Week 7 Reading Response - Stars' Acting: On-Screen and Off

This weeks reading definitely helped me to understand the relationship of acting “methods” to the star system and just how important they are to a star’s image/success. In the King reading “Articulating Stardom,” King explains that there are two basic ways an actor will perform: either as a generic type cast or through the means of impersonation. In general, the article argues that actors are selected for specific roles because they “look the part.” For example, Matthew McConehey is most popularly cast as the lead in romantic comedies because he is suave, good looking, and has a great body (which will inevitably result in him taking his shirt off at some point in the film). But, there are exceptions to this common practice of simply looking the part as some actors prefer an impersonation style of acting, a.k.a method acting. This actors, even if seen to fit a certain character-type will always try to break their mold by playing a variety of different characters. To prepare for the role they will study and learn everything about their characters in order to be the character. An examples of great method actors is Robert De Niro who always is interested in trying new roles and transforming his on-screen persona with every film.
Even with these two styles of actors, both are able to achieve star power, but in different manners. The generic type cast’s on screen persona must match his off screen person because this actor is sell the character-type as a product to an audience, so the audience expects the actor act like his on screen character. For instance, I expect Steve Carrell to be hilarious in real life because most of his on screen characters are awkwardly funny, but how can I really know? The method actor achieves stardom not because he is selling a persona, but instead is selling a talent with his ability to morph from film to film. This doesn’t mean that a cast type actor can not become a method actor, it just depends on how the actor leads his or her career. I feel that these stars are the more respected stars out of the two because audiences appreciate a good performance.
Glenhill’s article “Signs of Melodrama” goes further into method acting as seen in the melodrama. The star in the melodrama drives the film forward by morphing from one form to another often in the film. The melodramas of the 1950s challenged the morals of the Victorian era, as the characters broke the proper molds of women and men’s roles in the family. The stars that played these roles really became the personification of the morals, causing the actor to carry these morals of the film with him or her in real life as well (at least in the public’s eyes). I still feel that this is happening today as actors embody the morals of society rather than the government or the church. For example, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have created a new set of morals for the perfect family as they are unmarried but still are able to successfully raise four children together. They also embody a push for world peace as both are active in world politics. The audience sees the morals that Jolie and Pitt embody, and they will inevitably imitate these morals.
I guess I really didn’t realize how much a star’s on-screen character can affect his or her off screen persona, but it is all part of the game that we call Hollywood.