Star Bodies and Performance

Dyer's short chapter on the star body and the way in which an actor's physique and vocal transformation (or lack there of in some cases) reminded me of recent Oscar-winner and Hollywood beauty, Charlize Theron. In "Star Bodies and Performance," Dyer points out that there are far more diverse body types than simply physically fit heroes and heroines. Again, my thoughts darted back to Charlize in Monster as Aileen Wuornos in a rather obscuring role for such a pretty face. I've read before that she was a former ballerina in her native South Africa and seems to have possessed her slender and immaculately toned body all her life as a result of such discipline and endurance. The reason I bring her up is because I wanted to put into comparison her actual Hollywood body with that of the body in which her character inhabits in Monster, as well as comment upon how this specific bodily transformation within a fictive context warranted her her first Oscar.

Not only do star's bodies in their everyday lives- dress, physique and speech- capture the publics' attention, but those of their characters in films as well. Dyer refers to Bryan S. Turner in considering how the star body could be seen as a vessel for expression regarding problems of politic; essentially as an embodiment of culture. As outsiders looking in at Charlize Theron, we see a personality and talent encased within the acceptable beautiful (body) ideal of woman. Though seen as "soft" in everyday life- as opposed to the notion of the hard-bodied male in 80s and 90s films- in the film Monster, she seems anything but. And how could she transform herself, we all asked? Some of us may have been skeptical that someone so naturally beautiful as her could be made to look like Aileen Wuornos, who isn't exactly of the pin-up variety. Perhaps even her role in the film was kept mum so as not to demean or deign the film as any kind of star vehicle- though in the end, I'm sure much of her stardom (or perhaps it came after her Oscar win?) was more beneficial in the end in drawing critical and public attention to the film.

The reason I wanted to parallel both Charlize's actual body with that of the character she plays, Aileen, is because I wanted to bring to light the argument that in order for an actor- especially female- to receive any critical recognition and accolades is to physically alter and transform their appearance when fulfilling a role. Of course, convincing, moving and ingraining delivery of dialog and gesture- not to mention handling subtext with great care - should be taken into account apart from just their physical transformation. Or does the physical transformation really matter? Does that extra bit of bodily transformation (weight gain/loss, cross-dressing, debeautifying) become a deciding factor when deliberating on awarding certain actors over others? Certainly, Charlize wasn't "playing herself" in the way that Schwarzenegger plays himself in every other movie he's cast. In fact, she even oned-up Meryl Streep's various vocal transformations and adoptions of particularly difficult accents and manners of gesture, by completely changing her way of dress, speech, and bodily appearance on screen. Yet, the question is, is it truly that extra bit of physical bodily transformation of an actor into a character that demonstrates the better actor?