Reading Response #1

I believe Dyer’s introductory statement that stars are a “social phenomenon” to be the foundation of this week’s reading, for at their very core, stars are simply people who ascend beyond normalcy and rise above being within a community, to being a fixation of that community. We watch films to see a more glamorous version of ourselves, to see someone solve the same problems we have in the comfort of a narrative that provides a resolution, when real life is much messier; or, to see someone worse off than us, to remind us of how good we have it. In this sense, both the sociological and semiotic theories are valid – we watch films because they possess the stars we wish we could be like, and reflexively, these films turn the people representing the more glamorous version of ourselves into stars. Stars are a social phenomenon because, as Walker indicates, they reflect the lives, goals, worries, needs, and cultures of the communities that worship them; they put a face, an identifiable, empathetic, living, breathing being, to the whole of society. Whether they reinforce social norms, seduce the audience to break with these norms, or even transcend above them, perched on a martyred pedestal, stars indicate the dominant values of their era, and through the medium of film, capture the life of that era in history. Because of the power of their identifiable nature, I think it is impossible to ignore the political power of stars; as a community, we look to these people as representations of certain values and when we see a star aligned with values similar to our own, their support for a political candidate carries weight. We’ve seen examples of this in Oprah’s support for Obama helping his caucus win in Iowa, as well as Chuck Norris’ support of Bush and Huckabee carrying credence with the southern, Christian demographic. The allure of celebrity calls into question, to what extent does the character a star plays lend to their identity as a person? In considering Dyer’s theory of inference, to what extent do we infer the motives or history of a character based on what we know of the star’s personal life – for example, Angelina Jolie’s charity work and worldliness serving as a backdrop for her role in “A Mighty Heart?” Furthermore, does casting a certain star lend authenticity to a role based on who they are as a person, such as Bette Davis’ self-reflexive role as Margo in “All About Eve?” And, at what point does that role stop being a character and become a representation of that star? Finally, on this note, I’d like to consider whether the person makes the star, or is it the talent and acting ability that makes the star? There are plenty of talented actors who are not stars, and plenty of stars who are not talented – what is it about a person that gives them the power to be a social phenomenon, to represent social values, to be a star?