Reading Response #1 - Week 3

The first two chapters of Stardom were very interesting to me because they both explained how the star system emerged in Hollywood.  However, Staiger and deCordova provided different points of view on this movement in the film industry, which was equally interesting to see how they differ.  Regarding Staiger's essay, I found it extremely odd that at the beginning of cinema, the actors in films often did not want their names known because "of the stigma of working in the lowly movies."  I guess living in the culture we do where being a famous actor in movies is pretty much the ultimate fantasy, our view of the star is jaded.  Today our actors and actresses are at the top of society's rankings, whereas in the early 1900's it was the opposite.  It's funny though how much our opinions of such things can be altered by the media.  Once Laemmle, Edison and others began to actually promote films with their players, the public opinion and status of their job changed.  All of sudden people wanted to know everything about their favorite players, paving the way for what we now call tabloid magazines, websites, and even tv shows.  

I had trouble understanding deCordova's explanation of the emergence of the star system.  I see where he is coming from in introducing the three transformations the system underwent, and his explanations of the discourse on acting, the picture personality and the star are clear, but I'm not sure how they fit together.  However, his characterization of 'the star' is interesting, because he says one becomes a star only when there is particular fascination with both their professional life and their private life. At least I think that's what he is saying.  Only with this emergence of the star system was there interest in actors' lives outside of their work.  And as we know, that interest has grown so much in the past 100 years, that it is almost out of control.