To me, the most interesting aspects of this week’s reading were those that drew parallels to the star system and consumption that exists today. Staiger and deCordova in particular highlight the foundation for the existence of stars, and their observations call to attention that while stardom is elusive and impossible to create or force, it is absolutely an element of business or commerce like any other, only with a glamorous face in front of it.
Previously, I considered the birth of the star system to be as sensational and intangible as the stars themselves; however, Staiger’s article clearly indicates that it was a business maneuver that came along with the birth of film. It was surprising, but not entirely unexpected, to read that Carl Laemmle began promoting actors’ names and images along with the films in order to remain competitive with the Patents Trust. The similarities in his modes of promotion struck me as the groundwork for the promotion of celebrities today; then, it was “trade photographs, slides, posters in lobbies, ‘star post cards’ and fan magazines. Today, it is all of that and more: appearances on late night talk shows, tabloids, even “celebrity” reality television, like “Dancing with the Stars,” or “Celebrity Poker Showdown.” We see further evidence of the star commerce in the foreign sales of movies; often, films are financed based on pre-selling in a foreign territory, where stars essentially have a number on their head, as related to how much they are worth at the box office and in DVD sales. Stardom is not just for the sake of satiating viewers’ curiosity, but rather as a mode of commerce to bring in more money for the film.
deCordova’s discussion of the three predominant forms of knowledge regarding the “picture personality,” however, struck a cord with me as being the antithesis to stardom today. Most noteworthy, the circulation of a name; deCordova acknowledges many film actors’ fear that associating their name with the “lower class” film industry would damage their artistic stage careers. Furthermore, the identification of an actor was strictly with that of the character in the film, and the character’s personality was associated with the actor, as opposed to who he was in real life. Finally, the viewers’ understanding of an actor’s personality was limited to and derived from the actor’s professional experience; there was no scope beyond that of the films the actor had been in before.
This summation of the “picture personality” struck me as more relevant to today’s notion of the character actor, who’s name we may not associate with the face we see onscreen, (in fact, we may not even know the face), and yet, we are familiar with that actor because he seems to play the same “type” in every film. Stars, on the other hand, rely on their name to have a successful career. In fact, the name has become part of the business jargon – in the movie business, you don’t get a greenlight to make your movie until you have a “name” actor attached. Actors also fuel their careers by allowing their fans access to their personal life, giving them a sense of their personality beyond the characters they play; we see this in reality shows like “Newlyweds” or “The Osbournes,” as well as in stars’ interviews with magazines that discuss their personal life, and even the tabloids that speculate and critique the stars’ personal lives. From this, we develop a sense of the star beyond their professionalism, and the films that make up their career, and also calculate in the elements of their personal lives that they reveal to the world.
deCordova notes the “picture personality” as only one of three elements in the appearance of the actor in cinema, among the discourse on acting and the theory of the star itself. I’d like to conclude by asking, do we maintain the same standard of acting in today’s films, whereas in the early days of cinema, actors were triple-threats with Vaudevillian backgrounds? Or, is the standard higher now that we have sound, and do not rely on the expository acting that was required in the silent era for stars to show emotion and move the plot forward using only their expressions and movements? And finally, to what extent do we separate stars’ onscreen personas from their personal lives we read about – for example, do you think Angelina Jolie really would have been cast in “A Mighty Heart” during her Billy Bob Thornton, brother-kissing days?
No comments:
Post a Comment