In this week’s deCordova reading, Harry S. Northup’s reasoning for working in cinema and never returning to theatre is hilarious juxtaposed with the world of cinema today (pg 27). Staiger’s article explained the early world of cinema in a similar vein using phrases such as “the moral healthiness of cinema (14).” Yet by the time I got to Hansen’s article on the male star Valentino who starred in 14 films between 1921 and 1926 (261), the discussion of cinema already had turned to what dominates the industry today – sexuality, desire, the gaze. It is for this reason that I am choosing to focus this response on deCordova and Staiger’s articles; the young, innocent cinema they write about is so different than cinema today.
Staiger’s article focuses mainly on the history of how stars came into household conversation and deCordova starts right up where that article left off and presents his view on how that actor/presenter/one who poses transitioned from a hidden name to a family icon. By the time the discourse of acting (1907) had been surpassed by the picture personality (1909) which was finally morphed into the star (1914), early cinema actor’s names were advertised. It is understandable why actors would have been ok with it at that time – cinema, as supported by Mr. Northup’s description of the work schedule, was viewed as family oriented.
Now the industry is notorious for destroying families but the actors are more desperate than ever to put their name in the spotlight. Personally, I feel I would constantly be on the defense if I was a well-known actress – defending that I am humble, an honest person, a hard worker, devoted to my loved ones, and even sober. With such negative stigmas so easily attached to the star of today, why are people as drawn as ever to being one? Judging by what Mr Northup wrote about theater (which now pertains to film), “not on your life (27)” would he be in a film today. Has there been a change in values of American society? What if Mr. Northup had been born in 1985? Well if he wanted a relatively unexposed life and a noble career, he would probably be a theatre actor. As the cinema image shifted one way, theatre (according to Mr. Northup's account on 27) went the opposite direction - a serious, not-as-scandalous profession.
Do you think aspiring ‘stars’ (not lovers of acting itself, but of fame) have poor values? What do you think it is that they truly desire (the money, the image, the sex)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I just wanted to comment that my question "Have American values changed?" may seem like a silly thing to ask - obviously they must have. But I'd like to throw out there the reason I ask this - I thought about my own values and realized that I still think family is #1 importance and love to see good role models.
I think maybe it's more of a "relaxedness" in today's society that has changed...we don't "shun" the people who don't value family as highly. We actually like to see them on their obviously wrong (?) path and laugh, reaffirming the success of our own lives.
Post a Comment