especially when put into a show like "Kid Nation" where they all run around like guinea pigs for the enjoyment of the nation. Then again, the same could be said for child actors- when is too early to enter into and be placed into the media; into fame and limelight? Can they handle the "media-celebrity" fame that Couldry talks about that's comparable to the twenty-something winner of Big Brother? Though, since the show didn't do as well as hoped on CBS, to my knowledge its been taken off the air and I've heard of no new controversy surrounding any of the kids involved in the show. I suppose media-celebrity is warranted only to those whose shows actually attracted consistent viewers. Yet it is interesting to take into account Couldry's discussion of the "media-self" in the context of Kid Nation. These kids essentially construct a mediated version of themselves (or perhaps fit into the prescribed roles that they are strategically cast for) at such an early age that brings into question the already-constructed identities that we have for ourselves and each other in society. How much of what we show and act to each other in real life, or to the world through the "reality" of media, is a reflection of our truest self?

Core Response #5: Big Brother and Shakespeare?

In reading John Harley's article I had to wonder whether he had seen the Shakespeare productions and reality TV shows that I had. I just cannot imagine making a connection between the two, a Shakespeare play is well scripted, produced and a complete break from the reality of life; a reality TV show, at least in my mind, is like watching a train wreck. In a Shakespeare production the actors and text are telling the audience what to think, moving and speaking to convey a certain message. In a reality show the interactions of the cast members are not scripted, although they are probably carefully cut together to give an impression of reality; they do not teach lasting societal lessons, except maybe that we have too much time on our hands.

In reality (no pun intended) Reality TV is not intended to last or be repeated; it is a one time only thing, whereas even if Shakespeare plays were not intended to be seen again by the same audience they were expected to be performed again, whether by the same actors or others. The plays were created in order to be preserved, to teach, and to entertain, while reality TV is not intended to be preserved or to teach. The interactions of the members of the cast are no more important than everyday interactions by other human beings, although they are on a larger scale. I am sure that the cast is meant to be relatable to the audience, but I do not believe that the cast is chosen for their social value.

I have not watched Big Brother, my reality TV show of choice is The Amazing Race, but I have to assume that the shows are similar at least in the way that contestants interact with one another. I can relate to the cast but not to their experiences nor to the screaming fights that contestants have in the middle of public spaces. When I sit down and watch The Taming of the Shrew I can relate to the characters, recognize them as plucked from life, and I can put myself in the situations that they face. I do not feel such a connection to reality TV contestants, and frankly I find the comparison insulting.

CORE: Reality Stardom

As we can tell from all of my posts I am fascinated with alternative celebrities, mainly things that revolve around the internet.  In my opinion, the internet is already the next reality tv.  With social networks and youtube, everyone is putting themselves everywhere and because we love to look at other people and even enjoy a sense of voyeurism from "lurking" on our computers, people are becoming famous from all over the place for sometimes doing nothing.  The best example of this would be Tilla Tequilla who got famous from having the most friends on myspace.  Ironically she was given her own reality dating show on MTV which has made its way onto its second season.  As Hartley points out in "Kiss me Kat", "reality tv, one could contend, is our new genre of hesitation, thrilling us with its confusion of once distinct realms".  I take us for it providing us a window to explore ourselves by watching others live.    Chuck Klosterman talks about this in Sex, Drugs, and Coco Puffs on the massive popularity of Real World and also how when he played the game The Sims, his Sim version of himself was more interesting than his real life.  In terms of internet celebrities I would like to draw our attention to one of the many that I personally know and am friends with.  This one in particular is fascinating because she is using her internet stardom to her advantage and capitalizing off it.  Meet HannaBeth, or myspace.com/loveandconfusion: a Myspace Model extradoniare.  She has caters to a niche market of spectators, more of the EMO- Screemo, Music, tattoo world, but has a insanely large following.  She now has her own clothing line which can be purchased by sending her a message on mysapce.  Two things that are the most interesting about her are 1. how she became famous and 2. the clothing line internet phenomena.  1. Early on in her career she quickly befriended Jeffree Star, an even bigger internet Star Male Drag queen, who is personal friends with Kat Von from LA INK.  He/she placed Hanna on her top 8 friends and from that point on Hanna started collecting people like an avalanche.  Returning to the clothing line, it has become a popular activity on the web to post pix of you wearing your HannaBeth hoodie in a typical emo Apple Photobooth picture. Last time I was with her she mentioned to me how she is also in the works of her own show for MTV and already has a reality Vlog for Buzznet.  I don't really know what else to say other than WOW when I think about all of this.  More so, questions start appearing like, where do we draw the line?  What are the hierarchies of celebritism?  Does it even matter at this point? (if you are this famous on myspace, would it make a difference if you broke into the theatre world?)  Will it get worse (I think so).  All of this taps into the concept that we want to be noticed, even if its behind a screen (how ironic).  P.s., it should be noted Hanna is currently Dating Miley Cyrus' black sheep brother...how appro-po.

More On Miley

I too have to comment on the Disney star's recent career developments.  It seems as if with each week comes more photos stolen from her Myspace page of her posing provocatively, barely clothed and so forth.  Because of this, I do not see why anyone in her camp would allow her to do a very public, highly professional photoshoot that would be considered controversial.

This got me thinking about the week in which we studied Elvis.  I began looking at Miley's roots, (I mean her dad used to have a mullet for goodness sakes), she has such coin phrases as "sweet niblets" and "homegirl say what?", and she and her family are closely knit to Dolly Parton, who has also starred on her show on several occasions.  This leads me to wonder, could our little Disney princess be white trash?  I know I was really concerned during Elvis week as I have never seen him as white trash or seen a fascination with him as being white trash, yet Miley and her family is starting to fill that space for me.  During a time when white trash stars are being exploited more than ever (think Britney, her pregnant sister, Audrina Partridge, Tara Reid, Brett Michaels), it seems as if the warning signs would have been there for Miley and her family to see.  Unfortunately, the doings have been done and we'll have to see where this takes miss Miley next.

Miley Cyrus the next fallen starlet?

Apparently Miley Cyrus has attracted attention after posing topless, covered by a blanket, for Vanity Fair have created a bit of a splash. The linked article points to many teen stars who have done similar things to damage their reputations, but it points to only one male star, Daniel Radcliff, whose reputation was not ruined by his nudity in Equus, but he was instead taken seriously as an adult actor.

At first I wondered if the difference in the way that stars are treated for essentially the same thing, such as nudity, had to do with gender, but I think this might be a bit too simplistic in the explanation. Let us take for example, Daniel Radcliff and Jessica Biel of 7th Heaven fame, both have bared it all to the world, Radcliff in Equus and Biel in a photo spread in Gear Magazine, so the difference is obviously not what they have shown off, but they were treated differently for these appearances. While Radcliff was praised for becoming an adult actor Biel was dropped from her TV role on 7th Heaven. My thoughts on this are not so much that gender came into play in this, although I do think genders are treated differently by the media, but instead that the purpose behind the appearance had to do with how the media and the public perceived each. For Radcliff the purpose was to expand his repetoir as an actor and to prove that he could play something other than Harry Potter, for Biel it appears the purpose of the photo spread was to prove that she could take her clothes off, not much redeeming value.

So what does this have to do with Miley Cyrus? The article got me thinking about the how these young women are idolized by so many and the pressure that they must be under to live up to expectations. At the age of fifteen Miley Cyrus is performing sold out concerts and her "brand" is expected to sell over $1 billion this year. What male counterpart does she have? I am beginning to think that the pressure on these girls might be what causes the fall from grace in the first place; they are carefully chosen and marketed to the public; they are sold early and often. Is it really any wonder that they eventually fall from grace due to the pressure they are under to constantly be perfect? I just think it is sad that fifteen is old enough to crack under that kind of pressure.

Britney's Changing Image

So I'm guessing since you all are in class, you're avid tabloid readers like myself.  Has anyone else noticed the change in coverage of Britney Spears?  A few months ago the paparazzi and tabloid writers were looking for any photo or story to portray the singer in an unfavorable way.  Gradually, I've noticed that the headlines have been more about her recovery than any little thing that makes her look bad.  I was on line at the market and noticed the cover of one talking about "Brit's Hot New Bod." Personally, I think she looks exactly the same as she did a few months ago.  This is what got me thinking about the way tabloids can single-handedly change a star's image.  Forget what's true and false, they have all the power to change the public's opinion.  Another example is Angelina.  At first, she was the homewrecker that split up Brad and Jen, but when people got tired of reading about that, they switched gears to make her a philanthropic saint.  In a weird way, these tabloid writers have way too much power.

Reading Response #5: Coming Full Circle

How appropriate to end the semester with readings that focus on meaning given to a text by the audience when on the first week we began with Dyer's ideas about stars embodying cultural contradictions and "leaks" within media that enable different readings of texts. We now conclude the course with a similar reading - Hartley's assertion that in contemporary media, the source of meaning is the end user-the audience member or reader. Our studies have come full circle and, interestingly enough, come back to us as the audience.

The idea that it is not God or the auteur that produces meaning but us as the audience is a very interesting one. It places power not in the hands of the creaters but the consumers. Hartley goes on to assert that it is redaction, "the creative editorial function of bringing existing materials together to make new texts and meanings" (319), that is the art form of the age. Again, an appropriate statement after our discussion of slash videos last week.

These arguments leave me with the question, why? Why now? Why is it our generation that has motivated this transfer of value from the text itself to the viewer; why is it our generation that has gone from viewing media to changing, combining, and altering it? From the readings this week and in previous weeks, I've come up with a few answers. First, the devil's advocate would say we have not. Even looking at Shakespeare as Hartley did demonstrates that the viewer has always held a role in giving text meaning. It is simply our generation that is now critically looking at it. Another answer would be that technology has enabled the viewing, responding to, and altering of media in a way previous audiences could not. This is most apparent with slash videos. Or it could be because of the psyche of our generation - we are a group who grew up on "now." We have a serious case of entitlement and privilege the ability to customize. Whether it's with wardrobe or an iPod, we (more than any previous generation) love to be individuals. With this in mind, it would make sense that we also favor our role in media consumption and take it so far as to alter media ourselves. It also makes sense that we would want to see ourselves reflected even more transparently (to use Couldry's words) in the genre of reality television.

Whether it's because of critical studies, technology, or the modern psyche, it's clear that media is constantly changing. From reality TV to youTube, media is in a new place. What do you think has motivated these changes and.. why now?

More on Slash Vids

This week's discussion reminded me of a lecture in 191 (television) with Jennifer Holt. Perhaps some of you were in that class and remember that she dedicated an entire day to fanvids and slashvids. In particular, I remember the Lost and Buffy videos that were circulating. I think that I took this class Freshman year, so it would have been Spring of 2005 which as I remember was before YouTube was as huge as it is now. Actually, I remember having a really hard time finding those videos again to show some friends which in itself shows a vastly different atmosphere of fandom between now and three years ago. Anyway, I thought I would post some videos similar to one's shown in 191 because I think they speak to our generation as the Star Trek videos spoke to earlier fans. The one thing I wonder about these slash vids is what the percentage is of actual fantasy on part of the artist versus exploitation of the characters and subculture. There seems to be a general recognition, even within the fan community, of a type of parodying that accompanies slash creations but I think that some are made with more earnest desire to see and share the outcome than others. When "Brokeback Top Gun" came out it really seemed to exploit the slash vid community, parodying the success of the gay narrative in Brokeback Mountain, versus the two I have posted below which seem less interested in parody than the portrayal of the relationships. Maybe I am just reading into this but what do you guys think?

(Just looked it up, YouTube was founded February 2005 and not launched until November of that year.)

"No One Else" Jack/Sawyer
http://lostvideo.net/viewvid.php?vidid=3748


"Closer" Spike/Angel
http://sisabet.livejournal.com/10640.html


Also, here is a good article from Henry Jenkins himself; "How to Watch a Fan Vid".

The Fan Vid Subculture

Just sharing...after I went to the "genealogy of vidding" session at the 24/7 DIY festival at USC this year, I've been looking at fan vids with a whole new respect. There are some really intelligent, funny videos out there and I'm really impressed with a lot of "regular fans'" editing skills. In the above House video the vidder took two films that the same actor is in and created a third meaning by intertwining them. It's really clever! At the DIY session I went to, they called these vids "visual responses to a visual text." For anyone who is into anime, below is a groundbreaking, award-winning Evangelion vid. Again, what a fantastic job!

Judy Garland's Legacy

So, this week in my muscial class we watched a clip from Martin Scorsese's musical parody "New York New York" in which Judy Garland's daughter Liza Minnelli does a parody of her mother's musical number "I was born in a trunk..." from "A Star Is Born". I thought that is was interesting because although Minnelli is honoring her mother's art form, she is also mocking Garland's legacy by showing the complete illusion of the musical world. This illusion is what sadly killed Garland, and lucky her legacy does live on through her work and not through her daughter who unsuccessfully followed in Garland's footsteps.

star struck

I just saw James Franco at the coffee bean in westwood!!! He bumped my elbow (didn't apologize, let alone acknowledge my existence) and I LOVED it. I was so flustered I couldn't concentrate on my coffee. I had thought that growing up in LA and seeing celebrities on a semi-regular basis made me less star struck, but James Franco really threw me for a loop. Maybe because he's so cute? Maybe because I loved Freaks and Geeks? I'm not really sure...
Anyway, just wanted to share!

Rock Hudson's Diagnosis

I did a quick search on YouTube, and I came upon this news story about Rock Hudson being in the hospital in Paris in 1985.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8msfeLOXp8

I found it interesting that while there was no diagnosis when the story was released there was an assumption that Hudson had AIDS as evidenced by the interview with the expert about the drug available in France. I also found it interesting that this story did not at all focus on the possibility that Hudson was gay, while also discussing AIDS. I wish I could find a video from a news story once it was confirmed that Hudson had AIDS because I would be interested to see how the reporting differs, but there does not appear to be such a story on YouTube.

I thought it was particularly interesting that the story lasted so long (nearly 3 minutes), especially since Hudson was a star of the 50s and 60s, but by 1985 would not have had the same star power.

Core Response #4

Dyer's article on "Judy Garland and gay men" seemed particularly relevant post-Rufus Wainwright's "Judy at Carnegie Hall" concerts that were played to sold-out audiences around the country. Gay culture's affection for Garland is still alive and well. Examining Garland in this way makes me think (for the first time, really) that artists may have a kind of responsibility in their image. Though Garland clearly wasn't thinking about the "homosexual demographic" when she sang her songs with such passion and lived her life under such turmoil, she became a figure that symbolized a very important movement. When interviewed by the New York Times in 2006, Wainwright attributed Garland's magnetism to the fact that "when she sings, she is beautiful without actually being beautiful...she believes in it and you believe in it..." Certainly, in the past (and in most cases presently), the gay community is not celebrated within American society. The U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is just one example of homosexuality being viewed as something "ugly" or "repulsive." Garland's ability to overcome the fact that she was not considered a physically beautiful woman within the context of celebrity at the time and her ability to not only sing beautifully, but enrapture audiences with her dynamic, emotional performances serves as an example of the beauty of talent and (without sounding too cheesy) of what is within.

The article also made me think of contemporary figures through which groups of people find solidarity, release, or encouragement. I have always been intrigued by the music choices of the boys with whom I went to high school. These (predominantly) wealthy Caucasians would drive around suburban Minneapolis in their expensive, foreign cars listening to Tupac and DMX. At the time, I found it sort of awkwardly offensive. I had friends who had known only prosperity and comfort that could rap every word of a popular song about the struggle of inner-city life. I never understood the connection. Recently, I was talking to a professor when this topic arose and he attributed the sensation to the fact that at it's base, rap music addresses feelings of anger, resentment toward "higher powers," and confusion as to how to "pursue happiness" in a country that misrepresents its "dream." Though I'm still not entirely comfortable with the glamourization of "thug life" exhibited by rappers like Nelly, this conversation made me realize in some ways, those boys in my high school were facing what for them was an adolescent crisis that involved anger, a feeling of misplacement, and a confusion regarding their identities. In my opinion, there is a similarity between this solidarity and that between the gay community and Judy Garland.

Money and Celebrity

I've been thinking a lot lately about the role that financial wealth plays in Los Angeles. Though obviously there are wealthy people throughout the United States who live "fabulous" lifestyles, there is something about one's ability in LA to "buy" status that I find interesting. With "reality" shows like "The Hills" on TV, the definition of celebrity is shifting. What is it that these girls have that make them such "intriguing" celebrity figures? Yes, they have a television series, but I think more crucial to their notoriety is their ability to buy the lives they lead. They wear outfits worth several hundred dollars, they carry bags worth (often times) more than a thousand dollars, they eat out at expensive restaurants, they sit VIP in the city's most exclusive clubs. These are all things that money can buy. All you need in Los Angeles to be a celebrity is money and a film crew. And, judging from the popularity of "The Hills," that's all most Americans want.

Disney Star Goes Missing!

Maybe you have some information that his parents could use?!?  How ironic that this guy can go under the radar for years after Raven's show ended, yet the instant its brought to this blog, he shows up in the news again!

Check this out...freaky!

http://perezhilton.com/2008-04-23-disney-star-missing

Reading Response #5

I found myself considering the authenticity of stars as role models, idols, people we look to as representatives certain aspects of society: Jennifer Lopez for Latinas, Seth Rogen for affable Everymans, Matthew McConaughey for the shirtless…. As Dyer points out in Stars, “ Stars have a privileged position in the definition of social roles and types, and this must have real consequences in terms of how people believe they can and should behave” (p.8). And yet, as we read about the role of Judy Garland and Rock Hudson’s respective stardom in society, the desire and manipulation of that image by the audience must also be considered.

As we discussed last week, in the case of someone like Jennifer Lopez, she’s a star who wants to have it all – to be “Jenny from the Block,” and at the same time drive a Bentley, wear fur and diamonds, and build a baby nursery the size of my apartment. No one from my block rolled like that. So who is she? Is she what her audience wants her to be, a representative of a minority beating the odds and achieving the dream? Or is she just another wealthy celebrity, hungry for the fame that feeds her luxurious lifestyle? I bring this example up, because I believe Judy Garland and Rock Hudson’s star representation and idolatry are vastly different: Garland a more authentic representative for the gay community, whether that was ever her actual intention or not, and Hudson a manipulation of studio power and audience desire that buried his true self.

I consider Garland to be a more authentic icon for the gay community, for her representation was not merely superficial, but instead ran deeper, with more loyalty. She was not loved for what she looked like, she was loved for the hope she inspired in those also existing on the fringe of society’s “normal.” I found the following statement to be Dyer’s most powerful: “The ordinariness is a starting point because, like Judy Garland, gay men are brought up to be ordinary. One is not brought up gay; on the contrary, everything in the culture seems to work against it. Had Garland remained an image of ordinary normality… She would not have been so available as a gay icon… To turn out not-ordinary after being saturated with the values of ordinariness structures Garland’s career and the standard gay biography alike” (HB, 153). Quite simply, Garland was not loved for the image of simple American ordinariness MGM carefully constructed; rather, she was loved for being imperfect, for existing outside of what people expected her to be, and for fighting rejection.

Rock Hudson’s representation, however, was purely superficial and thus inauthentic; I wonder how powerful his star power could have been, had he been allowed to be a representative for the community he actually belonged to, rather than the one he was pigeon-holed in. The account of people’s anger and disappointment in him (most notably, Ruth Westheimer’s comment), when he acknowledged that he had AIDS, was painful to read; while Garland’s fans rallied around her when she fell, loving her all the more when she got back up, Hudson’s fans betrayed him, turning away from their idol because he wasn’t really who they’d forced him to be. It is shocking to me to learn that audiences believed Hudson deceived them, when all along, they’d given him no other choice: Hudson was constructed to be exactly how they wanted him – it was the audience molding his representation of cleanliness, respectability, and purity, of the “consummate safe sex object” (Meyer 265). The film industry supplied and reinforced the audience’s desire; as Universal Studios publicity head declared, “Rock’s fans won’t accept his doing anything shoddy…. They like him because he’s what they want their daughters to marry, or their children’s father to be, or their childhood sweetheart. If we let him break out of that character, they’d howl” (Meyer 271). The key words here are “if we let him” – clearly, Hudson had little control over who he was constructed to be, and was instructed to hide his true self behind marriage, living the stereotype he portrayed onscreen.
The case of Rock Hudson is deeply interesting because it demonstrates the dark and painful side of the role stars are expected to play offscreen: the model of a particular aspect of society. I wonder, to what extent should a celebrity be responsible for the values and stereotypes associated with their onscreen image? On the one hand, you have the power and strength brought to the transgender community from Felicity Huffman in “Transamerica,” and yet, you have Rock Hudson’s tragic fall from grace for not embodying the ideal safe-sex symbol he was onscreen. How much can we, as the audience, expect to have power over when it comes to stars and what we want them to represent for society? For ourselves?

Core Response #5: Rock Hudson

I didn't know much about Rock Hudson before reading the Meyer article. All I knew was that he had been gay, but not out. I had no idea he had gotten AIDS and died from it. I thought it was interesting how the article saved that bit of information till the end, setting up the strength and vigor associated with him in his earlier career, and then effectively destroying that image by describing his physical decrepitude in his last months.
I was also interested in the article's emphasis on his body, and how clean people thought him to be, and as Sarah mentioned, how ironic it is that the interest in his body was so great and yet his image was so asexual. He was "less threatening" and "less sexual," and yet the article focused so much on his stature and sex appeal. I can't really grasp Rock Hudson, as a persona, because of all these different contradictions. I think it must be the enigmatic nature of his stardom that helps make him popular.
Despite being intrigued by his contradictions, I'm preoccupied with several questions: Why this obsession with his body? How was it that despite his size he was so unthreatening? And even though people admired him so much, why was he not more sexualized? Why the emphasis on his cleanliness?
What is it about these characteristics that makes them so appealing? Was it just back then that people felt that way, have we changed in how we view stars? I feel like the stars today that are the most popular (Britney, Paris, Lindsay) are "dirty," pretty much. Where are the wholesome, cleanly stars? Why have we moved away from that type of persona? Was it because we were "burned" by him ending up having AIDS, and now we can't trust that sort of personality? I would say that someone like Zac Effron tries to get into that category of "wholesome," and all people can do is hypothesize about his sexuality. Also, does a "wholesome" star have to be heterosexual?
Sorry about all the questions, but this reading made me think of a lot more questions than it answered!

Reading Response # 5

I just realized that I totally forgot to post this last week, so here it is. Sorry for how ridiculously late it is!

For this weeks reading I would like to focus on Jackie Stacey's discussion of the audience-star relationship in "Feminine Fascinations". It is amazing to me how much stock we put into the "passive audience" in film studies considering the rabid fan culture that re-examines appropriated images from film or television to fit it to their own standards. Stacey's article really throws a light onto how vastly complex the process of reading a film and stars can be. Many times we have discussed what the Classical Hollywood stars represented, especially the female stars, and perhaps took for granted how that image really perpetuated (in terms of identification). The selective memory of the fans' recollection of the stars is a particularly point in Stacey's arguement because it reveals a much more active subconscious in the discerning of parts of the image from narrative context. I think that it also suggests a much richer network of social construction and gender identity in the 40s and 50s than what the "Leave it to Beaver" style texts alone would lead us to believe. On the other hand, while Stacey's article reveals certain rarely explored facets of the implications of spectatorship, I think it also gives even greater substance and complexity to concepts like the 'male gaze'. Mulvey's assessment of the audience relation to the screen yields a treatment of the camera position and narrative structure as an extension of the heterosexual male perspective that women spectators are forced to take on. Thus, subjecting themselves to a relationship to their own gender that takes on a dominating patriarchal eye (a form of self-degradation). Now, in order for the female spectator to relate to the screen images she must take on the 'male gaze' and view her gender through that lens, but we know through Stacey's article that it is not that simple. The process of viewing, especially from the female spectator, constitutes a vast reordering of text and meaning to create a uniquely subjective relationship with the films and their stars. In this way, fan culture (fan fiction and modes of idolization) become vastly more important to getting a true understanding of the interpretations of the text and gender analysis.

Some Questions for the Class:

1. Do you think that work done in feminist analysis of film texts without consideration for the audience reception undermines femininity by assuming how women are portrayed is equivalent to how it is received? Can an analysis be valid without this consideration?
2. Considering Stacey's argument about previous work by Haskell and Mulvey and the differences between female audience identification with stars, do you think that film scholars tend to construe a reading of the text that subverts the dominant audience reading?

Core Response #5: A Culture of Authenticity

In both of his readings for today, Richard Dyer argues for Judy Garland's appeal (particularly for gay men) as being a combination of reality and fiction within her own star image. Thus audiences can read films like A Star is Born and I Could Go On Singing as reflections of Garland’s own personal life and stardom. These films would be read entirely differently had the star been someone without Garland’s public problems in fact, part of their power comes from the combination of reality and fiction that Garland infuses them with.

The rise of the internet and the pervasiveness of celebrity/tabloid culture has extended this notion to a whole series of stars, mostly those of a younger generation whose stardom rests on a mixture of talent or work and tabloids. Yet whereas before, it was possible to read Judy Garland’s films as blending her life and art, now the life of a star like Lindsay Lohan trumps her art. It is difficult to watch a film like Georgia Rule and see her as anything but Lindsay Lohan. There is an inability to lose oneself in the film, not only because the character itself is so closely aligned with her own image as a wild LA girl, but also because of the influence of the widely-publicized personal drama surrounding the film such as her being publicly chastised by the head of the film’s production studio, her disruptions on set with late-night partying, etc. The result is that while one could read a Judy Garland film as being accentuated by her personal life, in this case, Lindsay Lohan’s personal life overtakes the film completely.

Dyer argues for the desire and need for authenticity in stardom, even as audiences and producers alike recognize its inherent manipulation. This kind of authenticity has become especially significant now with the availability and access to stars that exists on a level unseen in celebrity culture. This becomes most apparent with the recent phenomenon of hacking into stars’ lives. Within the past two years, Paris Hilton’s blackberry has been stolen and its contents posted online, Lindsay Lohan’s private messages on Myspace have gone public, and several other stars have found their private information offered to the public.

This phenomenon taps into the idea of authenticity because I think that the fact that these stars are putting themselves on public forums on the internet raises the question of authenticity as well as creates a new kind of fan-star relationship (am I really looking at Lindsay’s Myspace? Could I talk to Paris if I wanted to?) Yet this also marks an extreme form of this desire for authenticity as it is no longer just the paparazzi who capture stars at candid moments but rather it is fans themselves who can hack a person’s email or Myspace and post what they find for the world to see.

That’s why I’m surprised that any celebrity actually uses the internet for communication other than email because of this pattern of making photos and information public. But I think that on a certain level, it also makes sense in our current culture because a) the people who are using it like Lindsay Lohan or Miley Cyrus are stars whose fame depends in large part on relevancy and what better way to stay relevant than to have your private information leaked to the public and b) because the use of the internet also keeps them authentic by allowing people a glimpse, however brief that may be, into their private lives.

This notion of authenticity is pervasive, as seen by the fact that just this morning, I read on Page Six that Lindsay Lohan recently created a Facebook page. I looked it up and sure enough, there it was in the New York network. Granted, it was taken down within the hour (as it was on both ONTD and Page Six, I’m sure a ton of people tried to friend her) but even for those few minutes that I saw the page, I found myself looking for signs that it was real or authentic. In doing so, I started processing the information on the profile as details that would inform my own general reading of her as a star (i.e. the fact that her Facebook account was under Lindsay Ronson, a reference to her supposed girlfriend Samantha Ronson; her status defending her sobriety which refutes recent photos of her passed out in a car; Hilary Duff being one of her Facebook friends, etc.)

It sounds crazy, I know, but while reading Dyer's essay in Stardom: Industry of Desire, it was also the first thing that came to my head and I think this question of authenticity is one that has come to the forefront not just in our reading of stars, but of ordinary people as well. In this culture of Facebook and Myspace, we create profiles of ourselves that we display for all the world to see. I’m always fascinated by how people choose to present or edit themselves because much like reality television (another branch of this quest for authenticity), there are constant decisions being made about what to show and what not to show so that in the end, a new kind of reading of people has emerged from this culture, one which coexists with the reading and search for stars’ authenticity.

In Response to both Neon and Annie's Posts

We screened Baby Mama in 466 two weeks ago. Circle of trust/truth/love in place, I was excited to see it too, though I would never let my over-excitement show to the group of guys I attend class with. I had been a fan of both Amy Poehler and Tina Fey for years as well, and knew that with the trailers I've seen, this film would be golden. Unfortunately, the film sort of fell flat for me. It's definitely funny and I laughed out loud a number of times, yet it does lack the staying power that films like Old School and Animal House have. Most of the funny parts can be seen in the various trailers circling around, and the plot is predictable throughout. I am interested, however, to see how well it does and to read more reviews as they are released. But this really got me thinking, what about a film gives it staying power? Is it witty quotes that allow us to use over and over in our average speech (think borat, high five!). Is it our favorite actors doing crazy and unthinkable things (think Will Ferrel in just about everything). Maybe these women actresses are just not famous enough yet to leave such a lasting impression. Maybe Annie is right, maybe we are a little bit taken back by funny women and estrogen-led comedies. At any rate, let me know what you guys think of the film when you see it.

In Diablo's case, I think she did somehow tap into America's funny bone with a film as shitty as Juno. Many of my friends have attempted to employ Juno quotes into their own lives, yet fall strikingly short as it is just too mundane and all too similar to the way your most boring friend tells stories. Yet maybe her success story has given her a sort of American Dream-like appeal that allows the shortcomings of the film (which for me, there were many) to be more acceptable to the academy. I'm not sure if many of you have heard about her latest masterpiece, which will tell the story about a man-eating cheerleader, played by Megan Fox. My friend actually auditioned for a part in the film, and I was able to read a short segment of the script. To me there just has to be something more to her than her screenplays as they continue to fall flat for me. It is sad when her story gets more credit than someone who is genuinely funny like Tina Fey, yet I guess thats the mystique of Hollywood.

Core: Fandom to the Extreme

As most of my posts in the class have revolved around untraditional forms of celebritism, I shall do the same for when talking about Fans.  I would like to talk about Zune Guy.  Zune Guy is an internet phenomenon, who is about a man who loves the Microsoft Zune Mp3 player so much, he got the logo tattooed on him.  As if that wasn't enough, throughout the years of this device being released, he got more tattoos of Zune related images both slogans and advertisement images.  Recently, he is going to the steps to legally change his name to Microsoft Zune.  The point of this story is not to talk about the zune, because personally I think its a inferior device, BUT more to display the RIDICULOUS amount of brand loyalty, which is a form of fandom and furthermore as it pertains to this class, is this guy is now a celebrity for being absurd. Furthermore, what I find also interesting, is this guy completely contradicts what Dyer loves to talk about which is the ideal body.  It has not been confirmed nor denied of the sexual preference of this gentlemen so it will be hard to relate to Dyer's work on homosexuality, but the very fact that there is a following for this man, fandom for a eccentric fan of a piece of (imo crappy) technology.  Oh, what its like to live 2008!!!

p.s. this was was posted on tuesday, but apparently never went through.

Diablo Cody: Fcuk my Socks

I am taking 386, which is a case study on Juno and the last class Diablo Cody, the writer, came in to talk to us.  She brought up how all of the sudden she found herself in People Magazine, specifcally about how her tube socks were in style and the next trend.  She went to on to talk about how why anyone would possibly care about a person who prefers to remain behind the camera, yet all this new found attention is being focused on her, and her socks.  My personal theory on this is people are more obsessed with her as a concept, seeing as that she was working in the sex industry and wrote her first film which got made and wont the Academy Award, in a way she represents hope, that there is a chance for anyone to either make it in hollywood, or just in life in general.  To go from bottom to the top that quickly is inspiring, so sub-consciously I think this is why "people" are more interested in her life.

Baby Mama

Email Picture

As a female about to graduate and begin fighting my way into the "boy's club" of comedy, I'm holding my breath and crossing my fingers for the success of "Baby Mama," opening this Friday and starring Tina Fey and Amy Poehler. While there are plenty of female-driven "comedies," they always seem to be powered by the humor of a beautiful star who still can't seem to catch a man, despite her good looks and winning personality... And even though I liked "27 Dresses" as much as the next girl, the movies I love are "Animal House," "Old School," "Wedding Crashers," "Superbad"... I've been ready to see women take on that type of comedy for a long time, and "Baby Mama" appears to be our first foray into the world of the male-driven "buddy comedy."

What is interesting to me, however, is just how difficult it is for people to accept that women are funny, too. If it were male leads, people would approach it by asking, I wonder if that movie will be funny? But here, with two women headlining, people ask, I wonder if women can be funny? There is so much pressure, so much riding on the success of the film -- if it doesn't do well, the studio won't just cut their losses and try to make a funnier female "buddy comedy" next time, they'll continue to relegate the funny women to their traditional roles: the quirky best friend of the beautiful romantic-comedy lead.

Check out this article in this past Sunday's LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca-feypoehler20apr20,0,863720.story

It was surprising to me how offensive some of the interviewer's comments were! Two examples: "I think it makes the movie fresh, that you two are the stars. But I'm just thinking from the marketing point of view. You don't make for a great poster," and "Do you think it's a harder sell for Universal because there's no movie star or large-breasted woman on the poster?" I'm sorry, but has anyone ever asked if a movie would be a better sell if there's a well-endowed man on the poster? And as far as the "star" element goes, I'll have to agree with Poehler's answer that there were no stars on the "Superbad" poster until the movie came out, and then there were. It's hard enough to develop and execute a film that makes a wide audience laugh -- why not let these comedians defend their humor, not their gender?

Core Response #4

Reading the article about Rock Hudson's body reminded me of our discussion of Valentino in the way that he was the object of the gaze, a position usually reserved for women. The thing that struck me most about the article was the treatment Rock Hudson received from the press after he revealed his diagnosis of AIDS. I had read about this before, but in a world in which AIDS has been named and identified as something that anyone can get I struggle with the idea of the media treatment.

When reading about the treatment that Rock Hudson received by the media I was reminded of another star who revealed a diagnosis of HIV and was treated markedly differently than Hudson, Magic Johnson. This makes me wonder if the homophobia of the 1980s is truly the reason Hudson was treated differently, as Johnson got HIV from a heterosexual affair rather than a life of homosexuality. While Hudson was said to give AIDS a face it seems that Johnson is the more enduring face for HIV and AIDS, as I remember a few years ago a special about him twenty years after he revealed his diagnosis.

The other thing that struck me about the article about Hudson was that there was no mention of the panic surrounding Dorris Day after he revealed his status with AIDS. This is what I remember from reading about Hudson in the past, he had kissed Dorris Day when they were together, and people feared that he could have transmitted AIDS to her that way. I wonder if this is because the kiss does not fit with the author's discussion of homophobia and misunderstanding of AIDS that came from the media during this time period or whether Day is simply not as important in the article because she does not fit into the theme of Hudson's body. In my mind the panic over Dorris Day almost outweighs the dismissal of Rock Hudson as a liar; she was authentic so there was truly concern for her while there was nothing but condemnation for Hudson.

Campus Gossip

Just to add to the post about the "Lance Lohan" blogger, this website CampusGossip.com is a blog about everything that goes on at schools all around the country.  USC's particular blog covers everything from greek life to events at the 9-0 to things happening on campus.  This website is highly publicized on Facebook and by the 9-0.  I'm sure most of you have either seen or at least heard of the show Gossip Girl on The CW, and it seems like ever since this show aired a number of these gossip websites have emerged.  A few months ago there was one called USCene.com which posted stories about several "well-known" people around campus, and usually these stories were written with malice and generally exaggerated or untrue.  The PHC, IFC and university both worked hard to find the person or people responsible for it, and it was eventually dissolved.  However, for the few weeks it was up some terrible things were written and people were hurt by it.  These gossip columns are extending beyond the lives of movie stars and celebrities to our very own communities of our colleges.  Could this be a new form of celebrity?  Popular people within the greek systems of universities... A lot of people are getting a taste of celebrity with these new blog postings, and I'm interested to see where it goes.

Be Careful What You Put on Facebook!

So I recently stumbled onto LAgonedirty.com, a blog that takes photos from students at UCLA and USC and adds quirky captions.  Not only was I intrigued (to see if my photos had been used among other things), one thing that caught my eye was the author's "pen name", which is Lance Lohan.

Naturally, this got me thinking about class, and a sense of "guilty by association" that can be said of celebrity.  Whoever Lance Lohan is has borrowed from Perez Hilton by giving himself a memorable name and doing essentially the same thing, yet with our photos, not the paps.  While this is a simple task given the lucidity of the internet, Lance has associated himself with bloggers like Perez who poke fun, draw on, and expose photos of the stars.  He has asserted himself beyond other bloggers simply by borrowing from those successful before him.

Take a look at the site, and don't be surprised if you see yourself or someone you know...and be sure to make those photo albums private!

Beckham and the L.A. Galaxy

(Banner in the Home Depot Center where the Galaxy plays)

In the past two weekends, I have been to two of the L.A. Galaxy's soccer games. Since David Beckham recently left England to come play for L.A.'s soccer team, you can probably guess my reasoning for going to these games in the first place (although I do call soccer one of my favorite sports, having played it for four or five years when I was younger). As seen at both games, I can definitely say that Beckham is one of the few celebrities equally loved by men (well, I suppose male soccer fans more specifically) and women. Male fans taunted the other team by chanting, "we have David Beckham" while female fans stared wide-eyed at him. Before attending these games, all I knew of Beckham was that he was a soccer (or football, if you will) player, married to one of my favorite Spice Girls, and everyone thought he was hot. I never had much interest in him probably because I don't follow soccer and have never seen him in his quintessential form. But, after these two Galaxy games, I have to say I've become a huge fan (I just bought a Beckham t-shirt/jersey). Not only is he just plain hot, he is incredibly talented and every time he got the ball on the field, he whisked by all the other players with speed and fancy footwork, ultimately making a perfect pass to someone else on the team. Basically, he lived up to all of the hype. I don't know too much about sports and its celebrities, but I have to say that any amount of celebrity achieved by a sports player is certainly warranted because you can in no way become famous without being a phenomenal player. That said, I will be going to many Galaxy games in the future!

yet another Madonna post

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kCkwYuoqnyo

I saw this on perezhilton and thought it was RIDICULOUS, so of course I posted it here.

Why does she do these things?!
I can't stand her, yet at the same time I feel guilty for not supporting a "strong," independent woman. because, really, some aspects of her make her a good role model. I feel like she's received similarly to Hilary Clinton (although I'll be the first to admit that I don't know the first thing about politics so I can't really back that up...) in that she's a "strong" woman who's villainized for being that way.
Any thoughts? Am I totally off base?

That's So Raven : Celebrity Sighting

As we have seen so far I am kind of fascinated by B List celebrities.  I think I like them more than big timers because these people are not at the level of fame and stardom like the A-list yet, most of them act and walk and talk like they are the biggest deal.  Last night I had a great B sighting: Orlando Brown, from the disney show That's So Raven.  I saw him at Ralph's supermarket around 2:30 in the morning.  Him and his friends were loading up on the following items: 24 pack of Bud Light, tortillas, and a butterfinger (these are the items I think I saw on the belt).  Both him and his friends were fully put together and although weary "social" clothing, they were covered in bling and looked like they spent hours putting their outfit together.  Not only were the random items for check out interesting to me, but both Orlando's loud volume as he talked to his friends and the clerk were appealing as well, it was as if he wanted to be noticed...at a grocery store at 2:30 in the morning in the valley where the only people were there was me + my friend, the clerk, and the homeless guy in the corner.  He then got into his nissan, which I found even more interesting, as him and his friends were so decked out with apparel, it simply did not match the style of car.  Lastly, I got starred down hardcore as I drove away in my car.

Also on Jessica Alba...

I want to continue another person's discussion of Jessica Alba, mostly because I find her to be a really interesting star in Hollywood today. She is someone who has never had a hit movie that she has had a lead role in, and yet she is still followed around by paparazzi and seen at prestigious award shows like the Oscars. I think most of Alba's fame is attributed to her attractiveness, not her talent. I thought it was interesting what someone else said about Alba avoiding calling herself a "Latina" actress. She is, in fact, biracial (her dad is Mexican and her mother is French/Danish, according to IMDb). I think she represents a demographic that is growing in the US, but is not readily seen in Hollywood: those of multiracial decent. There are more and more interracial couples who are having children that do not belong to a particular ethnic group. I think there is a struggle to figure out what ethnic group a biracial person belongs to, for example, I don't like it when people just refer to me as Asian because my dad is white. People never see me as white because they see my Asian side as trumping the other part of me. This is probably similar to a struggle Alba faces, people want to refer to her as Latina and therefore rhythmic and "exotic" (as she has been portrayed in Honey, Sin City, and Out of the Blue), but that may not be what she identifies as. I think Alba represents a new generation that is struggling with ethnic identity. I find it interesting that people automatically tend to categorize someone who may be multiracial as their more "foreign" ethnicity. Have we come to a point where we desire the exotic over whiteness? Will the multiracial person eventually become the ideal because he or she embodies all that is white and exotic?

Women driving blockbusters

This link was posted on a blog that I enjoy, and I thought others might find the list interesting as our class is in part about celebrities and gender. The study undertaken is not extremely scientific, but the results the author offers are still relatively interesting. She found that there were only two blockbuster films since 2004 that had two female leads. I suppose this is not all that surprising when we consider that for the most part men are behind the camera preparing films and might be more likely to cast male actors in lead roles, especially in the writing process, because they are more able to relate to men and therefore write more believable male characters, but the disparity in numbers is pretty surprising.

I wonder if the disparity is somehow cyclical, as I recall major female stars of other eras who had top billing with other female stars, even films we have watched in class such as Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. I have to wonder how this fits in with the redefining of masculinity that we discussed in class a few weeks ago. Certainly there are major female stars, I am sure our class could name quite a few, but they do not seem to be appearing together in films the way male stars are. I wonder why this is in a time that seems so obsessed with beauty, especially female beauty.

Do Blondes Really Have More Fun?

Since it's not my week to post, I'll focus on a smaller, albeit important, aspect of Ovalle's reading: hair color and style. I was fascinated to read that as Lopez assimilated into "white" culture, her hair went from dark and curly to light and straight. It was a transition I never even noticed. What this argument brought to head (ha ha, pun intended!) for me was the importance and significance of hair. We actually talked about this with Marilyn Monroe in "Gentleman Prefer Blondes." Monroe's blondeness highlights her energy and ditziness and is in contrast to Jane Russell's dark hair, marking her as more intelligent and seductive. It's interesting that this stereotype still exists - brunettes are often taken more seriously than blondes. But blondes definitely fit more into the all-American, play-girl stereotype. While blonde hair might epitomize sexiness, it is almost always dark hair on a woman (regardless of race) that is typically described as exotic. It's interesting that while this is a compliment, Latina actresses like Lopez have to disregard their exotic allure in order to better fit the mold.

On a side note, I've been fascinated with the straight-curly hair dichotomy since "How to Lose A Guy in 10 Days." I'm usually somewhat aloof to cinematic symbolism, but in that movie it was crystal clear to me that Kate Hudson's hair was perfectly straight throughout the movie - until she finally let go and fell in love with Matthew McConaughey, and then it becomes effortlessly wavy and wild. This change always cracked me up as it just seemed so obvious that they were using her hair style to depict an internal shift. Seems that that wasn't so ridiculous after all! Thanks, Ovalle!

Reading Response

I must start by sharing that the scene that Negron-Muntaner describes with Jennifer filming for Selena in the Houston Astrodome was a highlight of my childhood. Third grade Diego was with thousands of people in San Antonio screaming and cheering. If you want to know more just ask.

Jennifer Lopez is the second picture.

Now on to more relevant discussion. I was very surprised at the argument that was made about the importance and role of Jennifer Lopez's butt in a greater scope. Yes, she is curvy, sexy, and successful. However, I am not sure that I entirely agree with his notions of "Latino" excess and vulgarity. There is something to be said about the fact the Jennifer Lopez works out four times a week to stay in shape and her exercises focus on making her butt even "better" than it already is. A "Latino" audience would not relate and respond to a figure of a curvy image if it was seen as being a symbol of their perceived culture of excess. Part of the response to Jennifer is that she is a prominent and talented Latina that Hispanics can relate to a being similar, but if the image that she is created to be was always a representation of negative views of Latin culture she would not continue to be successful. Also, I agree with what Misty said about Jennifer and Britney's opening of the door to new body images and projections. Jennifer brought the back to the front! She has been able to create a new, more positive view of the female butt. It is not just something that is of the lower stratum and lowbrow anymore. It has become something to aspire to have, maybe not the best thing. However, Jennifer has created a platform for a curvy woman to talk and flaunt her ass-et. The idea presented about the vulgarity of the butt and its epistemology were not fully stated and did not seem to further the idea of Jennifer's butt acting to project Latino culture and body image changes. I would be glad to hear any further explanation of the last few pages of the article because I did not understand it all completely and was left with wanting more and a feeling of disconnect from the beginning to the end of the article.

As a closing side note, I am still heart broken by the very idea of Selena having liposuction. It is sad what people do to fit into the celebrity mold that is constantly changing, from what we have learned. Ironically the woman who portrayed her, is not the poster girl for big beautiful butts.

Core Response #4: J.Lo vs. Shakira

I found Ovalle’s in-depth exploration of the nature of Lopez’s stardom in “Framing Jennifer Lopez: Mobilizing Race from the Wide Shot to the Close-Up” particularly interesting of the readings. Ovalle makes the case for J.Lo’s star power stemming in part from her racial ambiguity that situates her as a non-threatening figure in between black and white culture. At the end of her article, Ovalle asks how the next Latina performer will “shake her assets in the national/media spotlight,” which made me wonder who, in the wake of the late 1990s Latin invasion, has taken J.Lo’s place? I think that Shakira, of all the crossover Latino/a stars, best embodies the kind of ambiguity and power that J.Lo maintained as they both maneuver between a position of normality and the Other.

There are many parallels to be drawn between these two women: with her English-language debut in 2001, Shakira came onto the mainstream American music scene and although there were immediate comparisons between her and Britney Spears, she set herself apart in a significant way: by shaking her ass really well. Like J.Lo and other crossover stars, Shakira was racially ambiguous and could assimilate more easily into American culture. Or perhaps more accurately, she became racially ambiguous (by dying her naturally dark hair to bright blonde and toning her body) in order to assimilate more easily into American culture, which she achieved so successfully that the first time I saw the video of “Whenever, Wherever,” I asked my friend if Britney had done something to her face.

Yet, like J.Lo, Shakira as a Latina can never fully occupy a place in hegemonic white culture and so she and the media often play up her differences as signs of exoticism that “diversify” our conservative white society, which Ovalle describes: “the prototypical Latina body—not too light or too dark by Hollywood standards—effectively illustrates diversity and economizes representation: it diversifies both black and white venues” (169). As both readings on J.Lo noted, this sense of exoticism and sensuality associated with the Latina body can be perceived as threatening if it is excessive. So while no one else can shake it quite like Shakira (thus she stands out because of her difference), what she’s shaking (her hips and butt) is not so physically excessive as to force her to occupy too threatening of a position as the Other. And just as J.Lo’s increasingly straight hair and slim body mediate the potential threat she could embody as a Latina, Shakira’s blonde hair, transition to English and collaboration with other pop stars in the mainstream (Beyonce, Wyclef Jean), also alleviate her inherent position as the Other.

A primary difference between Shakira and Jennifer Lopez, however, emerges from the background of the two stars. While J.Lo, a second-generation Puerto Rican, overplays her “street credibility” from growing up in the Bronx, Shakira, a native Colombian, emphasizes her “authenticity” stemming from her Lebanese father’s roots. Shakira often incorporates Arabic-style music into her own and perhaps most importantly, her dancing revolves around belly-dancing to the point that she can release a song called “Hips Don’t Lie” and have it be the number one song in the country. For me, I find these aspects of her image interesting because as anyone who listened to her Spanish music before her crossover knows, hip and butt-shaking were not the defining characteristics of Shakira’s career or image. There are traces of her Lebanese descent in her music before 2001, but she did not identify herself primarily with these roots.

And yet, with the release of an English album and transition into mainstream American culture, her Lebanese background suddenly comes to the forefront as the defining force behind her music, image and performance style. It is through these roots that she can showcase her butt because while she does not have access to the cinematic screen like J.Lo, she does have music videos and the stage as visual forums to show off her assets. Shakira’s Lebanese background, while positioning her as Other, underscores her exoticism and sensuality which are essential to her role as a commodity for mainstream culture. And so, to answer Ovalle’s concluding question, I would say that Shakira took over to "shake her assets" in the national spotlight, although since her popularity in mainstream culture has been dwindling of late, I'll be interested to see who takes her place in the future.

J.Lo + Jessica Alba: Latina Upward Mobility

First and foremost, what I find most interesting in Ovalle's article for this week is that she concentrates on "brown-ness" and "Latina-ness" as an in-between for the traditional racial binary of blackness and whiteness. There is no argument that most prevalent issues and problems concerning race relations in the U.S. primarily involve whites and blacks. Moreover, Ovalle writes that not only is race defined beyond polarized images and preconceived notions of black/white opposites but she also reminds readers of the misconception that whiteness is not perceived as colored or characterized, but humanized and normal- the default. She further illustrates her claim of brown-ness as an in-between by using Jennifer Lopez in Money Train as an example of the type of (racialized) woman who can be romantically linked with both white male (Woody Harrelson) and black male (Wesley Snipes) characters on screen. Another point that she made later on in her article in her section about 'the dancing body' got me to thinking about the upward mobility of today's aspiring Latina actresses. She notes that both Rita Hayworth and Jennifer Lopez captured the attention of and were subsequently accepted into Hollywood and general consciousness through their naturally voluptuous and rhythmic bodies.

I couldn't help but be reminded of a certain aspiring (Latina) actress who has seemed to become a household name recently since her fledgling actor days in teen movies like Idle Hands and Never Been Kissed: Jessica Alba. The reason I parenthesized her ethnicity as Latina is because I wanted to bring into light the fact that just as J.Lo before her, Jessica has cosmetically transformed herself over the years into the idealized version of western beauty (lightness of skin and straightened/nearly blonde hair). Although she doesn't necessarily identify herself as a "Latina" actress, she certainly is one based solely on her Mexican ancestry. Though formerly a "Dark Angel" in James Cameron's foray into TV with the creation of another beautiful brunette heroine (note the play on preconceived notions of color and good and evil in the title's name), Jessica in her most recent films has manifested to a T the kind of hair and cosmetic transformation necessary for upward mobility of an Other in Hollywood. Not to mention the 2003 and 2005 movies, Honey and Sin City, which clearly focus and play off of Jessica's natural ability to move(/dance) both rhythmically and sexually for the audience.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that it wasn't until after Jessica fulfilled these roles of the dancer/the body in these films that her career was bolstered and she started to attract mainstream attention. As you can see in the photograph I uploaded, both her complexion and hair tone match so closely that there is no 'darkness' or skin color perceived beyond her dramatized eyes which are made to emphasize her exoticness. Thus, she is coded and compromised as white. As Ovalle wrote, J.Lo conformed to idealized beauty standards, yet retained an exoticized difference at the same time because of her butt. Yet for Jessica, she has no discernible exotic anatomical features, like J.Lo's derriere, that perhaps allow her to assimilate more comfortably into Hollywood without constantly having to answer to ponderings about her skin tone or racial background. In fact, according to Perez Hilton, Jessica apparently denies claim to her Mexican roots and is frequently derided on his celebrity blog for doing so, deeming her Jessica "Don't Call Me Latina" Alba. Despite moving into public consciousness and even headlining her own films (The Eye), Jessica has failed to make the kind of lasting imprint in film beyond her beauty, even after already assimilating and fulfilling the Hollywood ideal (blond hair, light skin). That said, who knows what else she must do, or keep doing, in order to keep getting roles in Hollywood. But what must be questioned is how both she and her handlers have been able to manage and construct her image quite successfully by neutralizing her exoticness both on and off screen.

Reading Response #5 - J.Lo

Well I never thought a would read a scholarly article about Jennifer Lopez’s butt, but that is the beauty of film studies I suppose. But I was excited to read about Selena, a pre-teen favorite movie of mine. What struck me about Negron-Muntaner’s article was the way in which, at that moment of time in 1997, there was excitement about having a Latina superstar and one with a big Puerto-Rican butt. Lopez is one star we have talked about in class so far that I feel I have been old enough and aware of her entire transformation of her stardom, and a big part of her getting there was her butt. From her pride and identification of her Latina behind that Negron-Muntaner traces, to the billion dollar body insurance, to that infamous green dress with the plunging neckline, her body and especially the back of it has always been central to her stardom. This positive outlook on J.Lo’s assets seems strange looking back because she, like so many stars in her position, seems to really have been “white-washed” or “de-ethnic-ized.” Sure she still has that butt to some degree, but she has gone from curvy to the more over-exercised, over-dieted look perfected by mainstream Hollywood. Watching Out of Sight it’s clear how different she looks now, thinner, blonder, and generally less Latina. It reminds me of Michael Jackson, the most extreme example of this pressure on minority superstars, but can also be seen in someone like Beyonce Knowles who has gotten skinnier, blonder, and fairer skinned as her career has risen. To me, in 2008, the celebratory break from dominant standards of beauty by J.Lo’s butt seems to be all but regressed by her later choices in beauty that seemed to hide her ethnicity.

Another interesting aspect, that was reflected throughout her persona, and discussed by both Negron-Muntaner and Ovalle, is the idea of the American Dream as possibility for minorities. There are close ties, certainly not coincidental, between Selena, Lopez, the narratives of films like Flashdance and the video she based it on that film, “I’m Glad.” All of these narratives take characters of mixed ethnicity or nationality from difficult economic situations and watch them rise to fame or fortune from their talent. This is the trajectory that J.Lo follows, a Puerto-Rican American from the Bronx who rose to be one of the top paid actresses in Hollywood. But this narrative is where her career has been since.

So much of her music career is about her roots and their legitimacy – album names On The 6, This is Me…Now, songs “I’m Real,” “I’m Glad,” “My Love Don’t Cost a Thing,” and “Jenny From the Block.” The first one is all about how she is so real and takes place in a low income neighborhood with many of the typical iconography associated with it, then the last is all about how she has so much money, and shows her on yachts with Ben Affleck (but is still “real”?) It seems like one who really was true their roots would not have to keep assuring everyone that they were.