I found this weeks readings in Stardom: Industry of Desire of great interest because I was really unaware of how the star system came into existence. Although the few accounts given don’t match up completely, the idea of creating the star grew because studios found that not only do stars bring audiences to the movies, but they also can produce major revenue from fan magazines and other items as fans become obsessed with the lives of the stars. This fact in particular is interesting to me because I was talking to a friend today and found out that the production of modern fan magazine is a billion dollar industry. I was shocked that people actually are willing to spend that much money to learn about their favorite stars. But, I guess the original idea of training the audience to “fall in love” with a particular screen star for revenue has obviously stuck with audiences today. We are accustom to talking about the private lives of stars and paying money to see pictures and read gossip about them, good or bad. The star is purely a spokes person for the film industry to cash in on, whether they have talent or not.
Hansen’s article about Marilynn Monroe and Grace Kelly was particularly interesting to me because I really had never thought about how the onscreen personas of film stars generally match their off screen personas (or the of screen personas which are sold to us). While reading, I found myself thinking about how I really do view actors and actresses as being like the characters they play, and when they fail to be that person I imaged, as a greatly disappointed. For example, I really like Katherine Heigl and view her as a natural, kind, modest beauty, as I have seen of her in film. If I was to learn that she was really a rude, self absorbed celebrity with some sort of addiction, I would have a hard time believing that truth. That image does not match the image of Heigl that has been sold to me, so why would I believe it? I guess I never really realized that every part of the star that the audience sees is a product, and was always meant to be a product instead of a real person.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This reading was particularly interesting because it aroused similar questions for me. One particular case immediately jumped to mind.
A few years ago, I was reading an article about Hugh Grant and, in it, one of his friends commented that he's always thought of as being the shy, awkward, sweet guy that we've come to love in movies like Notting Hill when, really, the role closest to his personality that he has played was Daniel Cleaver in Bridget Jones' Diary...I was a little sad.
Post a Comment