Reading Response #2: Week 3

For the focus of this reading response, I have chosen our first article, “Seeking Stars” by Janet Staiger. (Gledhill, 3-17) Staiger discusses at great length the tireless battle between the various film producers for publicity to distinguish themselves in the developing market. In this battle, actors became the main (and, in hindsight, the longest lasting) institution for film advertising. As the article explains, companies promoted the actors to a celebrity status through advertisements and even the beginnings of producing a star persona through the media. What moral implications are there (if any) in the literal commoditization of people (actors) as sellable products for the price of an admission ticket?

While all of this is interesting and pertinent to understanding how stars came to exist, it is Staiger’s interaction with the why it worked that is most telling of the system. Had it not been for the success of films as a business investment for its early entrepreneurs, the star system would never have sustained for as long as it has. The system was able to gain momentum by using its early revenues to draw the talent of its players. As Staiger wrote, “the timing of that exploitation [the promotion of star personas] is related to the current economic conditions in both film and theater.” (10) It is in the interest of the market to foster competition and alternative services which is precisely what the individualized hype of actors served to do for the film industry. So, it might also be argued that the star system grew out of a particularly fervent moment in the rise of the American capitalist economy (during its Golden Age). But why did this method succeed? What cultural value did the concept of stardom feed to receive such a welcome audience?

Generally, the arguments that we have come across recognize the mid-19th century theater as having the first “stars” and thus being the first to “need” such an outlet. I wonder, though, if this is a contemporary issue or an inane sociological/psychological desire. Perhaps stardom is something that has had many different incarnations whether it was the idea of “courtly love” in the Medieval Era or the athletic champions of the Greek Olympics. What would it be that we seek in such an idolization? Granted, these examples lack an important characteristic, a ubiquitous cultural presence, which, from this vantage point, seems to have only been filled by mythological figures or royalty. Could it be a modern construction in reaction to a perceived loss of culture (in a unified religion, mythology, etc.)? Can we explain it as a human “need” (as seen in Dyer last week) if it is a new development? If not, what can we infer about contemporary culture/society that would explain the seemingly sudden obsession with unfamiliar people?

Olivia Everett