CTSC 412: Stars + Celebrity

Nowcasting

2009-10-15T15:24:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow UCLA.

James Franco/466

2008-05-08T10:27:00.000-07:00

Per Courtney's request, I'm writing a (much delayed) blog about James Franco's attendance to the final 466 screening, "The Pineapple Express." Courtney mentioned that she was surprised that none of us at the screening had blogged about him as a celebrity sighting, which got me thinking about what constitutes a legitimate celebrity sighting. And while I saw him, which would technically equate to a "sighting," I still don't think it really counts... He was set up for us to look at and ask questions; he was there to be a movie star and promote his movie, and we were there to be fans and to learn from him. The balance is off -- whereas, if you spot a celeb in their natural habitat, eating dinner at your restaurant or hiking where you hike, or stopping at the same stoplight as you , you're on the same level; suddenly, they're just people, too, doing the same every day stuff. As Us Weekly puts it, "Stars: They're Just Like Us!" And most of the time, when we spot them around town, they are just like us... But for a star to come to a class, presented as a star, seated in front of us screening his multi-million-dollar movie, well, that's about as far from being just like us as one could get.

Pamela Anderson: Garage Sale

2008-05-02T21:08:00.000-07:00

True story, this weekend Pamela Anderson is having a garage sale at her Malibu Estate. I always find it interesting when celebrities do this, but this is the first of me hearing about one @ at the actual home of the celebrity. Usually they are at a warehouse of sorts. Anyway, I found this one really fascniating. She owns so much furniture, duplicates of the same thing. It makes me think if this some sort of hoax or stunt to sell stuff with her name attached. Either way, a bunch of questions come up when I think about this. Like does she need the money... probably. Furthermore, this is such a common, "low rent" activity to do for such a high up celebrity, really makes you think. Especially, when typically when things like this have to happen they do it by private auction, NOT public yarding. Anyway, check it out, I am really gonna try to make it out there this weekend.

Big Breasted Sale

Final Exam Period

2008-05-01T14:44:00.001-07:00

Hi everyone,

As a reminder, the final exam period for this class will be Tuesday, May 13 from 2-4 in our usual classroom.

Sometime before then, I will be compiling the final blog tally. If you have commented on posts made before the blog sheet was handed out, or if you have noticed a mistake in my count, please let me know so that I can check older entries. Otherwise, I am not planning on going back through all the old entries.

Good luck on your final projects! If you did not pick up your final project proposal today, then I have it. Let me know if you want it back, and we'll work something out.

Thanks,
Courtney

Core Response #5

2008-05-01T09:34:00.000-07:00

Reality TV really pisses me off. I will be honest. I think it does for this country the same things that cheap, high fat and calorie, preservative-packed fast food does. It makes "instant gratification" obtainable and eliminates the desire for individuals to "challenge" themselves in a way that is probably more time-consuming, less convenient, but ultimately more satisfying. America "plays dumb" when they watch reality TV. Even the name is ironic. My favorite part of Couldry's article was his illumination of the point that we believe that we are seeing "real life" when we watch shows like "The Hills," when in reality, everyone on that show is put, unnaturally, in front of a camera. Watch people at a party take pictures of themselves. Very rarely do those photographs capture the expressions and body language of the individuals 5 seconds before the photograph was taken. Bring out a camera and you see people put their arms around each other, smile big, make a pouty face, or do another one of the "stock" camera poses seen on Facebook.

I feel conflicted about my anger toward reality TV, though. There is something "elitist" in condemning it and who am I to say that anyone else's entertainment is less than valid? I suppose I passionately believe that entertainment, at its best, can inspire thought, emotion, and growth. When well done, it can challenge us as well as allow us to unwind after a long week. It can cause us to look at the world from a perspective different than our own or make us laugh and cry. Reality TV (at least the shows I've seen) are mindless, crass, forgettable.

younger and younger...

2008-05-01T09:20:00.000-07:00

I work at a private gym in West Hollywood where a lot of "top" celebrities workout. I haven't written about it before because it seems to me to be a bit of a violation to write about them, but what I saw yesterday has stuck with me and I think would be relevant for the class. There is a new client there who is 14 years old. She is making the "push" to become a starlet. There is something so disturbing about seeing a girl that age (she looks even younger than she is) doing weight lifting and running on a treadmill (for $200 a session). Call me old-fashioned (or midwestern), but I sort of feel that a child that age should be in dance classes or on a sports team. Watching her look at herself in the mirror as she lifted weights and talk about tone in her arms made me sort of sad, and concerned for her. If she is starting so young to be concerned with how "attractive" her body is, I can't help but think if she finds the "success" for which she is reaching, there will be some pretty serious psychological problems there.

When child stars grow up...

2008-05-01T08:48:00.000-07:00

Drew Barrymore is one of the most notorious actors to overcome the perils of childhood stardom (she starting snorting cocaine at the age of 10 and was in rehab by age 13), but what happens to all the ones don't? I think in the past few years, the media attention on famous children has become even more intense -- the expectations for them are not just to represent a certain demographic or stereotype, but also to be a role model in their personal lives. And growing up is hard enough -- I can't imagine doing it in the public eye.

But beyond that, I am fascinated by what stardom does to the psyche, most notably in children -- when a person is so young, still figuring out who they are, and they are treated as if they are the most important person in the world, utterly unstoppable. For one, it completely disrupts the parent/child relationship, when the child becomes the breadwinner and the parent dependent on them -- Danny Bonaduce recently recalled a story in which his mother told him to go to his room, and he sneered at her, "They're all my rooms." He owned the house. And look what happened to him. He shows up naked at premieres, is in and out of rehab, and now makes a living on a reality show about making the next child star. And Dina Lohan is another perfect example; living off her child's stardom, so desperate to be a friend and an equal to her star offspring that she has completely forgotten to be a mother.

What really makes me nervous though, is what happens to all the children who reach their stardom peak as children, and then no one is interested in them when they are older? At such a formative period in their life, when they are treated as so important by so many people, and then forgotten about once they grow up, what happens then? It's almost as if they're taught that growing up is a bad thing, as if they failed themselves and the world when the inevitable happened. They don't have the coping skills a person usually learns as a child, because they were coddled and sheltered as stars, and then they are suddenly thrust into the world as has-beens. Falling from the top of Hollywood must be difficult enough; I think we don't pay enough attention to the implications of shunning child stars, and the actual psychological ramifications of this.

So what's next for Miley Cyrus? We've seen what happened to Britney, to Lindsay, to countless others... But maybe once she goes through whatever she's going through, maybe she'll come out on top, a star in her own right as an adult, like Drew. Let's just hope she's not the next Danny Bonaduce. I think it's best to just leave these kids alone; let children watch their TV shows, support their movies, and leave them out of the tabloids. I love Us Weekly and Perez, but at a certain point, the line needs to be drawn, and I don't think it is right to subject children to that kind of scrutiny.

Celeb sighting...

2008-05-01T08:45:00.000-07:00

Spotted: Jonah Hill at RFD on La Cienega, Wednesday evening for a delicious vegan meal with some hipsters.

Notes: Funny is the new sexy.

Everclear, just another B-List sighting

2008-05-01T02:02:00.000-07:00

I love B-List celebrities, and as my blogs have gone this semester, I have get my fair share of them. This time I had the pleasure of sitting next to the lead singer of Everclear on a plane to Portland. My friend and I spotted him in line and we discovered he had the seat next to us. The attendant who checked the tickets asked us to confirm if that was really him, to which we rolled our eyes and said yes. Art Alexis was on his cell phone the entire time and seeing as that I was sitting directly next to him I got incredible eve's dropping in. He was blabbing about how the music industry has changed and how he is in the film industry now. He loves getting dirty in Oregon and farming. He also produces his own music and makes way more money doing it this way. He was in LA getting financing together for his next "project" and was trying to get this guy interested in producing it, bragging about how much fun they have on set and how this film making thing is easy. This kept on going right until we are about to take off, to which the same attendant made her way onto the plane and asked him if he wanted to be upgraded to first class for no fee. He looked over to me and my friend and said "Chiyah!!! ... NO, I don't want First Class for Free!?!?" He got up and went to his "ultra nice" accommodations of Alaska Airlines First class from LA to OR. The irony is he overpaid for his coach ticket by double of what I paid. I know this because he left his ticket in his original seat: JACKPOT! I now own a piece of B-List Celebrity shit. Furthermore, their new album came out the next day, which it was nothing but covers of songs that the band liked or were influence by...it sounded pretty bad.

An interesting "celebrity" experience

2008-04-30T23:17:00.000-07:00

Tonight as part of my job at Program Board a star from VH1 came for a comedy show. It was really funny. He did not have any kind of outline or plan at all, I was impressed. We had to escort him around and take care of him. He is not the most famous person in the world, but he did fill a 300 seat room. I was surprised to see how he went between being a diva and not being a diva. As Justin had posted about earlier, it is interesting seeing and interacting with B-list and even C-list celebrities and the ways that some are divas and full of their own moderate fame and others don't really use or abuse their fame at all. I wonder how the role a star plays based on their image and their fan following play into the List they fall on and how they act about that ranking. With the number of types and levels of celebrity today it complicates and muddles the line of who and what is famous.

She's just being Miley...

2008-04-30T17:50:00.000-07:00

Just to throw my two cents in on this whole Miley discussion... I definitely don't think there's anything wrong with what she did, but it was a terrible career choice. If she was a few years older, this would be a different story, but the fact that she is only 15 years old makes all the difference. These kids on the Disney channel represent a brand, and that brand does not promote posing almost nude for photo shoots. I don't know how her father let her do this photo shoot though. Up until now he has kept such a close watch on her, and she's usually so mature and intelligent when it comes to her career. This whole thing makes me think of Jamie Lynn Spears with her pregnancy and its effect on Nickelodeon. Both girls were pretty much icons for their respected channels, and then a scandal completely changed the public's opinion of them. This photo shoot will generate the image of Miley as a sex symbol, and the Disney channel definitely does not market their shows this way.

Reply to the Miley Cyrus Discussion

2008-04-30T13:06:00.000-07:00

I took this photo from a blog entry on the Vanity Fair site about the Miley photoshoot. Initially I had just wanted to see what pics I could find but then I browsed through the comments by readers and was pretty shocked by the volume of outraged posters.
It seemed just slightly hypocritical that so many would use profanity and degrading terms to oust Miley for her misrepresentation of a wholesome kid-friendly idol. For example, the first comment about the article reads:

At 12:46 pm on April 28, 2008, dbram wrote:

Miley give me a break.

You did an interview with an adult magazine.

You did a photo shoot with one of the best celebrity photographers in the world. Someone who is known for racy shots.

You had your father and other "handlers" on the set with you.

And now you are embarrassed? Is this after your sponsors got pissed?

Give me a fucking break.

The point this commenter makes is a valid one, though, is Miley embarrassed because of the photographs or because of the reaction to them. Earlier, Jess talked about the difference between tween idol Daniel Radcliff's public nudity and Miley's as being art vs exploitation or male vs female but I think there is also an element of owning the event. Radcliff was not at all apologetic for his performance and, in fact, very adamantly stood by his decision to take the role. I think this made it easier for the public to live with this because it showed a certain professional maturity. And the implications of their nudity is different. Radcliff performs nude as an expression of his character and a fulfillment of the vulnerability of that psyche. Cyrus, even though not exposing an part of her body, tenuously holds the sheet over her bare top which imbues the image with an inherent seductive sexuality and sensuality. Really, she is more covered than if she were wearing a swimsuit so it is not an issue of nudity but an issue of sexuality. I think the adult public that are concerned for the children that look up to her are reacting against the implications of the photo and not the photo itself which plays into the issue of age, since Daniel was 18 before he took the role and Miley is still a minor. What I take away from this situation, is how deeply touchy the American public is about taboo issues of sexuality; especially, female sexuality and the representation of it in their stars. The reaction shows that people are taking Cyrus very seriously as a key influence on their children and the public expectation of childhood.

Olivia

Core Response

2008-04-30T12:13:00.001-07:00

I was particularly struck by the article by Sconce, "See you in Hell, Johnny Bravo!" This article centered around the celebrity reality show CELEBRITY BOXING. I remember seeing advertisements for this show, but never had any interest in watching it. After reading the article, there were some interesting assertions made about the trend in reality TV to have "has been" celebrities come back for a last chance at fame. During the time of a celebrity's time at the top, they are there to fit some kind of mold or desire. Now with the increase in celebrity reality shows, these stars come back as artifacts of those past personas. The article talked about the fight between the Partridge and Brady families with the actors who played the main sons. Their fight was more than Danny and Greg fighting decades later, it was the ideas that they stood for coming back to see which would win out head to head. This semester has shown us that stars fit a certain mold at one point or another, Elvis being white trash or Marilyn become an icon of sex and blondness and so on, so this emergence of celebrity reality shows is a desire to see these molds interact directly with one another. VH1 has created the marketing term of CELEBREALITY to describe their shows like Surreal Life and Celebrity Rehab. At the end of the article Sconce quotes Todorov discussing the idea of hesitation, ration and irrational, real and hyperreal, and other pairings that cause us to stop for a second and think, what are the rules that are in play here or realizing we do not know those rules and accept that. With these shows, I think that there is a disbelief as to what is really happening, but we do not know what is real so we accept it for what it is, a hyperreal edited piece of "real" fiction.

Reality TV

2008-04-29T23:27:00.000-07:00

Reading Nick Couldry's article on reality TV ("Teaching Us To Be Fake") got me to thinking about the different reality shows I've subjected myself to- and in some cases, have been involuntarily subject to. These shows consisted of the following, not in any particular order, but a few that I'm sad to say kept my attention for more unexpected consecutive weeks than was necessary: The Real World/Road Rules (and all the subsequent "face/off" and challenge shows that threw them all into a situation of who's who of previous seasons), The Apprentice, America's Next Top Model, American Idol, and Laguna Beach/The Hills. Sadly, these are the shows that I know I watched more consistently than any others, and all throughout my viewing of these shows, I found myself constantly justifying my viewership to others (but perhaps more so to myself) because of the absolute absurdity and so-called "realness" of it all. Though I've always understood that reality TV is scripted or contrived in some way, I found myself not able to turn away from the screen whenever one of these programs came on, and then, soon, I found myself tuning in the following week or catching up on missed episodes on-line. I suppose in some ways, I watch it for what Couldry elaborates on in his article about reality TV being utilized to conduct experiments and obtain some understanding of human nature. Yet what I feel these reality TV shows do is do more than chronicle or capture human nature through these exceptional spaces and situations- negating the notion that the camera apparatus and lens function as a totally unbiased and naked eye- but they reflect on the historical, social and industrial context in which these shows are being conceptualized, produced and exhibited to audiences. Couldry talks about the power dynamic within this particular genre of TV, specifically referring to it as the "govermentality" shared both by performers and audiences, and then also of audiences watching these performers carry out certain regimes for their very entertainment on TV. His use of the word "govermentality" helped me to remember a more recent reality TV show called "Kid Nation," in which 40 kids (aged 8-15) were put on location called the "Bonanza Creek Move Ranch," with (little to) no adult supervision, as their challenge was to create and sustain a viable society. Though I didn't have the chance to watch any of it while it was still on the air, what I heard about it was that it echoed parts of William Golding's Lord of the Flies and also became more about consumer culture propaganda than social experimentation. When I first heard about the show, I thought how curiously genius and horribly cruel to recruit such young kids to parade around in a fake society, testing the waters for how far a reality show can push expectations as well as nerves. But then I got to thinking about shows like Laguna Beach, The Hills and whatever like shows exist of its nature; these shows are contrivances made to emulate the real and entertain the masses, period. But should there be a line that is drawn with age when casting for and creating reality TV? Perhaps there's a certain amount of reality exposure that a kid as young as 8 shouldn't be subject to, especially when put into a show like "Kid Nation" where they all run around like guinea pigs for the enjoyment of the nation. Then again, the same could be said for child actors- when is too early to enter into and be placed into the media; into fame and limelight? Can they handle the "media-celebrity" fame that Couldry talks about that's comparable to the twenty-something winner of Big Brother? Though, since the show didn't do as well as hoped on CBS, to my knowledge its been taken off the air and I've heard of no new controversy surrounding any of the kids involved in the show. I suppose media-celebrity is warranted only to those whose shows actually attracted consistent viewers. Yet it is interesting to take into account Couldry's discussion of the "media-self" in the context of Kid Nation. These kids essentially construct a mediated version of themselves (or perhaps fit into the prescribed roles that they are strategically cast for) at such an early age that brings into question the already-constructed identities that we have for ourselves and each other in society. How much of what we show and act to each other in real life, or to the world through the "reality" of media, is a reflection of our truest self?

Core Response #5: Big Brother and Shakespeare?

2008-04-29T23:17:00.000-07:00

In reading John Harley's article I had to wonder whether he had seen the Shakespeare productions and reality TV shows that I had. I just cannot imagine making a connection between the two, a Shakespeare play is well scripted, produced and a complete break from the reality of life; a reality TV show, at least in my mind, is like watching a train wreck. In a Shakespeare production the actors and text are telling the audience what to think, moving and speaking to convey a certain message. In a reality show the interactions of the cast members are not scripted, although they are probably carefully cut together to give an impression of reality; they do not teach lasting societal lessons, except maybe that we have too much time on our hands.

In reality (no pun intended) Reality TV is not intended to last or be repeated; it is a one time only thing, whereas even if Shakespeare plays were not intended to be seen again by the same audience they were expected to be performed again, whether by the same actors or others. The plays were created in order to be preserved, to teach, and to entertain, while reality TV is not intended to be preserved or to teach. The interactions of the members of the cast are no more important than everyday interactions by other human beings, although they are on a larger scale. I am sure that the cast is meant to be relatable to the audience, but I do not believe that the cast is chosen for their social value.

I have not watched Big Brother, my reality TV show of choice is The Amazing Race, but I have to assume that the shows are similar at least in the way that contestants interact with one another. I can relate to the cast but not to their experiences nor to the screaming fights that contestants have in the middle of public spaces. When I sit down and watch The Taming of the Shrew I can relate to the characters, recognize them as plucked from life, and I can put myself in the situations that they face. I do not feel such a connection to reality TV contestants, and frankly I find the comparison insulting.

CORE: Reality Stardom

2008-04-29T21:58:00.000-07:00

As we can tell from all of my posts I am fascinated with alternative celebrities, mainly things that revolve around the internet. In my opinion, the internet is already the next reality tv. With social networks and youtube, everyone is putting themselves everywhere and because we love to look at other people and even enjoy a sense of voyeurism from "lurking" on our computers, people are becoming famous from all over the place for sometimes doing nothing. The best example of this would be Tilla Tequilla who got famous from having the most friends on myspace. Ironically she was given her own reality dating show on MTV which has made its way onto its second season. As Hartley points out in "Kiss me Kat", "reality tv, one could contend, is our new genre of hesitation, thrilling us with its confusion of once distinct realms". I take us for it providing us a window to explore ourselves by watching others live. Chuck Klosterman talks about this in Sex, Drugs, and Coco Puffs on the massive popularity of Real World and also how when he played the game The Sims, his Sim version of himself was more interesting than his real life. In terms of internet celebrities I would like to draw our attention to one of the many that I personally know and am friends with. This one in particular is fascinating because she is using her internet stardom to her advantage and capitalizing off it. Meet HannaBeth, or myspace.com/loveandconfusion: a Myspace Model extradoniare. She has caters to a niche market of spectators, more of the EMO- Screemo, Music, tattoo world, but has a insanely large following. She now has her own clothing line which can be purchased by sending her a message on mysapce. Two things that are the most interesting about her are 1. how she became famous and 2. the clothing line internet phenomena. 1. Early on in her career she quickly befriended Jeffree Star, an even bigger internet Star Male Drag queen, who is personal friends with Kat Von from LA INK. He/she placed Hanna on her top 8 friends and from that point on Hanna started collecting people like an avalanche. Returning to the clothing line, it has become a popular activity on the web to post pix of you wearing your HannaBeth hoodie in a typical emo Apple Photobooth picture. Last time I was with her she mentioned to me how she is also in the works of her own show for MTV and already has a reality Vlog for Buzznet. I don't really know what else to say other than WOW when I think about all of this. More so, questions start appearing like, where do we draw the line? What are the hierarchies of celebritism? Does it even matter at this point? (if you are this famous on myspace, would it make a difference if you broke into the theatre world?) Will it get worse (I think so). All of this taps into the concept that we want to be noticed, even if its behind a screen (how ironic). P.s., it should be noted Hanna is currently Dating Miley Cyrus' black sheep brother...how appro-po.

More On Miley

2008-04-29T21:13:00.000-07:00

I too have to comment on the Disney star's recent career developments. It seems as if with each week comes more photos stolen from her Myspace page of her posing provocatively, barely clothed and so forth. Because of this, I do not see why anyone in her camp would allow her to do a very public, highly professional photoshoot that would be considered controversial.

This got me thinking about the week in which we studied Elvis. I began looking at Miley's roots, (I mean her dad used to have a mullet for goodness sakes), she has such coin phrases as "sweet niblets" and "homegirl say what?", and she and her family are closely knit to Dolly Parton, who has also starred on her show on several occasions. This leads me to wonder, could our little Disney princess be white trash? I know I was really concerned during Elvis week as I have never seen him as white trash or seen a fascination with him as being white trash, yet Miley and her family is starting to fill that space for me. During a time when white trash stars are being exploited more than ever (think Britney, her pregnant sister, Audrina Partridge, Tara Reid, Brett Michaels), it seems as if the warning signs would have been there for Miley and her family to see. Unfortunately, the doings have been done and we'll have to see where this takes miss Miley next.

Miley Cyrus the next fallen starlet?

2008-04-29T20:40:00.000-07:00

Apparently Miley Cyrus has attracted attention after posing topless, covered by a blanket, for Vanity Fair have created a bit of a splash. The linked article points to many teen stars who have done similar things to damage their reputations, but it points to only one male star, Daniel Radcliff, whose reputation was not ruined by his nudity in Equus, but he was instead taken seriously as an adult actor.

At first I wondered if the difference in the way that stars are treated for essentially the same thing, such as nudity, had to do with gender, but I think this might be a bit too simplistic in the explanation. Let us take for example, Daniel Radcliff and Jessica Biel of 7th Heaven fame, both have bared it all to the world, Radcliff in Equus and Biel in a photo spread in Gear Magazine, so the difference is obviously not what they have shown off, but they were treated differently for these appearances. While Radcliff was praised for becoming an adult actor Biel was dropped from her TV role on 7th Heaven. My thoughts on this are not so much that gender came into play in this, although I do think genders are treated differently by the media, but instead that the purpose behind the appearance had to do with how the media and the public perceived each. For Radcliff the purpose was to expand his repetoir as an actor and to prove that he could play something other than Harry Potter, for Biel it appears the purpose of the photo spread was to prove that she could take her clothes off, not much redeeming value.

So what does this have to do with Miley Cyrus? The article got me thinking about the how these young women are idolized by so many and the pressure that they must be under to live up to expectations. At the age of fifteen Miley Cyrus is performing sold out concerts and her "brand" is expected to sell over $1 billion this year. What male counterpart does she have? I am beginning to think that the pressure on these girls might be what causes the fall from grace in the first place; they are carefully chosen and marketed to the public; they are sold early and often. Is it really any wonder that they eventually fall from grace due to the pressure they are under to constantly be perfect? I just think it is sad that fifteen is old enough to crack under that kind of pressure.

Britney's Changing Image

2008-04-29T17:57:00.001-07:00

So I'm guessing since you all are in class, you're avid tabloid readers like myself. Has anyone else noticed the change in coverage of Britney Spears? A few months ago the paparazzi and tabloid writers were looking for any photo or story to portray the singer in an unfavorable way. Gradually, I've noticed that the headlines have been more about her recovery than any little thing that makes her look bad. I was on line at the market and noticed the cover of one talking about "Brit's Hot New Bod." Personally, I think she looks exactly the same as she did a few months ago. This is what got me thinking about the way tabloids can single-handedly change a star's image. Forget what's true and false, they have all the power to change the public's opinion. Another example is Angelina. At first, she was the homewrecker that split up Brad and Jen, but when people got tired of reading about that, they switched gears to make her a philanthropic saint. In a weird way, these tabloid writers have way too much power.

Reading Response #5: Coming Full Circle

2008-04-28T19:46:00.000-07:00

How appropriate to end the semester with readings that focus on meaning given to a text by the audience when on the first week we began with Dyer's ideas about stars embodying cultural contradictions and "leaks" within media that enable different readings of texts. We now conclude the course with a similar reading - Hartley's assertion that in contemporary media, the source of meaning is the end user-the audience member or reader. Our studies have come full circle and, interestingly enough, come back to us as the audience.

The idea that it is not God or the auteur that produces meaning but us as the audience is a very interesting one. It places power not in the hands of the creaters but the consumers. Hartley goes on to assert that it is redaction, "the creative editorial function of bringing existing materials together to make new texts and meanings" (319), that is the art form of the age. Again, an appropriate statement after our discussion of slash videos last week.

These arguments leave me with the question, why? Why now? Why is it our generation that has motivated this transfer of value from the text itself to the viewer; why is it our generation that has gone from viewing media to changing, combining, and altering it? From the readings this week and in previous weeks, I've come up with a few answers. First, the devil's advocate would say we have not. Even looking at Shakespeare as Hartley did demonstrates that the viewer has always held a role in giving text meaning. It is simply our generation that is now critically looking at it. Another answer would be that technology has enabled the viewing, responding to, and altering of media in a way previous audiences could not. This is most apparent with slash videos. Or it could be because of the psyche of our generation - we are a group who grew up on "now." We have a serious case of entitlement and privilege the ability to customize. Whether it's with wardrobe or an iPod, we (more than any previous generation) love to be individuals. With this in mind, it would make sense that we also favor our role in media consumption and take it so far as to alter media ourselves. It also makes sense that we would want to see ourselves reflected even more transparently (to use Couldry's words) in the genre of reality television.

Whether it's because of critical studies, technology, or the modern psyche, it's clear that media is constantly changing. From reality TV to youTube, media is in a new place. What do you think has motivated these changes and.. why now?

More on Slash Vids

2008-04-26T22:27:00.000-07:00

This week's discussion reminded me of a lecture in 191 (television) with Jennifer Holt. Perhaps some of you were in that class and remember that she dedicated an entire day to fanvids and slashvids. In particular, I remember the Lost and Buffy videos that were circulating. I think that I took this class Freshman year, so it would have been Spring of 2005 which as I remember was before YouTube was as huge as it is now. Actually, I remember having a really hard time finding those videos again to show some friends which in itself shows a vastly different atmosphere of fandom between now and three years ago. Anyway, I thought I would post some videos similar to one's shown in 191 because I think they speak to our generation as the Star Trek videos spoke to earlier fans. The one thing I wonder about these slash vids is what the percentage is of actual fantasy on part of the artist versus exploitation of the characters and subculture. There seems to be a general recognition, even within the fan community, of a type of parodying that accompanies slash creations but I think that some are made with more earnest desire to see and share the outcome than others. When "Brokeback Top Gun" came out it really seemed to exploit the slash vid community, parodying the success of the gay narrative in Brokeback Mountain, versus the two I have posted below which seem less interested in parody than the portrayal of the relationships. Maybe I am just reading into this but what do you guys think?

(Just looked it up, YouTube was founded February 2005 and not launched until November of that year.)

"No One Else" Jack/Sawyer
http://lostvideo.net/viewvid.php?vidid=3748

"Closer" Spike/Angel
http://sisabet.livejournal.com/10640.html

Also, here is a good article from Henry Jenkins himself; "How to Watch a Fan Vid".

The Fan Vid Subculture

2008-04-24T22:16:00.000-07:00

Just sharing...after I went to the "genealogy of vidding" session at the 24/7 DIY festival at USC this year, I've been looking at fan vids with a whole new respect. There are some really intelligent, funny videos out there and I'm really impressed with a lot of "regular fans'" editing skills. In the above House video the vidder took two films that the same actor is in and created a third meaning by intertwining them. It's really clever! At the DIY session I went to, they called these vids "visual responses to a visual text." For anyone who is into anime, below is a groundbreaking, award-winning Evangelion vid. Again, what a fantastic job!

Judy Garland's Legacy

2008-04-24T10:53:00.000-07:00

So, this week in my muscial class we watched a clip from Martin Scorsese's musical parody "New York New York" in which Judy Garland's daughter Liza Minnelli does a parody of her mother's musical number "I was born in a trunk..." from "A Star Is Born". I thought that is was interesting because although Minnelli is honoring her mother's art form, she is also mocking Garland's legacy by showing the complete illusion of the musical world. This illusion is what sadly killed Garland, and lucky her legacy does live on through her work and not through her daughter who unsuccessfully followed in Garland's footsteps.

star struck

2008-04-23T22:34:00.000-07:00

I just saw James Franco at the coffee bean in westwood!!! He bumped my elbow (didn't apologize, let alone acknowledge my existence) and I LOVED it. I was so flustered I couldn't concentrate on my coffee. I had thought that growing up in LA and seeing celebrities on a semi-regular basis made me less star struck, but James Franco really threw me for a loop. Maybe because he's so cute? Maybe because I loved Freaks and Geeks? I'm not really sure...
Anyway, just wanted to share!

Rock Hudson's Diagnosis

2008-04-23T17:13:00.000-07:00

I did a quick search on YouTube, and I came upon this news story about Rock Hudson being in the hospital in Paris in 1985.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8msfeLOXp8

I found it interesting that while there was no diagnosis when the story was released there was an assumption that Hudson had AIDS as evidenced by the interview with the expert about the drug available in France. I also found it interesting that this story did not at all focus on the possibility that Hudson was gay, while also discussing AIDS. I wish I could find a video from a news story once it was confirmed that Hudson had AIDS because I would be interested to see how the reporting differs, but there does not appear to be such a story on YouTube.

I thought it was particularly interesting that the story lasted so long (nearly 3 minutes), especially since Hudson was a star of the 50s and 60s, but by 1985 would not have had the same star power.

Core Response #4

2008-04-23T16:31:00.000-07:00

Dyer's article on "Judy Garland and gay men" seemed particularly relevant post-Rufus Wainwright's "Judy at Carnegie Hall" concerts that were played to sold-out audiences around the country. Gay culture's affection for Garland is still alive and well. Examining Garland in this way makes me think (for the first time, really) that artists may have a kind of responsibility in their image. Though Garland clearly wasn't thinking about the "homosexual demographic" when she sang her songs with such passion and lived her life under such turmoil, she became a figure that symbolized a very important movement. When interviewed by the New York Times in 2006, Wainwright attributed Garland's magnetism to the fact that "when she sings, she is beautiful without actually being beautiful...she believes in it and you believe in it..." Certainly, in the past (and in most cases presently), the gay community is not celebrated within American society. The U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is just one example of homosexuality being viewed as something "ugly" or "repulsive." Garland's ability to overcome the fact that she was not considered a physically beautiful woman within the context of celebrity at the time and her ability to not only sing beautifully, but enrapture audiences with her dynamic, emotional performances serves as an example of the beauty of talent and (without sounding too cheesy) of what is within.

The article also made me think of contemporary figures through which groups of people find solidarity, release, or encouragement. I have always been intrigued by the music choices of the boys with whom I went to high school. These (predominantly) wealthy Caucasians would drive around suburban Minneapolis in their expensive, foreign cars listening to Tupac and DMX. At the time, I found it sort of awkwardly offensive. I had friends who had known only prosperity and comfort that could rap every word of a popular song about the struggle of inner-city life. I never understood the connection. Recently, I was talking to a professor when this topic arose and he attributed the sensation to the fact that at it's base, rap music addresses feelings of anger, resentment toward "higher powers," and confusion as to how to "pursue happiness" in a country that misrepresents its "dream." Though I'm still not entirely comfortable with the glamourization of "thug life" exhibited by rappers like Nelly, this conversation made me realize in some ways, those boys in my high school were facing what for them was an adolescent crisis that involved anger, a feeling of misplacement, and a confusion regarding their identities. In my opinion, there is a similarity between this solidarity and that between the gay community and Judy Garland.

Money and Celebrity

2008-04-23T14:45:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking a lot lately about the role that financial wealth plays in Los Angeles. Though obviously there are wealthy people throughout the United States who live "fabulous" lifestyles, there is something about one's ability in LA to "buy" status that I find interesting. With "reality" shows like "The Hills" on TV, the definition of celebrity is shifting. What is it that these girls have that make them such "intriguing" celebrity figures? Yes, they have a television series, but I think more crucial to their notoriety is their ability to buy the lives they lead. They wear outfits worth several hundred dollars, they carry bags worth (often times) more than a thousand dollars, they eat out at expensive restaurants, they sit VIP in the city's most exclusive clubs. These are all things that money can buy. All you need in Los Angeles to be a celebrity is money and a film crew. And, judging from the popularity of "The Hills," that's all most Americans want.

Disney Star Goes Missing!

2008-04-23T14:35:00.000-07:00

Maybe you have some information that his parents could use?!? How ironic that this guy can go under the radar for years after Raven's show ended, yet the instant its brought to this blog, he shows up in the news again!

Check this out...freaky!

http://perezhilton.com/2008-04-23-disney-star-missing

Reading Response #5

2008-04-22T23:58:00.000-07:00

I found myself considering the authenticity of stars as role models, idols, people we look to as representatives certain aspects of society: Jennifer Lopez for Latinas, Seth Rogen for affable Everymans, Matthew McConaughey for the shirtless…. As Dyer points out in Stars, “ Stars have a privileged position in the definition of social roles and types, and this must have real consequences in terms of how people believe they can and should behave” (p.8). And yet, as we read about the role of Judy Garland and Rock Hudson’s respective stardom in society, the desire and manipulation of that image by the audience must also be considered.

As we discussed last week, in the case of someone like Jennifer Lopez, she’s a star who wants to have it all – to be “Jenny from the Block,” and at the same time drive a Bentley, wear fur and diamonds, and build a baby nursery the size of my apartment. No one from my block rolled like that. So who is she? Is she what her audience wants her to be, a representative of a minority beating the odds and achieving the dream? Or is she just another wealthy celebrity, hungry for the fame that feeds her luxurious lifestyle? I bring this example up, because I believe Judy Garland and Rock Hudson’s star representation and idolatry are vastly different: Garland a more authentic representative for the gay community, whether that was ever her actual intention or not, and Hudson a manipulation of studio power and audience desire that buried his true self.

I consider Garland to be a more authentic icon for the gay community, for her representation was not merely superficial, but instead ran deeper, with more loyalty. She was not loved for what she looked like, she was loved for the hope she inspired in those also existing on the fringe of society’s “normal.” I found the following statement to be Dyer’s most powerful: “The ordinariness is a starting point because, like Judy Garland, gay men are brought up to be ordinary. One is not brought up gay; on the contrary, everything in the culture seems to work against it. Had Garland remained an image of ordinary normality… She would not have been so available as a gay icon… To turn out not-ordinary after being saturated with the values of ordinariness structures Garland’s career and the standard gay biography alike” (HB, 153). Quite simply, Garland was not loved for the image of simple American ordinariness MGM carefully constructed; rather, she was loved for being imperfect, for existing outside of what people expected her to be, and for fighting rejection.

Rock Hudson’s representation, however, was purely superficial and thus inauthentic; I wonder how powerful his star power could have been, had he been allowed to be a representative for the community he actually belonged to, rather than the one he was pigeon-holed in. The account of people’s anger and disappointment in him (most notably, Ruth Westheimer’s comment), when he acknowledged that he had AIDS, was painful to read; while Garland’s fans rallied around her when she fell, loving her all the more when she got back up, Hudson’s fans betrayed him, turning away from their idol because he wasn’t really who they’d forced him to be. It is shocking to me to learn that audiences believed Hudson deceived them, when all along, they’d given him no other choice: Hudson was constructed to be exactly how they wanted him – it was the audience molding his representation of cleanliness, respectability, and purity, of the “consummate safe sex object” (Meyer 265). The film industry supplied and reinforced the audience’s desire; as Universal Studios publicity head declared, “Rock’s fans won’t accept his doing anything shoddy…. They like him because he’s what they want their daughters to marry, or their children’s father to be, or their childhood sweetheart. If we let him break out of that character, they’d howl” (Meyer 271). The key words here are “if we let him” – clearly, Hudson had little control over who he was constructed to be, and was instructed to hide his true self behind marriage, living the stereotype he portrayed onscreen.
The case of Rock Hudson is deeply interesting because it demonstrates the dark and painful side of the role stars are expected to play offscreen: the model of a particular aspect of society. I wonder, to what extent should a celebrity be responsible for the values and stereotypes associated with their onscreen image? On the one hand, you have the power and strength brought to the transgender community from Felicity Huffman in “Transamerica,” and yet, you have Rock Hudson’s tragic fall from grace for not embodying the ideal safe-sex symbol he was onscreen. How much can we, as the audience, expect to have power over when it comes to stars and what we want them to represent for society? For ourselves?

Core Response #5: Rock Hudson

2008-04-22T23:45:00.000-07:00

I didn't know much about Rock Hudson before reading the Meyer article. All I knew was that he had been gay, but not out. I had no idea he had gotten AIDS and died from it. I thought it was interesting how the article saved that bit of information till the end, setting up the strength and vigor associated with him in his earlier career, and then effectively destroying that image by describing his physical decrepitude in his last months.
I was also interested in the article's emphasis on his body, and how clean people thought him to be, and as Sarah mentioned, how ironic it is that the interest in his body was so great and yet his image was so asexual. He was "less threatening" and "less sexual," and yet the article focused so much on his stature and sex appeal. I can't really grasp Rock Hudson, as a persona, because of all these different contradictions. I think it must be the enigmatic nature of his stardom that helps make him popular.
Despite being intrigued by his contradictions, I'm preoccupied with several questions: Why this obsession with his body? How was it that despite his size he was so unthreatening? And even though people admired him so much, why was he not more sexualized? Why the emphasis on his cleanliness?
What is it about these characteristics that makes them so appealing? Was it just back then that people felt that way, have we changed in how we view stars? I feel like the stars today that are the most popular (Britney, Paris, Lindsay) are "dirty," pretty much. Where are the wholesome, cleanly stars? Why have we moved away from that type of persona? Was it because we were "burned" by him ending up having AIDS, and now we can't trust that sort of personality? I would say that someone like Zac Effron tries to get into that category of "wholesome," and all people can do is hypothesize about his sexuality. Also, does a "wholesome" star have to be heterosexual?
Sorry about all the questions, but this reading made me think of a lot more questions than it answered!

Reading Response # 5

2008-04-22T22:12:00.001-07:00

I just realized that I totally forgot to post this last week, so here it is. Sorry for how ridiculously late it is!

For this weeks reading I would like to focus on Jackie Stacey's discussion of the audience-star relationship in "Feminine Fascinations". It is amazing to me how much stock we put into the "passive audience" in film studies considering the rabid fan culture that re-examines appropriated images from film or television to fit it to their own standards. Stacey's article really throws a light onto how vastly complex the process of reading a film and stars can be. Many times we have discussed what the Classical Hollywood stars represented, especially the female stars, and perhaps took for granted how that image really perpetuated (in terms of identification). The selective memory of the fans' recollection of the stars is a particularly point in Stacey's arguement because it reveals a much more active subconscious in the discerning of parts of the image from narrative context. I think that it also suggests a much richer network of social construction and gender identity in the 40s and 50s than what the "Leave it to Beaver" style texts alone would lead us to believe. On the other hand, while Stacey's article reveals certain rarely explored facets of the implications of spectatorship, I think it also gives even greater substance and complexity to concepts like the 'male gaze'. Mulvey's assessment of the audience relation to the screen yields a treatment of the camera position and narrative structure as an extension of the heterosexual male perspective that women spectators are forced to take on. Thus, subjecting themselves to a relationship to their own gender that takes on a dominating patriarchal eye (a form of self-degradation). Now, in order for the female spectator to relate to the screen images she must take on the 'male gaze' and view her gender through that lens, but we know through Stacey's article that it is not that simple. The process of viewing, especially from the female spectator, constitutes a vast reordering of text and meaning to create a uniquely subjective relationship with the films and their stars. In this way, fan culture (fan fiction and modes of idolization) become vastly more important to getting a true understanding of the interpretations of the text and gender analysis.

Some Questions for the Class:

1. Do you think that work done in feminist analysis of film texts without consideration for the audience reception undermines femininity by assuming how women are portrayed is equivalent to how it is received? Can an analysis be valid without this consideration?
2. Considering Stacey's argument about previous work by Haskell and Mulvey and the differences between female audience identification with stars, do you think that film scholars tend to construe a reading of the text that subverts the dominant audience reading?

Core Response #5: A Culture of Authenticity

2008-04-22T22:06:00.000-07:00

In both of his readings for today, Richard Dyer argues for Judy Garland's appeal (particularly for gay men) as being a combination of reality and fiction within her own star image. Thus audiences can read films like A Star is Born and I Could Go On Singing as reflections of Garland’s own personal life and stardom. These films would be read entirely differently had the star been someone without Garland’s public problems in fact, part of their power comes from the combination of reality and fiction that Garland infuses them with.

The rise of the internet and the pervasiveness of celebrity/tabloid culture has extended this notion to a whole series of stars, mostly those of a younger generation whose stardom rests on a mixture of talent or work and tabloids. Yet whereas before, it was possible to read Judy Garland’s films as blending her life and art, now the life of a star like Lindsay Lohan trumps her art. It is difficult to watch a film like Georgia Rule and see her as anything but Lindsay Lohan. There is an inability to lose oneself in the film, not only because the character itself is so closely aligned with her own image as a wild LA girl, but also because of the influence of the widely-publicized personal drama surrounding the film such as her being publicly chastised by the head of the film’s production studio, her disruptions on set with late-night partying, etc. The result is that while one could read a Judy Garland film as being accentuated by her personal life, in this case, Lindsay Lohan’s personal life overtakes the film completely.

Dyer argues for the desire and need for authenticity in stardom, even as audiences and producers alike recognize its inherent manipulation. This kind of authenticity has become especially significant now with the availability and access to stars that exists on a level unseen in celebrity culture. This becomes most apparent with the recent phenomenon of hacking into stars’ lives. Within the past two years, Paris Hilton’s blackberry has been stolen and its contents posted online, Lindsay Lohan’s private messages on Myspace have gone public, and several other stars have found their private information offered to the public.

This phenomenon taps into the idea of authenticity because I think that the fact that these stars are putting themselves on public forums on the internet raises the question of authenticity as well as creates a new kind of fan-star relationship (am I really looking at Lindsay’s Myspace? Could I talk to Paris if I wanted to?) Yet this also marks an extreme form of this desire for authenticity as it is no longer just the paparazzi who capture stars at candid moments but rather it is fans themselves who can hack a person’s email or Myspace and post what they find for the world to see.

That’s why I’m surprised that any celebrity actually uses the internet for communication other than email because of this pattern of making photos and information public. But I think that on a certain level, it also makes sense in our current culture because a) the people who are using it like Lindsay Lohan or Miley Cyrus are stars whose fame depends in large part on relevancy and what better way to stay relevant than to have your private information leaked to the public and b) because the use of the internet also keeps them authentic by allowing people a glimpse, however brief that may be, into their private lives.

This notion of authenticity is pervasive, as seen by the fact that just this morning, I read on Page Six that Lindsay Lohan recently created a Facebook page. I looked it up and sure enough, there it was in the New York network. Granted, it was taken down within the hour (as it was on both ONTD and Page Six, I’m sure a ton of people tried to friend her) but even for those few minutes that I saw the page, I found myself looking for signs that it was real or authentic. In doing so, I started processing the information on the profile as details that would inform my own general reading of her as a star (i.e. the fact that her Facebook account was under Lindsay Ronson, a reference to her supposed girlfriend Samantha Ronson; her status defending her sobriety which refutes recent photos of her passed out in a car; Hilary Duff being one of her Facebook friends, etc.)

It sounds crazy, I know, but while reading Dyer's essay in Stardom: Industry of Desire, it was also the first thing that came to my head and I think this question of authenticity is one that has come to the forefront not just in our reading of stars, but of ordinary people as well. In this culture of Facebook and Myspace, we create profiles of ourselves that we display for all the world to see. I’m always fascinated by how people choose to present or edit themselves because much like reality television (another branch of this quest for authenticity), there are constant decisions being made about what to show and what not to show so that in the end, a new kind of reading of people has emerged from this culture, one which coexists with the reading and search for stars’ authenticity.

In Response to both Neon and Annie's Posts

2008-04-22T21:27:00.000-07:00

We screened Baby Mama in 466 two weeks ago. Circle of trust/truth/love in place, I was excited to see it too, though I would never let my over-excitement show to the group of guys I attend class with. I had been a fan of both Amy Poehler and Tina Fey for years as well, and knew that with the trailers I've seen, this film would be golden. Unfortunately, the film sort of fell flat for me. It's definitely funny and I laughed out loud a number of times, yet it does lack the staying power that films like Old School and Animal House have. Most of the funny parts can be seen in the various trailers circling around, and the plot is predictable throughout. I am interested, however, to see how well it does and to read more reviews as they are released. But this really got me thinking, what about a film gives it staying power? Is it witty quotes that allow us to use over and over in our average speech (think borat, high five!). Is it our favorite actors doing crazy and unthinkable things (think Will Ferrel in just about everything). Maybe these women actresses are just not famous enough yet to leave such a lasting impression. Maybe Annie is right, maybe we are a little bit taken back by funny women and estrogen-led comedies. At any rate, let me know what you guys think of the film when you see it.

In Diablo's case, I think she did somehow tap into America's funny bone with a film as shitty as Juno. Many of my friends have attempted to employ Juno quotes into their own lives, yet fall strikingly short as it is just too mundane and all too similar to the way your most boring friend tells stories. Yet maybe her success story has given her a sort of American Dream-like appeal that allows the shortcomings of the film (which for me, there were many) to be more acceptable to the academy. I'm not sure if many of you have heard about her latest masterpiece, which will tell the story about a man-eating cheerleader, played by Megan Fox. My friend actually auditioned for a part in the film, and I was able to read a short segment of the script. To me there just has to be something more to her than her screenplays as they continue to fall flat for me. It is sad when her story gets more credit than someone who is genuinely funny like Tina Fey, yet I guess thats the mystique of Hollywood.

Core: Fandom to the Extreme

2008-04-22T19:41:00.000-07:00

As most of my posts in the class have revolved around untraditional forms of celebritism, I shall do the same for when talking about Fans. I would like to talk about Zune Guy. Zune Guy is an internet phenomenon, who is about a man who loves the Microsoft Zune Mp3 player so much, he got the logo tattooed on him. As if that wasn't enough, throughout the years of this device being released, he got more tattoos of Zune related images both slogans and advertisement images. Recently, he is going to the steps to legally change his name to Microsoft Zune. The point of this story is not to talk about the zune, because personally I think its a inferior device, BUT more to display the RIDICULOUS amount of brand loyalty, which is a form of fandom and furthermore as it pertains to this class, is this guy is now a celebrity for being absurd. Furthermore, what I find also interesting, is this guy completely contradicts what Dyer loves to talk about which is the ideal body. It has not been confirmed nor denied of the sexual preference of this gentlemen so it will be hard to relate to Dyer's work on homosexuality, but the very fact that there is a following for this man, fandom for a eccentric fan of a piece of (imo crappy) technology. Oh, what its like to live 2008!!!

p.s. this was was posted on tuesday, but apparently never went through.

Diablo Cody: Fcuk my Socks

2008-04-22T18:52:00.000-07:00

I am taking 386, which is a case study on Juno and the last class Diablo Cody, the writer, came in to talk to us. She brought up how all of the sudden she found herself in People Magazine, specifcally about how her tube socks were in style and the next trend. She went to on to talk about how why anyone would possibly care about a person who prefers to remain behind the camera, yet all this new found attention is being focused on her, and her socks. My personal theory on this is people are more obsessed with her as a concept, seeing as that she was working in the sex industry and wrote her first film which got made and wont the Academy Award, in a way she represents hope, that there is a chance for anyone to either make it in hollywood, or just in life in general. To go from bottom to the top that quickly is inspiring, so sub-consciously I think this is why "people" are more interested in her life.

Baby Mama

2008-04-22T14:23:00.000-07:00

As a female about to graduate and begin fighting my way into the "boy's club" of comedy, I'm holding my breath and crossing my fingers for the success of "Baby Mama," opening this Friday and starring Tina Fey and Amy Poehler. While there are plenty of female-driven "comedies," they always seem to be powered by the humor of a beautiful star who still can't seem to catch a man, despite her good looks and winning personality... And even though I liked "27 Dresses" as much as the next girl, the movies I love are "Animal House," "Old School," "Wedding Crashers," "Superbad"... I've been ready to see women take on that type of comedy for a long time, and "Baby Mama" appears to be our first foray into the world of the male-driven "buddy comedy."

What is interesting to me, however, is just how difficult it is for people to accept that women are funny, too. If it were male leads, people would approach it by asking, I wonder if that movie will be funny? But here, with two women headlining, people ask, I wonder if women can be funny? There is so much pressure, so much riding on the success of the film -- if it doesn't do well, the studio won't just cut their losses and try to make a funnier female "buddy comedy" next time, they'll continue to relegate the funny women to their traditional roles: the quirky best friend of the beautiful romantic-comedy lead.

Check out this article in this past Sunday's LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca-feypoehler20apr20,0,863720.story

It was surprising to me how offensive some of the interviewer's comments were! Two examples: "I think it makes the movie fresh, that you two are the stars. But I'm just thinking from the marketing point of view. You don't make for a great poster," and "Do you think it's a harder sell for Universal because there's no movie star or large-breasted woman on the poster?" I'm sorry, but has anyone ever asked if a movie would be a better sell if there's a well-endowed man on the poster? And as far as the "star" element goes, I'll have to agree with Poehler's answer that there were no stars on the "Superbad" poster until the movie came out, and then there were. It's hard enough to develop and execute a film that makes a wide audience laugh -- why not let these comedians defend their humor, not their gender?

Core Response #4

2008-04-22T13:24:00.000-07:00

Reading the article about Rock Hudson's body reminded me of our discussion of Valentino in the way that he was the object of the gaze, a position usually reserved for women. The thing that struck me most about the article was the treatment Rock Hudson received from the press after he revealed his diagnosis of AIDS. I had read about this before, but in a world in which AIDS has been named and identified as something that anyone can get I struggle with the idea of the media treatment.

When reading about the treatment that Rock Hudson received by the media I was reminded of another star who revealed a diagnosis of HIV and was treated markedly differently than Hudson, Magic Johnson. This makes me wonder if the homophobia of the 1980s is truly the reason Hudson was treated differently, as Johnson got HIV from a heterosexual affair rather than a life of homosexuality. While Hudson was said to give AIDS a face it seems that Johnson is the more enduring face for HIV and AIDS, as I remember a few years ago a special about him twenty years after he revealed his diagnosis.

The other thing that struck me about the article about Hudson was that there was no mention of the panic surrounding Dorris Day after he revealed his status with AIDS. This is what I remember from reading about Hudson in the past, he had kissed Dorris Day when they were together, and people feared that he could have transmitted AIDS to her that way. I wonder if this is because the kiss does not fit with the author's discussion of homophobia and misunderstanding of AIDS that came from the media during this time period or whether Day is simply not as important in the article because she does not fit into the theme of Hudson's body. In my mind the panic over Dorris Day almost outweighs the dismissal of Rock Hudson as a liar; she was authentic so there was truly concern for her while there was nothing but condemnation for Hudson.

Campus Gossip

2008-04-22T12:14:00.000-07:00

Just to add to the post about the "Lance Lohan" blogger, this website CampusGossip.com is a blog about everything that goes on at schools all around the country. USC's particular blog covers everything from greek life to events at the 9-0 to things happening on campus. This website is highly publicized on Facebook and by the 9-0. I'm sure most of you have either seen or at least heard of the show Gossip Girl on The CW, and it seems like ever since this show aired a number of these gossip websites have emerged. A few months ago there was one called USCene.com which posted stories about several "well-known" people around campus, and usually these stories were written with malice and generally exaggerated or untrue. The PHC, IFC and university both worked hard to find the person or people responsible for it, and it was eventually dissolved. However, for the few weeks it was up some terrible things were written and people were hurt by it. These gossip columns are extending beyond the lives of movie stars and celebrities to our very own communities of our colleges. Could this be a new form of celebrity? Popular people within the greek systems of universities... A lot of people are getting a taste of celebrity with these new blog postings, and I'm interested to see where it goes.

Be Careful What You Put on Facebook!

2008-04-21T16:14:00.001-07:00

So I recently stumbled onto LAgonedirty.com, a blog that takes photos from students at UCLA and USC and adds quirky captions. Not only was I intrigued (to see if my photos had been used among other things), one thing that caught my eye was the author's "pen name", which is Lance Lohan.

Naturally, this got me thinking about class, and a sense of "guilty by association" that can be said of celebrity. Whoever Lance Lohan is has borrowed from Perez Hilton by giving himself a memorable name and doing essentially the same thing, yet with our photos, not the paps. While this is a simple task given the lucidity of the internet, Lance has associated himself with bloggers like Perez who poke fun, draw on, and expose photos of the stars. He has asserted himself beyond other bloggers simply by borrowing from those successful before him.

Take a look at the site, and don't be surprised if you see yourself or someone you know...and be sure to make those photo albums private!

Beckham and the L.A. Galaxy

2008-04-20T20:35:00.000-07:00

(Banner in the Home Depot Center where the Galaxy plays)

In the past two weekends, I have been to two of the L.A. Galaxy's soccer games. Since David Beckham recently left England to come play for L.A.'s soccer team, you can probably guess my reasoning for going to these games in the first place (although I do call soccer one of my favorite sports, having played it for four or five years when I was younger). As seen at both games, I can definitely say that Beckham is one of the few celebrities equally loved by men (well, I suppose male soccer fans more specifically) and women. Male fans taunted the other team by chanting, "we have David Beckham" while female fans stared wide-eyed at him. Before attending these games, all I knew of Beckham was that he was a soccer (or football, if you will) player, married to one of my favorite Spice Girls, and everyone thought he was hot. I never had much interest in him probably because I don't follow soccer and have never seen him in his quintessential form. But, after these two Galaxy games, I have to say I've become a huge fan (I just bought a Beckham t-shirt/jersey). Not only is he just plain hot, he is incredibly talented and every time he got the ball on the field, he whisked by all the other players with speed and fancy footwork, ultimately making a perfect pass to someone else on the team. Basically, he lived up to all of the hype. I don't know too much about sports and its celebrities, but I have to say that any amount of celebrity achieved by a sports player is certainly warranted because you can in no way become famous without being a phenomenal player. That said, I will be going to many Galaxy games in the future!

yet another Madonna post

2008-04-20T12:10:00.000-07:00

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kCkwYuoqnyo

I saw this on perezhilton and thought it was RIDICULOUS, so of course I posted it here.

Why does she do these things?!
I can't stand her, yet at the same time I feel guilty for not supporting a "strong," independent woman. because, really, some aspects of her make her a good role model. I feel like she's received similarly to Hilary Clinton (although I'll be the first to admit that I don't know the first thing about politics so I can't really back that up...) in that she's a "strong" woman who's villainized for being that way.
Any thoughts? Am I totally off base?

That's So Raven : Celebrity Sighting

2008-04-17T12:23:00.000-07:00

As we have seen so far I am kind of fascinated by B List celebrities. I think I like them more than big timers because these people are not at the level of fame and stardom like the A-list yet, most of them act and walk and talk like they are the biggest deal. Last night I had a great B sighting: Orlando Brown, from the disney show That's So Raven. I saw him at Ralph's supermarket around 2:30 in the morning. Him and his friends were loading up on the following items: 24 pack of Bud Light, tortillas, and a butterfinger (these are the items I think I saw on the belt). Both him and his friends were fully put together and although weary "social" clothing, they were covered in bling and looked like they spent hours putting their outfit together. Not only were the random items for check out interesting to me, but both Orlando's loud volume as he talked to his friends and the clerk were appealing as well, it was as if he wanted to be noticed...at a grocery store at 2:30 in the morning in the valley where the only people were there was me + my friend, the clerk, and the homeless guy in the corner. He then got into his nissan, which I found even more interesting, as him and his friends were so decked out with apparel, it simply did not match the style of car. Lastly, I got starred down hardcore as I drove away in my car.

Also on Jessica Alba...

2008-04-16T22:17:00.000-07:00

I want to continue another person's discussion of Jessica Alba, mostly because I find her to be a really interesting star in Hollywood today. She is someone who has never had a hit movie that she has had a lead role in, and yet she is still followed around by paparazzi and seen at prestigious award shows like the Oscars. I think most of Alba's fame is attributed to her attractiveness, not her talent. I thought it was interesting what someone else said about Alba avoiding calling herself a "Latina" actress. She is, in fact, biracial (her dad is Mexican and her mother is French/Danish, according to IMDb). I think she represents a demographic that is growing in the US, but is not readily seen in Hollywood: those of multiracial decent. There are more and more interracial couples who are having children that do not belong to a particular ethnic group. I think there is a struggle to figure out what ethnic group a biracial person belongs to, for example, I don't like it when people just refer to me as Asian because my dad is white. People never see me as white because they see my Asian side as trumping the other part of me. This is probably similar to a struggle Alba faces, people want to refer to her as Latina and therefore rhythmic and "exotic" (as she has been portrayed in Honey, Sin City, and Out of the Blue), but that may not be what she identifies as. I think Alba represents a new generation that is struggling with ethnic identity. I find it interesting that people automatically tend to categorize someone who may be multiracial as their more "foreign" ethnicity. Have we come to a point where we desire the exotic over whiteness? Will the multiracial person eventually become the ideal because he or she embodies all that is white and exotic?

Women driving blockbusters

2008-04-16T18:04:00.000-07:00

This link was posted on a blog that I enjoy, and I thought others might find the list interesting as our class is in part about celebrities and gender. The study undertaken is not extremely scientific, but the results the author offers are still relatively interesting. She found that there were only two blockbuster films since 2004 that had two female leads. I suppose this is not all that surprising when we consider that for the most part men are behind the camera preparing films and might be more likely to cast male actors in lead roles, especially in the writing process, because they are more able to relate to men and therefore write more believable male characters, but the disparity in numbers is pretty surprising.

I wonder if the disparity is somehow cyclical, as I recall major female stars of other eras who had top billing with other female stars, even films we have watched in class such as Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. I have to wonder how this fits in with the redefining of masculinity that we discussed in class a few weeks ago. Certainly there are major female stars, I am sure our class could name quite a few, but they do not seem to be appearing together in films the way male stars are. I wonder why this is in a time that seems so obsessed with beauty, especially female beauty.

Do Blondes Really Have More Fun?

2008-04-16T11:17:00.001-07:00

Since it's not my week to post, I'll focus on a smaller, albeit important, aspect of Ovalle's reading: hair color and style. I was fascinated to read that as Lopez assimilated into "white" culture, her hair went from dark and curly to light and straight. It was a transition I never even noticed. What this argument brought to head (ha ha, pun intended!) for me was the importance and significance of hair. We actually talked about this with Marilyn Monroe in "Gentleman Prefer Blondes." Monroe's blondeness highlights her energy and ditziness and is in contrast to Jane Russell's dark hair, marking her as more intelligent and seductive. It's interesting that this stereotype still exists - brunettes are often taken more seriously than blondes. But blondes definitely fit more into the all-American, play-girl stereotype. While blonde hair might epitomize sexiness, it is almost always dark hair on a woman (regardless of race) that is typically described as exotic. It's interesting that while this is a compliment, Latina actresses like Lopez have to disregard their exotic allure in order to better fit the mold.

On a side note, I've been fascinated with the straight-curly hair dichotomy since "How to Lose A Guy in 10 Days." I'm usually somewhat aloof to cinematic symbolism, but in that movie it was crystal clear to me that Kate Hudson's hair was perfectly straight throughout the movie - until she finally let go and fell in love with Matthew McConaughey, and then it becomes effortlessly wavy and wild. This change always cracked me up as it just seemed so obvious that they were using her hair style to depict an internal shift. Seems that that wasn't so ridiculous after all! Thanks, Ovalle!

Reading Response

2008-04-15T22:10:00.000-07:00

I must start by sharing that the scene that Negron-Muntaner describes with Jennifer filming for Selena in the Houston Astrodome was a highlight of my childhood. Third grade Diego was with thousands of people in San Antonio screaming and cheering. If you want to know more just ask.

Jennifer Lopez is the second picture.

Now on to more relevant discussion. I was very surprised at the argument that was made about the importance and role of Jennifer Lopez's butt in a greater scope. Yes, she is curvy, sexy, and successful. However, I am not sure that I entirely agree with his notions of "Latino" excess and vulgarity. There is something to be said about the fact the Jennifer Lopez works out four times a week to stay in shape and her exercises focus on making her butt even "better" than it already is. A "Latino" audience would not relate and respond to a figure of a curvy image if it was seen as being a symbol of their perceived culture of excess. Part of the response to Jennifer is that she is a prominent and talented Latina that Hispanics can relate to a being similar, but if the image that she is created to be was always a representation of negative views of Latin culture she would not continue to be successful. Also, I agree with what Misty said about Jennifer and Britney's opening of the door to new body images and projections. Jennifer brought the back to the front! She has been able to create a new, more positive view of the female butt. It is not just something that is of the lower stratum and lowbrow anymore. It has become something to aspire to have, maybe not the best thing. However, Jennifer has created a platform for a curvy woman to talk and flaunt her ass-et. The idea presented about the vulgarity of the butt and its epistemology were not fully stated and did not seem to further the idea of Jennifer's butt acting to project Latino culture and body image changes. I would be glad to hear any further explanation of the last few pages of the article because I did not understand it all completely and was left with wanting more and a feeling of disconnect from the beginning to the end of the article.

As a closing side note, I am still heart broken by the very idea of Selena having liposuction. It is sad what people do to fit into the celebrity mold that is constantly changing, from what we have learned. Ironically the woman who portrayed her, is not the poster girl for big beautiful butts.

Core Response #4: J.Lo vs. Shakira

2008-04-15T22:05:00.000-07:00

I found Ovalle’s in-depth exploration of the nature of Lopez’s stardom in “Framing Jennifer Lopez: Mobilizing Race from the Wide Shot to the Close-Up” particularly interesting of the readings. Ovalle makes the case for J.Lo’s star power stemming in part from her racial ambiguity that situates her as a non-threatening figure in between black and white culture. At the end of her article, Ovalle asks how the next Latina performer will “shake her assets in the national/media spotlight,” which made me wonder who, in the wake of the late 1990s Latin invasion, has taken J.Lo’s place? I think that Shakira, of all the crossover Latino/a stars, best embodies the kind of ambiguity and power that J.Lo maintained as they both maneuver between a position of normality and the Other.

There are many parallels to be drawn between these two women: with her English-language debut in 2001, Shakira came onto the mainstream American music scene and although there were immediate comparisons between her and Britney Spears, she set herself apart in a significant way: by shaking her ass really well. Like J.Lo and other crossover stars, Shakira was racially ambiguous and could assimilate more easily into American culture. Or perhaps more accurately, she became racially ambiguous (by dying her naturally dark hair to bright blonde and toning her body) in order to assimilate more easily into American culture, which she achieved so successfully that the first time I saw the video of “Whenever, Wherever,” I asked my friend if Britney had done something to her face.

Yet, like J.Lo, Shakira as a Latina can never fully occupy a place in hegemonic white culture and so she and the media often play up her differences as signs of exoticism that “diversify” our conservative white society, which Ovalle describes: “the prototypical Latina body—not too light or too dark by Hollywood standards—effectively illustrates diversity and economizes representation: it diversifies both black and white venues” (169). As both readings on J.Lo noted, this sense of exoticism and sensuality associated with the Latina body can be perceived as threatening if it is excessive. So while no one else can shake it quite like Shakira (thus she stands out because of her difference), what she’s shaking (her hips and butt) is not so physically excessive as to force her to occupy too threatening of a position as the Other. And just as J.Lo’s increasingly straight hair and slim body mediate the potential threat she could embody as a Latina, Shakira’s blonde hair, transition to English and collaboration with other pop stars in the mainstream (Beyonce, Wyclef Jean), also alleviate her inherent position as the Other.

A primary difference between Shakira and Jennifer Lopez, however, emerges from the background of the two stars. While J.Lo, a second-generation Puerto Rican, overplays her “street credibility” from growing up in the Bronx, Shakira, a native Colombian, emphasizes her “authenticity” stemming from her Lebanese father’s roots. Shakira often incorporates Arabic-style music into her own and perhaps most importantly, her dancing revolves around belly-dancing to the point that she can release a song called “Hips Don’t Lie” and have it be the number one song in the country. For me, I find these aspects of her image interesting because as anyone who listened to her Spanish music before her crossover knows, hip and butt-shaking were not the defining characteristics of Shakira’s career or image. There are traces of her Lebanese descent in her music before 2001, but she did not identify herself primarily with these roots.

And yet, with the release of an English album and transition into mainstream American culture, her Lebanese background suddenly comes to the forefront as the defining force behind her music, image and performance style. It is through these roots that she can showcase her butt because while she does not have access to the cinematic screen like J.Lo, she does have music videos and the stage as visual forums to show off her assets. Shakira’s Lebanese background, while positioning her as Other, underscores her exoticism and sensuality which are essential to her role as a commodity for mainstream culture. And so, to answer Ovalle’s concluding question, I would say that Shakira took over to "shake her assets" in the national spotlight, although since her popularity in mainstream culture has been dwindling of late, I'll be interested to see who takes her place in the future.

J.Lo + Jessica Alba: Latina Upward Mobility

2008-04-15T19:33:00.000-07:00

First and foremost, what I find most interesting in Ovalle's article for this week is that she concentrates on "brown-ness" and "Latina-ness" as an in-between for the traditional racial binary of blackness and whiteness. There is no argument that most prevalent issues and problems concerning race relations in the U.S. primarily involve whites and blacks. Moreover, Ovalle writes that not only is race defined beyond polarized images and preconceived notions of black/white opposites but she also reminds readers of the misconception that whiteness is not perceived as colored or characterized, but humanized and normal- the default. She further illustrates her claim of brown-ness as an in-between by using Jennifer Lopez in Money Train as an example of the type of (racialized) woman who can be romantically linked with both white male (Woody Harrelson) and black male (Wesley Snipes) characters on screen. Another point that she made later on in her article in her section about 'the dancing body' got me to thinking about the upward mobility of today's aspiring Latina actresses. She notes that both Rita Hayworth and Jennifer Lopez captured the attention of and were subsequently accepted into Hollywood and general consciousness through their naturally voluptuous and rhythmic bodies.

I couldn't help but be reminded of a certain aspiring (Latina) actress who has seemed to become a household name recently since her fledgling actor days in teen movies like Idle Hands and Never Been Kissed: Jessica Alba. The reason I parenthesized her ethnicity as Latina is because I wanted to bring into light the fact that just as J.Lo before her, Jessica has cosmetically transformed herself over the years into the idealized version of western beauty (lightness of skin and straightened/nearly blonde hair). Although she doesn't necessarily identify herself as a "Latina" actress, she certainly is one based solely on her Mexican ancestry. Though formerly a "Dark Angel" in James Cameron's foray into TV with the creation of another beautiful brunette heroine (note the play on preconceived notions of color and good and evil in the title's name), Jessica in her most recent films has manifested to a T the kind of hair and cosmetic transformation necessary for upward mobility of an Other in Hollywood. Not to mention the 2003 and 2005 movies, Honey and Sin City, which clearly focus and play off of Jessica's natural ability to move(/dance) both rhythmically and sexually for the audience.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that it wasn't until after Jessica fulfilled these roles of the dancer/the body in these films that her career was bolstered and she started to attract mainstream attention. As you can see in the photograph I uploaded, both her complexion and hair tone match so closely that there is no 'darkness' or skin color perceived beyond her dramatized eyes which are made to emphasize her exoticness. Thus, she is coded and compromised as white. As Ovalle wrote, J.Lo conformed to idealized beauty standards, yet retained an exoticized difference at the same time because of her butt. Yet for Jessica, she has no discernible exotic anatomical features, like J.Lo's derriere, that perhaps allow her to assimilate more comfortably into Hollywood without constantly having to answer to ponderings about her skin tone or racial background. In fact, according to Perez Hilton, Jessica apparently denies claim to her Mexican roots and is frequently derided on his celebrity blog for doing so, deeming her Jessica "Don't Call Me Latina" Alba. Despite moving into public consciousness and even headlining her own films (The Eye), Jessica has failed to make the kind of lasting imprint in film beyond her beauty, even after already assimilating and fulfilling the Hollywood ideal (blond hair, light skin). That said, who knows what else she must do, or keep doing, in order to keep getting roles in Hollywood. But what must be questioned is how both she and her handlers have been able to manage and construct her image quite successfully by neutralizing her exoticness both on and off screen.

Reading Response #5 - J.Lo

2008-04-14T23:19:00.000-07:00

Well I never thought a would read a scholarly article about Jennifer Lopez’s butt, but that is the beauty of film studies I suppose. But I was excited to read about Selena, a pre-teen favorite movie of mine. What struck me about Negron-Muntaner’s article was the way in which, at that moment of time in 1997, there was excitement about having a Latina superstar and one with a big Puerto-Rican butt. Lopez is one star we have talked about in class so far that I feel I have been old enough and aware of her entire transformation of her stardom, and a big part of her getting there was her butt. From her pride and identification of her Latina behind that Negron-Muntaner traces, to the billion dollar body insurance, to that infamous green dress with the plunging neckline, her body and especially the back of it has always been central to her stardom. This positive outlook on J.Lo’s assets seems strange looking back because she, like so many stars in her position, seems to really have been “white-washed” or “de-ethnic-ized.” Sure she still has that butt to some degree, but she has gone from curvy to the more over-exercised, over-dieted look perfected by mainstream Hollywood. Watching Out of Sight it’s clear how different she looks now, thinner, blonder, and generally less Latina. It reminds me of Michael Jackson, the most extreme example of this pressure on minority superstars, but can also be seen in someone like Beyonce Knowles who has gotten skinnier, blonder, and fairer skinned as her career has risen. To me, in 2008, the celebratory break from dominant standards of beauty by J.Lo’s butt seems to be all but regressed by her later choices in beauty that seemed to hide her ethnicity.

Another interesting aspect, that was reflected throughout her persona, and discussed by both Negron-Muntaner and Ovalle, is the idea of the American Dream as possibility for minorities. There are close ties, certainly not coincidental, between Selena, Lopez, the narratives of films like Flashdance and the video she based it on that film, “I’m Glad.” All of these narratives take characters of mixed ethnicity or nationality from difficult economic situations and watch them rise to fame or fortune from their talent. This is the trajectory that J.Lo follows, a Puerto-Rican American from the Bronx who rose to be one of the top paid actresses in Hollywood. But this narrative is where her career has been since.

So much of her music career is about her roots and their legitimacy – album names On The 6, This is Me…Now, songs “I’m Real,” “I’m Glad,” “My Love Don’t Cost a Thing,” and “Jenny From the Block.” The first one is all about how she is so real and takes place in a low income neighborhood with many of the typical iconography associated with it, then the last is all about how she has so much money, and shows her on yachts with Ben Affleck (but is still “real”?) It seems like one who really was true their roots would not have to keep assuring everyone that they were.

Timbaland

2008-04-13T13:25:00.000-07:00

Olivia's post inspired me to watch Madonna's new video, and one of my first reactions (other than why do they have only four minutes and what are they saving the world from??) was about Timbaland. He has been working behind the scenes for over a decade as a producer but has been much more visible in the music scene for the past two years. In the past couple years he has served to lend some sort or gravitas or maybe even street-cred to white artists looking to cross over into hip-hop infused pop. I looked into his career a bit and saw that until the past few years he had been working exclusively as a producer for mostly black hip-hop artists, most notably Jay-Z, Nas, and Aaliyah. But if you thought of Timbaland today you would probably think of white stars like Justin Timberlake, Nelly Furtado (actually Canadian-Portuguese), or now Madonna. He has also recently worked on tracks by such bastions of whiteness like Ashlee Simpson, Fall Out Boy, and Coldplay. What does it mean that this black producer is helping these white superstars appropriate elements of black culture and music, turning JT from boyband to hip-hip or Nelly Furtado from ballads like “I’m Like a Bird” to “Promiscuous.” When these artists want to take what they want from black music, Timbaland is there to lend the talent in his producing, and now his name as a brand and a symbol of legitimacy.

Madonna featuring Justin Timberlake & Timbaland: Four Minutes

2008-04-09T23:18:00.000-07:00

I have to say, although the readings did somewhat change how I see her, I was surprised by the almost total negative response that everyone has been having towards Madonna. I do agree with the arguments about her use and exploitation of black and gay cultures, which is why I find this video so fitting because it includes someone who has based his entire career as a solo artist on appropriating black culture and more specifically, Michael Jackson. I think that if we're going to hold Madonna accountable for exploiting other cultures, then the same needs to be done for Justin as well because he almost completely reincarnates Michael Jackson in this video both in his singing and dancing (and certainly this isn't the first time that he's done so). I think that regardless of her relationship to other cultures, Madonna is at least original (it's sometimes hard to remember that since what she's done has pretty much become the norm for many female entertainers), which is much more than I can say for Justin Timberlake, although I have yet to hear anyone criticize the nature of his stardom.

Madonna - Four Minutes Video

Madonna's Star

2008-04-09T21:13:00.001-07:00

I'm not signed up for a core post this week, but after reading other people's blog posts, I wanted to comment on last week's screening as well. I was surprisingly entertained by Truth or Dare, especially considering the fact that I knew little about Madonna. While her "motherly" tendencies and attitude toward others were oftentimes contradicting and harsh, her entertainment quality was there...this is probably why she is even a star. Even if a person is racist or disrespectful, if they entertain you, people will remain interested. Because Madonna is someone who makes it a point to do what she wants without a care in the world, she has a star quality that is attractive and controversial. Madonna's ability to maintain star status and to continue to successfully alter her image deserves some credit. Like someone else commented, it seems like when a contemporary singer does a song with Madonna, it becomes a big deal, almost like it's the highest they can go. When I heard that Justin Timberlake and Madonna had a song together, I was almost impressed for some reason. While I'm not praising Madonna for who she is or what she stands for, I do think that, if nothing else, her talent lies in being able to continue to stay in the spotlight for so many years and generate a sense of respect through generations.

Response to Veronica's Madonna post

2008-04-09T09:08:00.000-07:00

I too had never seen "Truth or Dare" and was suprised at the image that was constructed of Madonna. I laughed when she called herself a mother and also when she called her concert a form of artistic expression. The Madonna in this film is much different than the Modanna today, but she purposely recreates her image every five years or so. Madonna today wants to be as a humanitary and sexy for her age, but remember back in the nineties when she was heavenly influenced by Marylin Monroe or Eastern culture, or when she was a cowgirl? With so many morphes (too many to count), how could any of us really know who Madonna is?

Take a look at the many versions of Madonna. Funny thing is that she takes herself so seriously in all of her different roles.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kX5VLMQeBuk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YMt53HYkfY8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3tYLo9FkqNc

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jjOLh2s-o3M

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fYl5M1APEsc

http://youtube.com/watch?v=R55xDxaXw5E

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oWSe4t9v62I

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2ccm0wvWugU

http://youtube.com/watch?v=j5R9sNiNwc4

Reading Response 4: Madonna

2008-04-08T23:45:00.000-07:00

I hadn’t had much experience with Madonna before watching this film. Sure, I have some of her biggest hits on my ipod, but I’ve never been particularly interested in her. Not disinterested, she just wasn’t someone really on my radar. Watching Truth or Dare in class, however, I realized that I really detest her, as a person (I still like most of her music). I found her controlling, racist, sexist, homophobic, emotionally stunted, self-obsessed, and dismissive. Reading Bell Hooks’ article, I realized I wasn’t alone. They way that she is presented in the film is almost appalling to me. From her “mothering” of the “emotional cripples” she chooses to surround herself with, to her forcing them all to get into bed with her, to her treatment of her brother, to her “fascist” tendencies, I thought she was presented in a rather negative light. It’s interesting, however, because she’s clearly controlling what the audience learns about her. In a documentary like Truth or Dare, the audience is supposedly getting a “behind the scenes” look at a famous performer, an all-access pass to see a star up close that millions would pay huge sums of money just to stand in the same room with. However, the content of the film is SO obviously hand picked to create a certain desired image of Madonna that it is difficult to take seriously. I was not at all surprised to see her name given Executive Producer credit in the closing titles.
The Hooks article was interesting, I thought, in how it classified Madonna and her power as that of a white heterosexual male. It was striking to me how true that was. She has this extreme power over all of her back up dancers, who are either gay, minorities, or women, and yet she is submissive to the white boyfriend (Warren Beatty). Her treatment of the friend from high school I think is especially demonstrative of this mentality. She was so dismissive and fake toward this woman (who, granted, was a little bit crazy) that it made me sick. For someone touted as a strong female performer, she certainly is not a good feminist role model, in this film at least.
I feel like this side of her is not apparent in her current day persona. I know her best for her adoption of African children, and recently for her comeback CD and song with JT and Timbaland. And for putting her daughter on a diet at the age of 8, or something equally ridiculous. But especially as a gay icon, which is why it was so confusing for me to see her treating the gay men in her group as objects, toys for her to play with. Madonna has had such a large role in creating her own image, which makes me wonder if she has consciously changed her image in recent years, or if she would still support her actions in Truth or Dare. I’ll be interested in seeing how her most recent CD is received, and possibly watching her music videos to see if she still uses similar rhetorical techniques in her media forms. I really hope she’s matured and moved on…

Celebrity Sightings outside of Los Angeles

2008-04-08T23:42:00.000-07:00

I was surprised when, on a recent trip to New York City, I came across more celebrities in one afternoon than I do in several days in Los Angeles. Much to my excitement, I was seated across from Ryan Gosling at a midtown bar. Earlier that day, I had gone for a walk in Central Park and came across Kyra Sedgewick. There seemed to be a very different "vibe" in these sightings than the ones I've had in Los Angeles. Both celebrities made eye contact and smiled pleasantly. There were no baseball caps, dark glasses, or entourage. It was rather refreshing!

Reading Response

2008-04-08T23:25:00.000-07:00

Madonna: The Spectacle!

From the Cvetkovich article, I found it interesting to think about the idea of drag and then also the idea of impersonation, from Elvis. I could not stop thinking about the 1999 Video Music Awards. Check out the YouTube clip

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9kIqualuElw

The examination of Madonna's status as a drag queen icon caught my attention in particular. I found the argument presented was well thought and on target, but for me, I see the use of Madonna as a drag icon and the ways in which she blends femininity, masculinity and sexuality coming from the fact that she does not present herself as sexual from the stand point of the gaze. She is neither the looker or the one being looked at when she is performing or in the film. Her actions are more a performace for the performing rather than performing to fit a mold. She does things to be outrageous and different rather than to be sexy. The ways she dresses and acts is a mix of everything. Wearing a bustier and grabbing her crotch is femininity and masculinity in one person at one time. This mixing allows for others to find a new platform for expression, not necessarily an escape. It is a way to perform and be a spectacle of the outrageous and crazy.

Madonna is a vehicle for performance for whomever embodies her. The ways Elvis is impersonated is more about being him and channeling his persona, but for Madonna, she is an icon for outlandish behavior and freedom of expression. When drag queens become Madonna, they have a person that fits their desire to blur gender roles and social conventions.

Diego

Core Response #3

2008-04-08T23:03:00.000-07:00

I was frustrated while reading Cvetkovich's article this week. It may be due to exhaustion, but I resented the fact that Madonna can't just be the Madonna I danced to while it played on my sister's hot pink tape deck (an academic sin, I know). I suppose the point that struck me the most in Cvetkovich's article was the line that stated "Paris is Burning suggests that pleasure, fantasy, and sexuality are not separate from the supposedly more urgent concerns of race and class." Immediately the series premiere of Showtime's "Tracy Ullman's State of the Union" came to mind. After having watched the show in TV Symposium, I found myself disturbed and depressed by the frighteningly accurate (though exaggerated) depiction of America she presents to her audience. Ullman's America is full of absurd, wealthy characters and struggling, poor characters. She juxtaposes the high-powered New York executive having passionate, adulterous sex on a conference table with her boss with a scene of a very low-income immigrant woman coming home after working three shifts only to tell her husband to wake up and begin his day of work while she climbs into an empty bed. In Ullman's America only the rich have time for sex. All of her "higher class" characters are depicted getting Botox injections or doing pilates, whereas her "lower class" characters are seen as overweight, wrinkled chain-smokers. In Ullman's America only the rich have time for pleasure. Though one would think that sex and physical pleasure would not be exclusive to those with material wealth ("can't buy me love"), in contemporary American society, they are. Gossip magazines fly off the stands and provide viewers with images of beautiful celebrities "enjoying" an extravagant lifestyle that few in this country could afford. We read about their scandalous sex lives, their glamorous vacations, and their latest beauty treatments. No one depicted in those magazines (or on E! television or Perezhilton.com) is struggling economically in the way that millions of Americans are today. Obsessing over and discussing the lives of celebrities give Americans who could never afford those lifestyles a time to fantasize or a way to buy the latest ABS knock-off Oscar dress or offers for all-expense paid, "VIP" trips to Las Vegas. Today, celebrities define beauty (which is closely tied to sexuality) as another highly-priced commodity. This strips those without the means to Botox their faces, hire personal trainers, or purchase spa packages of their sexuality. The American stereotype of prom night comes to mind. In its tradition, it is a night where many young women try to look like movie stars and (in many cases) hope for sexual gratification.

Her Madgesty...CORE 5

2008-04-08T20:50:00.000-07:00

Well I must say that out of the films screened so far in this class, this week's screening of Truth or Dare has really been one that has stuck with me after class. I found the film to be so self-absorbed, outrageous, and frivolous, yet enthralling, engaging, and entertaining nonetheless.

Before watching the film, I knew nothing about Madonna other than the fact that she has undergone a number of transformations, explaining the longevity of her career. I remember seeing defining moments of her career such as the controversial act in her show in which she is "crucified", the Britney-kiss moment, and her roles in A League of Their Own and Evita, yet I have not intentionally sought information about "her Madgesty". After seeing the film this week, I cannot say that I know much more about Madonna than I did going into the screening, but I can say that I have walked out with a much greater appreciation for her self-proclaimed "artistic creativity".

After reading Bell's article, I now see a number of racial issues that Madonna represents, yet I must say that while watching the film, the thing that stuck out most was the power she possesses, which Bell only begins to discuss towards the end of the article. I'm uncertain as to whether or not her crotch rubbing represents black masculinity as much as it represents liberation, female liberation to be specific. I see most of her moves as an expression of power as even the police force in Texas cannot keep her from censoring herself. I see her desire of "motherhood" towards her crew as another outcome of her desire for power. I see this desire for power as the reason she can be lent to other races because in pursuit of this power, one must first be powerless. As a woman, she must overcome the masculine dominated hegemony, yet by lending herself to cultures of African American women she constructs even more of a challenge.

One thing I do want to discuss is the alignment other stars make with Madonna. For a while, when Britney was on top of the game, she shared a moment with Madonna on an MTV stage that will not soon be forgotten. They then released a single together, and it is even reported that Britney asked Madonna to be the Godmother of her first child, in which Madonna turned down (too bad Brit didn't get to see this film in which Madonna said no to her friend in the same predicament). Now, with Justin Timberlake on top of the game, Madonna has released a single with him, and their public outings has been the topic of blogs and magazines for weeks. It seems as if once you reach a certain level of stardom, it only makes sense to pair up with Madonna. Yet, it seems that once that is complete, there may be no other direction to go. While Madonna is able to constantly recycle her image, Britney fell from grace. It will be interesting to see where Justin goes after this collaboration.

We've discussed star transformation a number of times throughout the semester, and while I'm uncertain of each of Madonna's representations as I don't follow her religiously, I do know that just recently, with the release of her latest album, the Madonna frenzy has escalated. She is currently appearing on a number of magazine covers, and her latest single with Justin Timberlake is already at the top of the charts. The insane amount of coverage this woman receives just proves the appeal remains!

CORE: MADonna

2008-04-08T19:43:00.000-07:00

Walking by a magazine stand literally five minutes, I could not help but spot this month's issue of Vanity Fair, and guess who was on the cover. None other than Madonna . Coincidence? I think not. Genius of Professor McPherson? I think so. Her name and picture has been everywhere lately, mostly in promotion of her newest album. I couldn't help but find the irony in opening up the reading for this week and how on pg 158 it states that in an interview Madonna said how jealous she was of Black Culture and how she wanted to be black as a child. The reason behind my smirk after reading this is her battle in popularity against Mariah Carey's "comeback", in which Madonna is clearly winning, and arguably so, but the motif and theme of this new album and ad campaign is boxing, implying that she is still kicking and punching despite her age of 50. The cover of Vanity Fair this month confirmed all of this for me, as it added more life to the campaign by having her in boxing boots but this time holding planet earth on her back. The cover told us that Madonna is stronger than ever, and that both her and VF want to be more GREEN. The pg number where you can read the cover story of her was even cleverly written on a fig leaf. Once you turn to the article, its only a page long and its more about the fact that Madonna has successfully mad it to the cover of VF 10 times, and for this one how they chose a studio in West Hollywood, and how when she was done with the shoot she signed the globe...YIPPY!. The next few pages are conveniently placed ads for Hybrids. Once again, returning to the words made famous by Alanis Morsette, "Isn't it Ironic?" that her article was only 1 page and most of the magazine is nothing but advertisements for Green related things, thus using MORE paper and MORE ink to make this magazine, when obviously something like the internet is way more environmentally conscious.

The final thing that made me giggle on the cover of this issue is the astric next to the subtitle: UNBOWED, UNCOWED, STILL TAKING ON THE WORLD *, if you follow the * it says "and she's still 50". Thank you Vanity Fair for making this clearly not so clear.

The hubris effect of Vanity Fair adds to our ongoing discussion of the contradiction of stardom and to end this let me point out how appro-po the title of the publication starts with the word Vanity, this one just happens to be the "right" (fair) amount.

Reading Response #4

2008-04-08T19:42:00.000-07:00

I really enjoyed reading bell hooks article about Madonna because it articulated many of the uneasy feelings I had when watching Truth or Dare. I was completely appalled at the way she treated her dancers and the people who worked for her, like they were inferior, and making them bend to her will. I think the most obvious and disgusting manifestation of this was when she made every one of her dancers, all minorities and most gay, come into bed with her and do whatever she asked, strip naked, kiss her, or answer embarrassing questions. This scene made her seem more like some official in an oppressive, dehumanizing government than the flirty, outrageous star that it appears she wants to seem like. bell hooks really encapsulated my reservations about the film in the way she described the Madonna’s view of herself as a mother to the defective children, that were her group of minority and homosexual dancers. I have always looked skeptically upon those who like to arbitrarily deem themselves mothers to other people, especially with a situation like this, in which this mother holds the power in the relationship and the children have no choice but to go with it and secretly resent her patronizing attitude (which it seemed like they did).

hooks brings up another point, although briefly, that I think is very relative today – our willingness to forgive stars of the racist/sexist/classist/homophobic or otherwise regressive aspects to their work because of their support of political causes outside of their profession. I was watching Madonna in the film and wanting to like her for her bold expressions of female sexuality and challenging of puritanical norms, but having trouble ignoring her racist and homophobic actions. This is something we are faced with everyday, stars today are all about showing their support for progressive causes, the environment, international conflicts, end to the war, but their films and music still wreaks of the status quo and corporate greed. Hollywood is extremely conservative in their films and the ways in which they depict race/class/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation etc, and since this is a critical studies class we are all quite familiar with this. And while not everyone is so persnickety as us when watching films, the reinforcement of the dominant ideology is a clear trend in nearly all Hollywood films. Why do stars come out in support of women’s rights and then star in a romantic comedy that affirms gender stereotypes and the glory of the nuclear family? Or speak out in favor of Tibetan freedom then star in an action movie that glorifies American military power even as it’s currently used for imperialist means? Or, like Madonna, preform at AIDS benefists and then call her gay dancers bitches and their personal lives “emotionally crippled”?

Charlton Heston and the NRA

2008-04-08T18:00:00.000-07:00

As most of you probably know, Charlton Heston passed away last Saturday night, April 5th. Regardless of your particular stance on his private life, he is widely regarded as one of the biggest cinema stars of the 20th century. He became famous in his first breakthrough role - portraying Moses in "The Ten Commandments." I read an obituary for Mr. Heston in the NY Times (the link is provided below) which got me thinking about his role as the spokesman and president of the NRA.

The author cites Vincent Canby, who called "The Ten Commandments “a gaudy, grandiloquent Hollywood classic,” and went on to describe Mr. Heston's Moses “the rugged American frontiersman of myth.” It is interesting to connect this quote with our discussions on masculinity and the myth of the American west as depicted by John Wayne. Moreover, the article states that this "rugged American frontiersman" is what made Mr. Heston an effective spokesman, specifically for the NRA. It goes on to say: "In Mr. Heston, the N.R.A. found its embodiment of pioneer values — pride, independence and valor."

This connection between celebrities and their political causes is one that has also been discussed in class, most recently with Paul Robeson (and even Arnold Schwarzenegger a bit). What I found so interesting, though, is that in Charlton Heston's case, it was his on-screen characters that made him fitting for his off-screen activism. This is different from other celebrities in that the characters came first and brought upon his fitting role as an activist. For example, Angelina Jolie's global awareness motivated her to make a film like "A Mighty Heart" - the character in "A Mighty Heart" did not make her a perfect candidate to represent the UN. Heston's ability to take the characteristic's of his movie roles and turn them into a powerful political platform is unique and incredibly effective. After all, I don't think he would be as great a representative for the NRA if his filmography consisted of different roles. Think about Jimmy Stewart or Marlin Brando, I hardly think they would be fitting in Heston's role! It's interesting to see how much a person's movie roles can affect their personal life - rather than their personal life affecting their movie roles as we have discussed.

I encourage you all to read the article. I never knew much about Heston other than Moses, Ben-Hur, and the NRA but he was actually incredibly involved in politics and the arts, acting as the president of SAG and the co-chairman of the President’s Task Force on the Arts and Humanities. His life and story are much more interesting than I had realized!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/movies/06heston.html

Core Response 3: The Power of Madonna

2008-04-08T15:37:00.000-07:00

I’ve always been a Madonna fan and have perceived her as the unquestionable queen of pop but the screening of Truth or Dare and the articles for this week have somewhat altered my opinion of her. I had already seen Truth or Dare but watching it now was different as suddenly her diva-like behavior, which I had always loved, seemed too over-the-top, particularly towards her dancers. Madonna has always had the reputation of being overly controlling and shrewd (interesting terms to describe a woman who does what male stars do for their own images and careers) but the film highlights the extent of her control and authority. For example, as both bell hooks and Ann Cvetkovich note, Madonna’s back-up dancers are all either gay, minorities, or both, which is clearly no coincidence as Madonna is the one who picked all of them for the tour. But after seeing the often-times humiliating and condescending way she dealt with them, I couldn’t help but wonder if she would do the same with a straight, white, male dancer.

The film thus started raising some questions for me, many of which I think bell hooks tackles in her article yet even so, I found her argument somewhat problematic in its complete criticism of Madonna. I think hooks is accurate in identifying the ways in which Madonna exploits black culture and interestingly, black masculinity as a way to solidify and maintain her own power. But I don’t think that she sufficiently credits Madonna for what she has achieved in her reconfiguration of mainstream culture, which has paved the way for a majority of solo female artists/entertainers (Britney, Gwen Stefani, etc.) who have come after her.

I don’t think that Madonna is perfect by any means. Yes, I do love her but as Truth or Dare makes abundantly clear, she’s a diva, controlling, and quite honestly, a bitch most of the time. But I think that she’s done what she’s done by working within a system dictated by the power of the white male. She used what she could to get to the top and in doing so, at least started to open to door for other women as well. That’s not to justify her exploitation of black culture and in fact raises the question of what she may have sacrificed in terms of her own femininity and position as a woman to become so successful. But the point is that I don’t think it’s completely fair to condemn her for not changing the entire structure of our society in terms of race, gender and sexuality because in the end, no matter how powerful she might be, Madonna is a woman and thus subject to the demands of our white, patriarchal, capitalist society.

She is a white woman as hooks argues, which puts her at some advantage in her quest for power but she is in an exploited position nonetheless which makes the criticism of her more complex and perhaps less black and white than hooks argues. It’s clear that she does manipulate issues of race in order to better serve her own image and stardom, but I also think it’s worth considering the fact that Lourdes, her daughter, was born from a Hispanic father. Obviously black and Hispanic culture are two different entities but this does complicate her own use of and relation to whiteness that hooks criticizes in her examination of the structures and components behind Madonna's stardom.

Madonna Reading Response

2008-04-07T00:35:00.001-07:00

Madonna is so contrived. Her costumes, her makeup, her performances, her star image. She has built a career on the exploitation of gender and racial power relations, using her body as the basis for repeated transformations. If I could give Madonna a last name, it would be 'ambiguous.'

On one hand, her hypersexual performances reflect an attempt to use the black male identity for power control. Madonna idealized black culture, thereby exploiting in throughout her shows—most famously by rubbing her crotch (which is apparently a blatant copy-cat of Michael Jackson?!). Interestingly enough, she manages to balance this overt black masculinity with the ‘innocent white girl’ image (another one of Dyer’s contradictions), effectively performing as an abstraction of both the brutish, flauntingly sexual representations of black males and the commercialism of the beautiful and for-some-reason-innocent white female.

Black women apparently hate Madonna, too. In her idolization of black culture, Madonna associates ‘blackness’ with cultural capital, but only in the way that a privileged white female can understand it. For her, the ‘otherness’ that black culture reflects is an exhibition of certain ‘freedoms’—including (but not limited to) sexual liberation. She overlooks, according to Bell Hooks, the struggles that Blacks must suffer in order to have these so-called freedoms.

I am not surprised that Madonna would idolize the underdog-its only another way that she tries to represent herself as the ‘outsider.’ The most interesting aspect of Madonna’s celebrity is her chameleon-like ability to transform herself. Her ridiculously ambiguous identity comes from her constant state of performance. She is never herself, she is always in the limelight.

The notion that Madonna is essentially an abstraction of various ideologies, fantasies and identities seems to give her an astonishing amount of credit for the manufacturing of her star identity. She was crafted like the stars in the studio system without the crutch of an omnipotent studio executive. That is what makes Madonna so interesting.

Madonna: A Family Portrait

2008-04-03T22:11:00.000-07:00

Madonna, Guy Ritchie, and baby David Banda
Halloweed 2007

Celebrities and Money

2008-04-01T23:28:00.001-07:00

I came across an article tonight that caught my eye, and made me think of this class. It's a slide show of seven celebrities and how they spent their first million dollars. Most of the celebrities were people I had heard of, but not really anyone I care about. It made me think about the everything the public wants to know about celebrities. What is the reason to care that Julianne Moore bought her mother a cashmere sweater with her first steady pay check? It seems like with less image management on the part of stars we get more information, but I have to wonder where the craving for information stops. With a quick Google search you can find any information you want on a celebrity, so what is the appeal if there is no mystique?

Core Response #3: Terminal Masculinity

2008-04-01T23:09:00.000-07:00

I have to admit, I didn’t really like watching Terminator 2. I came into the film not having any more experience with Terminator films than an unpleasant experience of an attraction at Universal Studios, and I must admit I wasn’t expecting great things. However, when I first saw Sarah Connor I thought that maybe I had found a character I could be interested in. I was pretty annoyed by the Terminator character, with all his muscles and brute strength. Even his attempts at being human weren’t doing it for me. Sarah Connor seemed to be a strong female character, being shown first doing chin ups in her prison cell. And sure, physically she’s strong, but emotionally she’s stunted and incapable of being a good mother; we’re shown that the Terminator is a better mother than she is. She said he was a good father figure, but really he’s a replacement mother figure. Which makes me wonder what that means for traditional male masculinity. Arnold is the epitome of a man’s man, but he’s a better mother figure to John than his biological mother is. I found “Terminal Masculinity” to be a really interesting essay, not only in the dissection of Terminator 2 and Beauty and the Beast, but also in its discussion of the “new” man of the early 90's. It says that the “hard bodied man [learns] from his past mistakes to produce a changed character, a “new,” more internalized man, who thinks with his heart rather than with his head.” According to the chapter, men learned that the old ways (from the 80's, particularly) of violence, single-mindedness and goal-orientation were destructive, and it is especially apparent in Terminator 2. It makes me wonder what has happened in society today with representations of masculinity. Are we regressing back to the 80s? Or are depictions of masculinity even more “internalized?” It’s hard to tell, with so many different types of films coming out, but films like No Country For Old Men and the Indiana Jones movies makes me think that maybe the hard bodied mindset (not necessarily physique) of the 80's are coming back…

Star Bodies and Performance

2008-04-01T22:56:00.000-07:00

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?

Core Response #3

2008-04-01T22:10:00.000-07:00

In reading the Jeffords article about masculinity I began to think about the femininity that must mirror the masculine roles of the early 90s. In the example of Beauty and the Beast discussed at length in the article in order for the Beast to become human again he must be loved by a woman and learn to love her, but when examining Belle we aren't allowed much of a view into her character beyond the stereotypes of femininity, with the possible exception of her reading. She is kind, gentle, patient, in need of protection, but we aren't allowed to glimpse her flaws, unless her one flaw is reading books.

The article made me think about how femininity is an expectation in order to mirror masculinity, in order for the Beast to become what he truly is Belle must allow him to protect her and love her. While she teaches him about eating properly and dancing in matters of life and death she cannot protect herself. Belle is required to bend to the will of the Beast, he gives orders rather than making requests, such as at the beginning of the film where he tells her if she does not have dinner with him she will not eat at all. She is saved from a night without dinner by the kindly servants, the two who take charge both male.

What the article made me wonder is how does the ideal of femininity change to fit the ideal of masculinity? Obviously both ideals change, but do they change together, as one sex becomes weaker the other becomes stronger? My thoughts after reading the article tend to be that the ideal woman is always weak to some extent, while ideal men are given more flexibility in their roles. Women will never be idealized as protectors, and even when men are expected to express emotions they are also expected to protect women from evil.

CORE: GOVERNATOR

2008-04-01T19:50:00.000-07:00

So as much as I love Terminator 2 ( I grew up on the film) I can't ignore how much it screams hyper masculinity. Everything from the budget of the film to the plot and story to the acting to the DVD casing and packaging says, he "We are Men!" The movie is filled with never ending moments of Arnold letting everyone know he is a guy. For instance, why does he have to time travel naked? the film shows very early on two naked guys and of course Arnold gets a good 10 minutes of beating up an entire bar of heavy duty biker men naked, where he gets his clothes and wheels, and shades,not to mention a bunch of tag lines that will become famous since the creation. Which can be argued that this is yet another example of the manliness since the idea is always to let your legacy live on forever and clearly Arnold's lines are quoted and referenced in pop culture almost everywhere.

The budget should be addressed on this topic since another way of displaying one's "size" is how much money they spend. According to Wikipedia, $100 millions was spent on the film.

The devices used in the film which are obviously revolving around technology. But both terminators drive their cars which is another a heavy masculine element. Arnold drives his motorcycle and a few trucks, the other one takes a cop car, cop bike, helicopter, and 18 wheeler truck. Nothing can beat these guys throughout the film and the only way to propperly get rid of Arnold is to melt him in lava, which is such an extreme way to go, yet caters to the hyper masculinity as he lowers himself into the boiling mass, because even though he is a robot, he is still a man and a man can tolerate pain, similarly to when he does his own operations or when he cuts open his arm just to prove he is a robot, from the future.

Lastly, lets look at the dvd packaging for it. For while there was the option to get this film which was housed in a titanium casing of the terminator skull embosses into the metal. If this doesn't say overkill, I don't know what does. Did I buy it? Of course, did I buy the film on bluray when it came out despite the fact I already owned it on regular... obviously.

I think it also important to mention the fact that all of this has helped Arnold's political career. Now even more so he can show off his manliness because he rules California. It should be noted he commutes to Sacramento every day and back to home to his home in LA on his private jet.

Reading Response #5 - Week 11

2008-04-01T19:09:00.000-07:00

Dyer's article "Star Bodies and Performance" was particularly interesting because of our screening of Terminator 2. Both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton represent the ultimate star body that Richard Dyer is talking about in his article. However, Hamilton's body was almost masculinzed, rather than feminized like Jodie Foster was in Silence of the Lambs. I've studied both films extensively, as I've written papers on both, and have only just realized how different the representations of the female are in both films. Laura Mulvey's article obviously has an impact on this discussion of representations of the female in films because of her assessment of the male gaze. It seems like the male gaze is apparent in Silence of the Lambs, but not in Terminator 2. Linda Hamilton is very masculinized, whereas Jodie Foster is very feminized. The opening scene of SOTL is Jodie Foster running through a forest, obviously very vulnerable. In the opening scene of T2, Linda Hamilton is doing pull-ups in her jail cell. This shot is not exactly feminine. Her body almost represents a male body, and Jodie Foster represents the female body.

Laura Mulvey's article proves to be outdated because of the representation of females in the way Hamilton is in T2. I find it interesting/weird that Hamilton was represented the way she was in T2. I get it that it was a male-targeted movie, but then why wouldn't you want to make practically the only female character hyper-feminized? Obviously not in this case - and it worked because of the film. In this type of action film, all my guy friends say that Linda Hamilton is "hot." But if she was the same character in SOTL it would have been terrible. It all depends on the screenplay of what kind of female representation you are going to portray.

I personally love the power that Linda Hamilton embodies in Terminator 2, and I'm not a feminist or anything, but I just think its much more modern than something like Laura Mulvey's article describes. I hate the fact that she says females are there for the "male gaze" and only to appeal to that. T2 is an action packed movie, but also has a story to it. I think the female character functions in this aspect, but does so extremely well to not make it too hyper-feminized. Both articles provide valid points, but all in all, Mulvey's is outdated according to the current general perspective on the female in film.

Reading Response #3

2008-04-01T14:48:00.000-07:00

In reading Dyer’s chapter on “Star Bodies and Performance,” some things initially seemed like common knowledge to me, of course star bodies have a great deal to do with their performance and characters. But then thinking more it seemed like, in our body image obsessed culture of today, it seems obvious that this seems obvious, (but as we’ve seen with Valentino, Marilyn, and others bodies were always an important part of stardom). But the differing projections on the idea of the hyper-masculine action star really intrigued me. I had always assumed that the emergence of the Arnold/Sylvester/Jean-Claude action star was a product of the 80s feminist-backlash and an attempt to show off the all-encompassing awesome of men. Certainly that is part of it, but unintentionally by constructing masculinity in such an extreme it comes off as a parody of masculinity then an example of it. Just take a look at Terminator 2.

Arnold as the terminator seems to be a parody of all of societies expectations for men, and can only achieve this because he is a machine. He is tough, emotionless, intelligent (he has all those files of information), confident, and of course physically strong. The joke seems to be on those men that admire the character as an archetype of masculinity. The differing reactions of audiences that Dyer mentions, “some moviegoers seriously admire the hero’s strength, for others the incredibility of his power becomes a source of disdain or laughter.” Today, watching the Terminator may induce laughter for a number of reasons (aka the Governator), but at the time there were many who found it still laughable. But these types of viewers that are described, I would be willing to bet, fall roughly along gender lines. Despite who one would assume would like to watch male bodies on display (heterosexual females) these actions stars seem more like they would appeal to the heterosexual male. With definite homoerotic undertones, men wish to identify with these action stars as idealized masculinity. Whereas women, sensing this ridiculousness of masculine fantasy would laugh at them, rather than find them physically attractive. The female action stars Dyer discusses, such as Sigourney Weaver and T2’s Linda Hamilton, probably would find the same breakdown. Women might admire in Hamilton the strength and toughness they would want for themselves (I do), men probably didn’t swoon for her too much. But here is a difference; the male action star is masculinity to the extreme, whereas the female action star is not extreme femininity, but some kind of rogue, or even freak, from society.

Stars' Name Change

2008-04-01T14:25:00.000-07:00

Today, my roommate was showing me a page in the recent "US Weekly" that showed 12 actors/actresses and their real names. Luke Perry's real first name is Coy, Miley Cyrus' real name is Destiny, Reese Witherspoon's real name is Laura, and Jude Law's real name is David.

It made me wonder why stars choose to change their names it all. I guess if their names are hard to pronounce to begin with it makes sense. But most actors probably change them because they think that their new names will sound better or more unique. It made me realize how much an actor's stage name contributes in creating an entire persona. If Tom Cruise went by his real last name, Mapother, I have a feeling it may effect the way we think of him. Then again, I don't see the difference between "Jodie Foster" and "Alicia Foster" in terms of uniqueness, which makes me wonder how stars go about picking a new name to begin with. Thinking about it, few stars in Hollywood even have the same name. That can help people in pop culture refer to stars as "Paris," "Lindsay," "Britney, "Miley" etc. It just further shows how much an actor puts on a facade and a face to the public; it is to the point where they change their names to sound more likable and attractive. It makes me wonder, if you were a star, would you change your name or keep it?

Trailer for my first feature film!

2008-03-30T16:26:00.000-07:00

Hey guys! So last summer I was a PA in the art department on The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2. It was the first feature film I had worked on, and learned A LOT... including a lot of dirt on the four main actresses. This was really the first time I was exposed to celebrities on a regular basis (meaning everyday) because lets face it, we see celebs on the street in LA, but how often do we have conversations with them and see them at work? It was an awesome first experience, and all of the actresses were actually very friendly, when they weren't together. Let's just say that since the first film they've all got a little more diva in them. Anyway, check out the trailer and go see the movie when it comes out this summer.. and look for my name in the credits!! =)

http://sisterhoodofthetravelingpants2.warnerbros.com/

Your Governator and You

2008-03-29T18:19:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone,

Please watch the end of Terminator 2 before class on Thursday. It's available for viewing in the cinema library.

Thanks,
Courtney

A request from your TA...

2008-03-28T16:04:00.001-07:00

Hi guys,

Could those of you who don't blog under your real names please drop me an email telling me who you are? It would be very helpful in the grading process.

I'm not going to post my email address on the blog. It's on the syllabus, though.

Also, if you weren't in class yesterday: I have your midterm. And you can pick up a copy of the final project assignment from my mailbox (4th floor of Lucas).

Thanks,
Courtney

Celeb Sighting!

2008-03-26T16:16:00.000-07:00

Like most people in this class, after being in LA for a few years, I've become indifferent when it comes to celeb sightings. But today during my lunch break at work, I stopped at Le Pain Quotidien in West Hollywood and while waiting to pay, I glanced outside only to see Katherine Moennig aka Shane from The L Word walk up to the patio. Granted, L Word has become a poor excuse for what it used to be but Shane has remained the best character and it's still one of my favorite shows. And in a repeat of when I saw Sarah Michelle Gellar, I got all confused and flustered because this was a sighting that I actually cared about and of course could do nothing but awkwardly stare. I wanted to say something but this is LA and acknowledging celebrities as, well, celebrities is a big no-no, especially during a meal. Plus she seemed keen on being incognito so I left and although I'm sad I didn't say anything, the sighting at least made my horribly boring day of database entry a little more entertaining.

Response to Robots_Are_Neon post

2008-03-26T15:44:00.000-07:00

Actually, Neverland Ranch was saved. MJ re-financed the ranch, but many of his exotic animals had to go. I think that Neverland Ranch is a great example of why MJ could not stay in his peak height of stardom forever. The ranch is a child's fantasy and MJ clearly never was able to have a childhood, so as a result he tried to recreated it for himself and other children. He is clearly a confused man as he never was able to slowly develop into his own identity. This is why today he see him as half-black-half-white, half-male-half-woman, half-man-half-child. Someone who is so confused about his being could never be stable enough to maintain super stardom forever.

Reading Response - Robeson and black masculinity in film

2008-03-26T08:15:00.000-07:00

Dyer's analysis of Paul Robeson as across-over star in Heavenly Bodies was so extremely descriptive that I found myself feeling the same pull to Robeson's star power that the whites and blacks of the 1920s and 1940s felt which made him a huge cross-over success (even though I have only seen his films one or two times). Robesons's persona, as explained by Dyer, is extremely complex as he was able to please both black and white audiences during the pre-civil-rights era. it is clear that Robeson was an immensely talented man for any race (as an academic, football star, and singing and acting star0, but his jump to stardom led him to represent different black identities for different fan bases. To blacks, Robeson embodied the flock culture of their society and stood as an example of success (academically, physically, and artistically) in a white dominated world. To whites, Robeson was revered as a naturally talented performer who was excepted as civilized because of his ability to control his "brute' qualities with beauty and gentleness (as seen in his films). Robeson was able to maintain interracial fan base because his persona was strong enough to signify him as an ideal black male, but his gentle temperment kept him from becoming a threat to white audiences. dyer mentions that once Robeson began to choose rougher roles, his cross-over appeal quickly faded, therefore keeping the white dominance of Hollywood intact.

No star today can perfectly parallel the career of Robeson, but a black star that I feel is equally popular with white and black audiences is Denzel Washington. Washington, like Robeson, often plays roles of powerful characters who are able to keep their brute (used lightly here) characteristics under control. Washington therefore is not a threat to black or white audiences, but instead seen a beautiful presences on the screen. He has extreme sexual presences with all audiences (as did Robeson), but is still and controlled on the screen. But, unlike Robeson, Washington is able to inhabit leading roles with characters that are extremely active within the plot of the story because unlike Robeson, Washington is able to challenge white authority in films (while all the while keeping a civilized persona, unlike how black rappers are portrayed).

Robeson l aid the foundation for black actors, like Washington, to inhabit an identity of intelligence, athletics, artistry, and grace, to be well-respected by their peers, and to overcome to boundaries of race.

Reading Response 2, Week 9: Where Have All the Women Gone?

2008-03-25T23:00:00.000-07:00

I found Dyer’s chapter on Paul Robeson interesting because his argument illustrates the notion of the “crossover” star as one who embodies ambiguity and who must be read and/or contained within a variety of discourses. I couldn’t help but wonder who are crossover stars today and immediately thought of people like Will Smith, Michael Jackson and Michael Jordan, which brought up perhaps a more significant question: why are crossover stars predominately male and who would be considered a black female crossover star?

In exploring the treatment of Paul Robeson’s star image, Dyer makes a strong argument for the ways in which Robeson’s containment paralleled that of women within patriarchal society because patriarchy situates both minorities and women as non-active, passive groups in society (112). But Dyer’s discussion rests on the treatment of all women and not of black women specifically, which I found interesting. Because after all, not only are crossover stars like Halle Berry, Queen Latifah, and Beyonce (the main stars I came up with) minorities but they’re also women and thus represent the ultimate Other in our white, patriarchal society.

As Dyer argues, in order to have crossover appeal, a star has to maintain a certain level of ambiguity to be accepted by a variety of audiences and all three stars embody either racial or sexual ambiguity. Of these stars, I find Halle Berry to be the most interesting because she’s the only non-white person to be included on the top ten list of highest-paid actresses and for what, exactly? Yes, she won an Oscar, which is all you need to become a 10-20 million dollar actress these days (cough cough Reese Witherspoon), but what is her specific crossover appeal?

I would argue that like Michael Jackson or Will Smith, her appeal is her potential whiteness. Halle is more light-skinned than others (she's half-white) and her racial ambiguity is underscored when seeing her in more “traditional” white roles such as a Bond Girl in a James Bond film. I think that this ambiguity has allowed her to occupy the high position she does because her presence in Hollywood among the A-listers can reaffirm Hollywood’s (and by extension of that, the country’s) progressive liberalism in a non-threatening way because although she is black, she’s not so black that she poses a threat to dominant white culture. I would argue that Beyonce’s stardom has followed a similar track because she can be whoever the audience wants her to be: a strong, successful black woman for the black community to embrace or a strong, successful woman who is light enough to not appear too threatening to mainstream culture.

On the other hand, there’s Queen Latifah who may not be as universally famous as Beyonce or Halle Berry, but who can be considered a female crossover star domestically as she has managed both film and music careers that appeal to black and white audiences. Although she started out in hip-hop, Queen Latifah has moved into acceptable genres within mainstream culture: her music has gone from hip-hop to jazz and R&B while her film career has moved towards comedy. Yet the media still works to contain her power by focusing on her weight (which separates her from the 0s and 2s that dominate Hollywood) and by speculating on her sexual orientation so that ultimately, she is a star that the media represents as truly the Other in terms of race, gender, and sexual orientation. Dyer poses the question of how dominant white society permits black stardom and I think looking at stars like Halle Berry and Queen Latifah illustrates this because we manage these stars by removing their threat (i.e. perceiving Halle Berry as more white) or by placing them outside the norm/dominant ideology that they can hold a place in culture without doing so fully because that would mean embracing the other, which is the greatest fear of all.

Reading Response # 4: Week 10

2008-03-25T22:24:00.000-07:00

(The transforming image of Michael Jackson: 1978 (Jacksons), 1983 (Beat It), 1984 (King of Pop))

This past weekend, as I was reading Mercer's article "Monster Metaphors", I continually found myself jotting down notes in the margins that pertained to a thesis project I am developing on Sci-Fi/Fantasy Teen Genre film of the 1980s (Night of the Comet, Teen Witch, The Labyrinth). What kept striking me about Mercer's article was its approach to Michael Jackson not as simply a celebrity but as a complex code of self-reflexivity and genre blending. It became clear to me that the inspiration of the article for my seemingly unrelated project was not nearly as fleeting as I had assumed. Michael Jackson's performances during the 80s and immense cultural impact, I realized, is writ large over the pop-centric musically-fused ultra-stylized teen films I am analyzing and vice versa. The question, of course, was then which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did Michael Jackson's Thriller success propel the teen camp film genre or did the desire for the genre propel Jackson?

In so many ways, Jackson can be read like the text of a film - especially in terms of the ideology and codes represented in the films of the New Hollywood Blockbusters. Jackson's fame was fostered from the "safe" musical traditions of Motown (The Jackson 5) in the early to mid 1970s and, then, with the release of "Off the Wall" (1979) and "Thriller" (1982) he rocketed into superstardom with the advancement of his own hybridized style (both physically, fashionably, and musically) with futuristic fashion, synthesized sounds of the latest audio technology, and borrowed dance and visual elements from avant-garde and experimental artists (sophisticated miming techniques, bold makeup, and pioneering Hollywood cinematic practices). Considering the trajectory of Hollywood cinema at the same time, the comparison is ripe for investigation. The Blockbuster developed out of a basis in Classical Hollywood Theory but achieved its mega appeal through the adoption of New Hollywood principles of style and genre codification. Not to mention that the target audience of both the Blockbuster and Jackson was increasingly profitable American teenager market through the genre of, as mercy terms it, the "teeny-bopper pop." (p 300) In this way, Jackson can be seen as a star equivalent to the Blockbuster film. The commercial success of each reliant upon each other and each creating, when synthesized with High Concept marketing, unstoppable in fan consumption.

Keeping in mind the question of cross-medium influence, I think that one characteristic made overtly clear in the difficulty of identifying a source of inspiration is that the 1980s really mark a convergence of popular culture into an almost indistinguishable amalgamation of constantly breeding and branching metatextuality. As Mercer lays out, the Thriller music video was constructed by the director of An American Werewolf in London and thus could be said to be a bi-product of cinema alone (and the horror genre) but even within that film, pop music plays a key role in the communication of the American culture represented in the narrative. From this point on, pop music and teenage narratives become inextricably linked (the litany of John Hughes films amongst them). The chain of influence goes far beyond these two mediums alone. I seem to remember a time when the line to Star Tours (or was it Spacemountain) in Disneyland even had a video cameo by Jackson as a sort of guide (not to mention his own featuring spot in the 3D Captain Neo attraction) and his brief appearance in Back to the Future: Part II). Within Jackson's iconography alone, one can read the transformations of the culture and the dreams/desires of his audience. He borrows from not just an American tradition of music and film but from many diverse spheres of influence and, more importantly, in consciously challenging the accepted conventions represents a specific 1980s ideology - a forward projecting fantasy of the future (toward a globalized culture where art is pop and race, sexuality and gender are pooled into a homogeneous ambiguity). I don't think it would be too far fetched to say that the complexity of Michael Jackson's stardom derives from the diversity of his image and, in many ways, its metaphorical standing as an embodiment of the confounded arrangement of a disenchanted yet commercial teenage youth culture of the 1980s. But is he a product or a leader in this context? His amazing physical and vocal performances seemed to inspire and awe his fans to respect his almost superhuman (revolutionary? evolved?) talent and his flare for creating new styles and pushing boundaries of all conventions presented him as an idol (if not ideal) of a generation growing in size and scope but without any unifying direction or goal (unlike the preceding 'Hippie' generation). But what of his "fall from grace"? Did Michael Jackson the "King of Pop" disappear because his image was no longer favored; no longer needed? Did he simply push too far in his unconventional choices and finally pass the line of acceptability? What do his changes to personal appearance and style suggest about his High Concept viability from his early career to the height of his reign? (Did he truly create a bridge between the racial divide as Mercer suggests or does his preference for a "Europeanized" look subvert a further appropriation of Black culture by socially dominant Anglo culture? Could Jackson have preserved his individuality in style if his represented ideology of homogenization was realized? Was the idea of the future Jackson fostered a future of equality or a future of anonymity?)

Reading Response: Monster Metaphor Notes on Michael Jackson's Thriller

2008-03-25T19:21:00.000-07:00

Michael Jackson is a person who represents mystery and the bizarre. A man who is a musical and dancing genius and yet cannot publicly save his image if his life dependent on it. Starting from when he attempted to make a point about race by using his body to cross the skin color barrier which ultimately led to so much plastic surgery abuse that his nose fell off during a live performance. But this is all the modern Michael. The first Michael, we will call him Michael 1.0 who was black represented Masculinity and specifically through the Thriller music video, Kobena Mercer points out a lot of interesting points to illustrate this comparison.

To start, one of the most interesting aspects of the music video is that fact thats its style is not a typical video featuring the band or artist who are playing the song with their instruments and something happening. This is way more of a short film where things happen to Jackson who is playing a character as well as the lead singing star. The ability to do the video in this style is most likely only because of the success of the previous singles and the huge following to Jackson, because as Mercer says, at this point, Jackson does not need to prove himself, so he can afford to explore something creatively. This leads to furthering his success because the video got noticed for being such a critical success, as well as a commercial one. This political power and financial security is one of the many ways Jackson gets to show off his masculinity. Since typically, its always about how much money and power one has, at least in the land of Scarface, which gets used to this day for people to compare themselves to measure their personal Success.

Visually speaking, the video has very specific elements which can directly be seen as the measurement of manliness. First, MJ is taking out a girl on a date (weird if he did that today) and makes her go to a scary movie, which is typically an adrenaline risque macishmomove for a guy to take a girl out to. The irony is that he is starring in the film which he turns into a werewolf, a form of dog which usually a dog is paired with a masculine symbol, the same as a cat is symbolic for femininity. She clearly is not having a good time which MJ takes pleasure in,but after she walks out of the film, he comforts her because he can admit when he is wrong, like a real man. He then turns into a zombie, where he is able to show off his amazing dancing and scare her even more.

Of course, the director, John Landis, is the same director who did American Werewolf in London and used the same impressive make up special effects created in that film for this video, which helped win its critical success.

But where is MJ Today, well like the rest of the family, money is turning out to be a problem and he is losing his infamous creepy Never Land Ranch. Ironic? What does this tell us on masculinity? Seeing as that cinema is one of the biggest creators of ideologies, why do stars like MJ fall, and some fall ever so hard. I think that says something for men being the way they are, which is the tough strong person who is pretends to be unemotional yet on the inside deals with issues of the contrary all the time, a perfect relationship to the actor or star for their displaying of incredibleness sometimes only leads to failure.

Watch This Indian Version of Thriller ASAP!

Rob Schneider is..... The Clubber

2008-03-24T17:32:00.000-07:00

I was out at S Bar in Hollywood the other night and a very short man with a beanie on his head and an incredibly attractive woman next to him walks up to the bouncer and drunkly stumbles and claims his friends are inside. The woman informs him he is wrong and needs to go to another place, but low and behold his friends, who were not from this country walk out and greet the man. The man happens to be Rob Schneider. Of course immediately the only thing I could think of is the South Park Episode about him, but that is neither here nor there. When I got inside the club, he was no where to be found, nor was his entire entourage. Later on as we were outside, him and his whole crew of friends and body guards all got into a total of 3 limos that were sitting parked in front. Where did they do? If celebrities are going to go through he hassle of being in the public and then go into VIP secret rooms on the inside, what is the point? It should be noted that no one seem to care that he was there nor was there any paparazzi., and he is really short.

2008-03-24T16:23:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone! Hope you all had an fun spring break. I actually spent mine at work and stumbled across this article I thought all you Britney Spears fans would find interesting. The article discusses the recession in the paparazzi due to Spear's good behavior. It appears that Spears resting and returning to "normalcy" is killing a multi-million dollar industry. This fact astonishes me. It is crazy that a star can hold that much economical power, and that fans will pay anything to follow the life of someone like Britney Spears. Do we really glorify stars so much to the extent of "sacrificing" millions of dollars to see pictures of them?

Read the article here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23748133/

P.S. Britney is making yet another comeback tonight on TV. I wonder how it will go...

What happens in Vegas...ends up in blogs

2008-03-23T13:28:00.000-07:00

I just got back from a couple days in Vegas, great fun, and of course the class was on my mind as Elvis was everywhere. But something else really struck me there, a show in our hotel called American Superstars, which featured celebrity impersonators. I was first struck by the line-up, some givens were our class favorites, Britney, Elvis, Michael, but also Christina Aguilera and Tim McGraw? A little research and I found that some past performers included some that seemed right like Madonna, but also randoms like Ricky Martin, ZZ Top, and Charlie Daniels. I’m not sure Daniels qualifies as a superstar. Also odd to me (I had a lot of time to think about the ads in just about every elevator ride to the 37th floor) was the patriotism of the posters, that often featured the performers in front of an American flag. Are these stars so great that it should make us proud to be Americans? Most of them, Britney, Michael, Elvis, were quite troubled individuals, but somehow their great talent and showmanship should make us well up with patriotism. Also, I was appalled that this show has been going on for years and so they must fill up the seats, and it costs $50! (Although I think that includes a dinner buffet… oh Vegas). I can’t imagine anyone paying $50 to see a bunch of fake celebrities, let alone enough to warrant hundreds of shows. Are we as a society so desperate with celebrity fever that we will not only pay huge amounts of money to get a glimpse of the actual people, but fake celebrities too? I guess the existence of “American Superstars” shows that at least several dozens a night in Vegas are.

Celebrity Sighting

2008-03-22T22:06:00.000-07:00

I went out to the Magic Castle with my best friend on Thursday night since she was visiting from out of town. She was extremely excited to have her first and only celebrity sighting of her visit. She spotted Topher Grace from across the room. While she didn't actually approach him she was very excited to actually see him. I thought it was a really strange experience because I hadn't actually heard of him before then, but she turned red and started giggling as soon as I pointed out her excitement over a celebrity encounter.
One of the things I noticed while we were out in LA this week was that she noticed all the beautiful people that I normally overlook in everyday life. It was really interesting seeing a celebrity with someone from out of town because even though I live in LA I wouldn't have been able to identify him, but she lives 3000 miles away and spotted Topher Grace from across the room.

Michael Jackson Is Still Amazing

2008-03-21T20:48:00.000-07:00

In honor of Michael Jackson week, I'm posting the video of the inmates at a prison in the Philippines doing the "Thriller" dance. I'd be surprised if anyone hasn't seen this yet since it was on the news/is the epitome of all that is awesome in the world, but just in case, here it is and no, I don't actually know how to embed videos on this site:

Thriller - Philippines Inmates

For me, the shock of the video isn't even the fact that this great number of prisoners are perfectly executing the "Thriller" choreography but rather it's the fact that the video so clearly represents the magnitude of Michael Jackson's stardom. It has been 25 years since Thriller first came out and a video like this makes it seem like no time has passed whatsoever because MJ has remained relevant and iconic, even in the face of his personal life that has overshadowed his music career.

Celebrity Sighting

2008-03-16T21:54:00.000-07:00

After complaining that I never see celebrities in my supposedly Celebrity Ralphs, who should I see at the deli counter on Friday but...John Landis, director of Jackson's "Thriller" video.

As he was actively engaged in ordering lunchmeat, I did not approach him.

Reading Response #2

2008-03-16T14:50:00.000-07:00

I am posting way early because I am sad and didn’t go anywhere for Spring Break (but if I finish all work in the first half, I can relax and fool around the second half!)

So, I was very excited to see the article about Michael Jackson and Thriller, because I was obsessed with that album, song, video, all through my childhood (my sisters and I made up dozens of dance routines and little plays to “Thriller” alone). The first thing that struck me about the article was just how prophetic it was. Mercer writes, sometime in the late 80s, about how his sexual ambiguity, his efforts to look more white, his mental instability, and his child-like demeanor that “has culminated in the construction of a Peter Pan figure.” All of these initial suspicions have since developed in ways Mercer probably could not have imagined – Neverland ranch, the multiple molestation charges, and the crazy amounts of disfiguring plastic surgery.

The article also inspired me to watch the “Thriller” video in its entirety for the first time in probably ten years. After reconnecting with its awesomeness, I saw the gender codifying Mercer describes. What I found interesting when watching was all the ways in which the proprieties and expectations of romantic courting and gender roles were represented. The opening film within the film, which Mercer talks about, that places them within the 1950s morality, demanding that the girl be coy and the boy be the respectful initiator. This is demonstrated in the way she asks “so, what are we gonna do now” instead of just saying what’s on her mind, and when he very politely asks her “to be his girl.” Then comes the line “I’m not like other guys,” Mercer discusses at length, signifying to the girl and the audience, that he is not overly masculine, sexualized, aggressive, or disrespectful. But then as it turns out he is the werewolf, which is all of those things as it makes her into the victim.

What is even more interesting is when it steps into the contemporary time, which is assumed to be more realistic and liberated, but the roles stay the same. She is scared and leaves the theater, signaling her weakness and passivity, and he comes out to walk her home and protect her from whatever could come out. But as the rest of the video proves and the lyrics of the song, he is still in the possession of the monstrous, aggressive sexuality. When he is in the polite (sexual urges repressed) mode he embodies the regular Michael, but when he is in sexual pursuit (in actions or the song lyrics which I never before realized were sexual) he becomes the monster (werewolf or zombie) attacking the girl (victim). This is even in the very last scene when he nicely offers to take her home and since this connotates the possibility of some action, he looks back with the monster eyes. To me this doesn’t show that male sexuality is monstrous, but that the forced occupation of gender roles, respectful initiator and coy, and sexual roles, aggressive pursuer and chased victim, can have some scary consequences.

Pre-Spring Break Irony...

2008-03-13T13:51:00.001-07:00

So I'm not sure what to make of the fact that my mom emailed me this...today. It was under the subject line, "Ultimate Redneck Mansion"...

In addition, in response to the discussions we had today about the correlations between Elvis and Britney, I now find this image extremely disturbing...

Enjoy your Spring Break everyone! See you in 2 weeks!

mini Elvis

2008-03-13T10:03:00.000-07:00

My son as Elvis, circa 2003....

Reading Response #2

2008-03-12T22:50:00.000-07:00

Mainstream White Trash.

Sweeney's article about Elvis and White Trash culture gave me a greater understanding of Elvis, his popularity and legendary status in today's world. The explanations that he gave concerning White Trash culture was all to real. I felt bad for myself because I can remember seeing people that match his exact descriptions! Living in Texas and now Colorado has given me a Southern perspective of white trash in the South, but also the migration of the ideals and rituals of the originally Southern based culture. Last week's movie was the first time I had ever seen more than short clips of hips gyrating from Elvis Presley. I had never really had any interest in him, and blashphamey to the spiritual impersonators. The comparing of Elvis and Bill Clinton and Rosanne had me absolutely confused, but after his further examination, they all really did seem to fit together in meeting the desires of the public. I believe that is what makes a star become iconic and larger than life, when they hit the right cord in the mass' desires. This is part of the reason why stars fade, some quicker than others, because the desires of society change. The time when Elvis was alive was a time when the marginalized became the center of attention, as contradictory as that really is. As Sweeney discussed, he dealt with race, sex, rock 'n roll, war, and eventually drugs and excess. All of these things were the issues that society faced in the fifties, sixties and seventies. Now, his image and icon have shifted. In his death, he is viewed as a symbol and embodiment of the marginalized becoming important and a point of focus. Most people do not dress up in white jumpsuits with big jewels and belt buckles anymore, but there are still people who want to express themselves and be outside of the social norms. Elvis' image as morphed over time into representing those types of people since he first became a star.

I would also like to thank the Leavey staff for helping me get my account working again so that I could bring you this post!

Star Sighting...or, Meeting.

2008-03-12T20:30:00.000-07:00

I intern three days a week at Sony Pictures in their creative advertising department and since they are doing the trailer/poster for "Pineapple Express" (a Seth Rogen/James Franco action movie about weed), I got to meet James Franco and watch him re-record some of his lines for the green-band trailer. Basically, I have been a huge fan of Franco for years so I think I'm still comprehending the fact that I even met him! It was interesting because he looked really different than normal...he had reddish hair and a brown mustache, a look I've never seen on him before. It was almost unrecognizable. That probably helped because I think I would have been much more starstruck had he looked like he does in all his movies. Besides the fact that I'm a big fan of his, I was really excited that I actually got to see him work. He did dialogue recording in a sound booth while we watched. He was really funny, somewhat quiet, and seemed very chill (although he was about 40 minutes late arriving at the vendor). The only thing I was surprised about though was that he had an assistant. He didn't strike me as someone who would have one, for some reason, maybe because he seems very laid back. Either way, it was definitely the best part about my internship thus far and he is one person that I never ever thought I would meet!!

Another Reading Response

2008-03-11T23:16:00.000-07:00

Honestly, I never really thought of Elvis as white trash. Gaudy, yes. Flamboyant, unquestionably so. But white trash? Maybe its because I never thought of white trashness as being a subculture; I thought it was more of a stereotype.

I also thought of Elvis, especially during his heyday, as extremely masculine, too, because of the images of thousands of girls fawning and fainting over him. Sweeney’s article argues that white trash masculinity, which must only be applicable to Elvis’ later years, is based in a ‘castrated aesthetic,’ where men attempt to compensate for their lacking social status by ‘collect[ing] junk and show[ing] it off.’ So, Elvis, ‘the king’ himself, is considered emasculated?

While Sweeney’s stereotypical definition of white trash is NOT, in my opinion, applicable to Elvis’ entire career or persona, her discussion of the relationship between black and white trash culture does seem relevant. Elvis did successfully exploit the black culture that he experienced while growing up in the slums, as is evident in his musical style. Elvis’ poor upbringing did marginalize him from society, thereby putting him on the same level as blacks, who constantly live on the outside of southern society. But does his seamless blending of black and white music make him white trash or revolutionary? Does living as a social outcast imply white-trashness?

Elvis’ overt sexuality is also apparently a characteristic of white trashness because of the close association of black culture (which is associated with sexuality because of their link to slavery and hard labor) to the white trash ‘subculture.’ Personally, I think Elvis’ overt sexuality is a reaction to the explosion of Freudian psychology following WWII and the sexual repression of the conformist 1950’s. Elvis capitalized on sexuality in order to sell a persona, which, in my opinion, is not a white trash characteristic, though people tend to associate ‘white trash’ individuals with ‘inbreeding, degeneracy, and criminality.’

So in conclusion, I think this article was founded on a flaw: ‘white trashness’ is a stereotype, not a subculture. Sweeney liberally reinforces prejudices with false notions cultural collateral, and unfairly tags Elvis as the idol of white trash. I am forced to admit, I suppose, that Elvis’ late eccentricity could be associated with this stereotype, but I think its unfair to undermine his revolutionary career with notions of emasculation and social alienation.

Reading Response #2

2008-03-11T21:46:00.000-07:00

I was fascinated by Sweeney's article on "White Trash" (in fact, I couldn't help but read excerpts of it to my friend)! The references to the Carnival culture and the Northern elitist's who condemn it immediately brought to mind the irony of the middle class intellectual's appreciation for Shakespeare. When Shakespeare's plays were first performed at London's Globe Theatre in the late 16th/early 17th centuries, the audience that stood around the stage were notorious for their "carnival" behavior. People drank, spat, yelled at the actors, danced, sang, and (in some accounts) partook in sexual acts during the performances. Prostitutes lined the bank of the Thames in front of the theatre and pubs and caverns were full of drunk Englishmen and women. The performances themselves were influenced by the energy of the rowdy audience. The way these performances have been described to me, they were much like Dionysian festivals, or a "celebration of collected bodies" (Sweeney, 255). This atmosphere is a far distance from the often stale, tedious Shakespearean performances that can be seen in regional theatres throughout the United States. Having grown up seeing Shakespeare's plays at the Guthrie Theatre in Minneapolis (the best patron endowed theatre in the United States), I can't imagine the predominantly white, middle class, baby-boomer audience having any appreciation for how the plays were originally performed. I would watch in frustration as parts of the show that were written to be explicitly sexual were smoothed over in a bland, poetic fashion that had nothing to do with the author's original intention. It is as though (much like Elvis), Shakespeare's works have been assimilated into elitist American culture on their own terms. I think this assimilation can be seen throughout American culture. The liberal middle class can accept the gay couple who move in next door and spend their time throwing neighborhood bbqs and landscaping, but resist and condemn the gay culture that thrives in urban centers. The middle class seems to accept all things that are de-sexualized, be it Elvis, Shakespeare, or homosexuality. It appears that the middle class's bodily struggle (referred to by Sweeney) has chosen power and discipline as opposed to evasion and liberation. This can be seen in many aspects of our society.

Star Sighting

2008-03-11T19:55:00.000-07:00

I had a friend in town who is from the East Coast. He had read that "all the celebrities go to Newsroom Cafe" and insisted that I take him there when he arrived for his visit to Los Angeles. Though initially disappointed by the lack of actual "glitter" associated with the spot (and its location across the street from The Ivy on Robertson), he still tried to see past the sunglasses and baseball caps to identify a celebrity. As we sat outside and ordered our incredibly expensive (though delicious) meal, Rachel Zoe (or as Perez Hilton calls her, "Raisin Face") walked into the restaurant and toward the bathroom. I had heard of her (embarrassingly enough) from Perezhilton.com, and knew that she was the stylist for a number of celebrities including Jennifer Garner, Mischa Barton, Nicole Richie, and Lindsey Lohan. I have to say, her notoriously sour demeanor was apparent as she walked in a seemingly angry huff toward the ladies room past a hostess who initially asked her if she would like to be seated. Her size shocked me. She was a tiny woman (I've heard she suggests her clients take Aderol or, shockingly, horse tranquilizers to stay slim) and was an orange tan. After her bathroom stint she walked, head down, abruptly out of the restaurant. For some reason, my overall feeling after this sighting was to think "I hate LA." Hmmm...

Thai Elvis

2008-03-11T18:41:00.000-07:00

For those of you interested in the cultural significance and influence of Elvis, you don't need to travel to Graceland or Vegas -- just take a trip to Palms Thai restaurant, where you can hear Thai Elvis perform. He's got the hips, the hair, and the oh-so-fabulous outfits down, not to mention his spot-on imitation of all of Elvis' vocal inflections when he sings. This place is not to be missed...

Reading Response #4: Historical Truth and Popular Media

2008-03-11T17:18:00.000-07:00

How appropriate that in the week of our take-home midterm on Dyer and cultural contradictions, we read about the King - the King of cultural contradictions that is. Sweeney and Spigel describe an icon that is both "a saint and a sinner"; a Demerol-addicted drug enforcer for Nixon, a sex-driven Gospel singer, a White Trash pop icon, and one of the most popular stars in America, who was never quite accepted in the "in crowd."

Spigel focuses on one aspect of the King's fame - his impersonators. She calls them the “holders of unofficial history” who comment back on the "confusion and alienation of our time." They embody popular memory, opposed to historical truth. This dichotomy between historical truth and popular memory is introduced on p. 180 and developed throughout the article. Whereas popular memory is defined by its multiplicity and subjectivity, historical truth is based upon a linear, black/white presentation. However, as I understand it, I don't think this delineation is accurate. Popular memory has that same sense of linearity and black/white fact as historical truth. Imagine if an Elvis impersonator were to show up in a tailored suit asserting that Elvis was, at heart, a businessman. This history of Elvis would not be permissible. Other impersonators and fans would question this depiction asking for proof or any type of evidence. They would challenge this depiction by looking at the multiple other impersonations, all of whom seem to resemble one another thereby affirming that their majority depiction of the King must be accurate, must be “the truth.” It is popular history (even more so than historical truth) that has a clear desire of answering "what really happened." American’s obsession with autobiographies, celebrity blogs, even a very class like ours that sets to understand and dissect celebrity personas are all attempts to get to the "truth." So I think to say that popular memory embraces multiple versions or interpretations of the past is incorrect - we are all still striving to embrace the one "true" story of the past. Subjectivity and multiplicity do not define popular memory, they complicate it. Do you think this is true, or do you feel that popular memory is in fact more subjective than historical truth?

Also, just a few other questions to consider that arose with the readings (perhaps we can talk about them in class):
- Sweeney mentions forms of White Trash that are accepted by mainstream (and even upper-class) audiences, what are the characteristics that make this transition possible?
- impersonators legitimize their act by having seen Elvis perform, does this mean impersonators will cease to exist once the current generation of impersonators (the last one to see Elvis perform) die? how can post-1950s fans legitimize an impersonation other than watching his films?
- Spigel asserts that Elvis impersonation mirrors religion through identification and over-identification with Elvis/God, gender hierarchy, etc., how do cults fit into this comparison?

Little girl's all grown up...

2008-03-11T17:17:00.000-07:00

Is anyone else seriously disturbed by the type of media attention Miley Cyrus receives? Not all of the media attention, but the content of it? Just today, on perezhilton.com, she was the face to the headline "STD's Rife Among American U.S. Teenage Girls," in which Perez goes on to refer to her as a skank. Seriously, an adult man writing an internet blog about the sex life of a fifteen-year-old -- usually this is the stuff we hear about on "To Catch a Predator," but because she's a star, it's okay? I love my celebrity gossip, Us Weekly is my guilty pleasure, and I have very little sympathy for stars who whine about the paparazzi chasing them -- most of them have their managers notify the papparazzi as to where they'll be, just so they can stay photographed and relevant -- but when it comes to the way female child stars are being written about and perceived, it creeps me out. Back when Ryan Gosling and Britney Spears were on the Disney channel, they dressed like kids, acted like kids, and were mostly watched by kids. We never saw them wearing Valentino to the Oscars -- they got to be child stars, for child viewers. What message are we sending to the little girls who worship her as Hannah Montana, but then see her befriending train-wreck Lindsay Lohan, wearing couture, and sporting loads of make-up and dyed hair? What is the hurry to thrust this young girl into the world of adults? Let her get her driver's license first, maybe even reach the old age of eighteen before speculating on her sex life, Pervy Perez.

Reading Response to Sweeney's White Trash Article

2008-03-11T14:25:00.000-07:00

To start, I had a very difficult time taking this article seriously. Whether that is because my brain is fried due to a work overload or because I simply disagree, the verdict is still out. Coming from a small farm town in Southern Illinois with 500 people, you can trust that I know all about white trash, or at least the stereotypes attributed. In high school, we even had “drive your tractor to school” days, in which they allowed John Deere tractors to be parked on the practice football field. Our mascot was the Midget, and Confederate flags decorated bedrooms, car bumpers, and t-shirts. I had never associated Elvis with white trash before reading this article, and despite being to Graceland once as a child, I really only associated the place with being haunted.

Sweeney’s argument around White Trash to me sounds completely outlandish. It reminds me of a lecture Todd Boyd once gave when speaking about Eminem. He mentions that in some cases, rap and hip-hop are not race-defined, but rather class defined. He gives Eminem as an example because Eminem grew up in projects and rapped about poverty. It’s this that allows him to be respected in the industry more than other rappers who may have grown up more privileged. As for Elvis, since he grew up in a more impoverished area as well, and borrowed from black music and dance, he was widely accepted by whites and blacks alike.

I guess the closest thing we have to an Elvis could be Britney. She’s commonly refered to as white trash with her shoe-less gas station stops, cheeto addiction, and gum chewing. In addition, it looks like she’s got a tragic ending in store just as Elvis did. What does this say about people coming from the impoverished people in the south who essentially go from rags to riches? What does this say about our society in general after such cases of social mobility causing tragedy? I find it all very interesting, yet I still see this as an issue of class in America, not race. Thoughts?

B-List Celebrities aren't worth it

2008-03-10T01:17:00.000-07:00

This entry will be short because I am actually taking a break from working on the midterm, BUT I thought I would share that I recently experienced an interesting celebrity sighting and even more interesting social observation from it. I was at Winston's the other night, a popular bar in West Hollywood, when I noticed John Cho (Harold & Kumar Series), sitting in the corner at a VIP table with a friend. NO ONE was paying attention to him whatsoever, and I suppose thats how it should be, he is just a normal person, living a normal life and wants to socialize on a normal Friday night. Later on that evening I get a bbm (instant message for blackberry customers) from a girlfriend of mine wanting to know if Winton's is "poppin", at this point, there are a lot of people so I tell her to come over. She and and another friend of ours arrives and greet us to which she informs us she needs to make the rounds to see if she knows anyone here. She comes back empty handed, takes one more glance around and rudely lets us know she has to stop by some other places before the night is over. Now mind you, this is a girl who loves to see and be seen. She rates a place by who is there if there is a chance of rubbing shoulders with someone famous, I'm sure in desperate hopes some male celebrity will fall in love with her and she will get to live the life of lights and glamor. Apparently, John Cho was not important enough for her or for that matter anyone else in the bar. I find this interesting: what makes a celebrity get that allure? Being Crazy? Punching Paparazzi? I mean, this guy didn't even have the paparazzi tailing him, yet he is in one of the biggest modern youth/stoner cult films ever. What reminded me about this whole incident was I at the magazine stand and he happened to be on the cover of something, I forget what publication specifically it was, but something of a household name. Ironic? I think so.