Week 4 Readings (Core Post #2)

This week, I was fascinated in reading Charles Eckert's essay on stars' fashions and their influence over consumer society. Today, a lot is said about how we are becoming an increasingly consumerist culture that finds happiness in material things like never before. Almost everything today is an advertisement and we are constantly being drawn in and manipulated by them. Eckert's essay really opened my eyes because I never realized how similar consumers are today to consumers 50 or 60 years ago and that Hollywood's influence on consumerism was embedded early on in the Hollywood system. For example, I was completely unaware of such early product placement and star/brand name tie-ins. I know that today, many television shows are terrible when it comes to product placement to the point where it almost feels like a 30 minute or hour long advertisement (perhaps among the worst are One Tree Hill and a slew of reality shows including America's Next Top Model). It is at the point where shows look like they are not even trying to hide product placement anymore. Also, I was at first surprised when Eckert said that products were often integrated in a script and that sometimes products were designed specifically for a film, however, I realized that this is still the case today and it continues to surprise me how invested filmmakers and/or studios are in tying films and other products together. Also, the way Eckert puts it, it sounds like product placement was more of a trend in the early days when it began. However, whenever I or any of my friends see product placement in a movie or TV show we roll our eyes and protest. Today I think product placement has become tacky and is almost like selling out. It makes me think that the show or film needed the extra bucks so they called Apple and placed an iPhone in Chad Michael Murray's hand.

The most astonishing part of the essay to me was when Eckert discussed how Bernard Waldman's company would receive sketches or photographs of a star's film costume and create trends based on those outfits. This surprised me a lot because this is not as common today and it seems as though it should be since we are already so invested in stars. However, I think this is a result of early audiences’ interest in a star’s character that exceeds our interests with a star’s character today (However, I wasn’t aware of what Veronica said in her previous post about Gossip Girl, I think it’s really fascinating that you can purchase the clothes worn on the show so easily!). Practically copying clothes off of a star's costume is like becoming the star herself and it allows the buyer to become a star or a certain kind of person for a day and perhaps fulfill a dream of success and wealth. I read somewhere that Entourge has its own clothing line for men and women called AG. When I heard that I actually thought it was a bit strange because I had never heard of something like it before and did not understand why they would make a clothing line for a TV show in the first place. But, if you think about it, Entourage is a show about a famous movie star, Vincent Chase. The concept is very intertextual and in turn makes buying a pair of AG’s jeans important because Vincent Chase wears them and he is famous within the world of the show. And, on top of that, the jeans are worn on a very popular hit TV show. The jeans are practically tailor made to “look” hip and Hollywood. If you are a girl, you want to wear something that the movie stars portrayed on the show would think is hot. However, I think the reason why we may not see as much of this today as in the early days is because today, people may be more interested in creating "individual identities" and I feel like wearing something that copies a show may be going against that.

Overall, I feel that the copying of many stars’ costumes in the 1930s has faded out and in its place comes the novelty of designer clothing and accessories. Because stars in films today usually wear what can be viewed as "normal" or "everyday" clothes, fans can turn to the red carpet gowns and designer bags that stars are photographed with. Instead of a fascination with the clothing of the star's character, we are now obsessed with the clothing of the star him/herself. Strange and unexplainable fads have emerged from the Hollywood elite that take over the fashion industry and eventually filter down to more affordable and less expensive commercial stores. For example, there was a sudden pirate fad last year in which many stars were photographed wearing skulls and crossbones or the like on their shirts, hats, or scarves. Eventually, stores like H&M were turning out tank tops and such with pirate related things on them (I admit to owning one). I think it’s interesting how we desire and strive for the extremely expensive designer clothing that stars wear and how the fashion industry recognizes this and knows how to cater to our needs. In a sense, it is like recreating a star’s costume in the 1930s, it just happens to be the star’s actual clothes that we tend to copy.

I want to note what Eckert said about many of the stars' fashions of the 1930s being very costly and therefore only readily available to the wealthy. Today, not only have trends trickled down the commercial line and become available for reasonable prices, but stars themselves have made a trend out of making their own clothing lines. Jennifer Lopez, Sarah Jessica Parker, Gwen Stefani, and Amanda Bynes are only a few that have started their own lines for fans and "ordinary" people. In doing this, I think stars may be trying to emphasize that you do not need to be rich to look like a celebrity or to be fashionable; you can still look great for a good price. These stars are in turn showing their fans and the public that they are just like us and that they also like and look for good prices. This makes me wonder whether the stars may in part do this because they believe that their fans want to connect with them on a more personal level. But, do we really want stars to be like us? Or, do we actually like putting them on a pedestal?

As a side note, I was interested in what Dyer said about the fact that all the beliefs and hopes surrounding the star system are all based on the assumption that success is worth having. And furthermore, I wonder, does success mean the same thing to everyone? How does each individual interpret success? In whose eyes are stars even successful? Do stars get put on a pedestal and their lives become important because we think that is what success looks like?

(By the way, in my last post I titled it Week 2 Readings, it was actually in response to Week 3 Readings, sorry!)

Core Reading Response #1, Week 4

This week, I was particularly interested in Charles Eckert’s article on Hollywood films’ influence over fashion trends and sales. I am interested in fashion, and I like to pay attention to current trends, whether they are clothing styles, popular colors, or the latest must have accessory. I find that the easiest way to get this information is in weekly celebrity magazines, or in current television shows. US Weekly, for example, always has a section on what color dress was popular with celebs, and In Touch often has a list of what’s “in” and what’s “out.” Television shows (when they’re new, that is) are a great way to see current trends. Gossip Girl, for example, has just recently started several trends, most notably Blair and Serena’s ubiquitous headbands, knee socks with high heels, and mini skirts. In fact, when watching online at thecw.com, they have pictures of the clothes the characters are wearing in the scene, which you can click on and purchase. Of course Sex and the City was the most remarkable of the trend-starting TV shows, with Carrie bringing back the nameplate necklace, wearing a tutu, and introducing thousands of viewers to Manolo Blahnick shoes. After reading about the stores like Cinema Fashions, I thought about the equivalent now; there really isn’t an exact one, but I think that stores like H&M and Topshop’s lines of celebrity designed clothing are getting close, or at least working off of the same general idea of “real people” wanting clothes celebrities wear.

I also thought that it was interesting that product placement worked basically the same way as it does now. I will admit that the extent of my knowledge about product placement comes from one class in Intro to TV and a few episodes of 30 Rock, but from what I know it seems like the system hasn’t really changed that much. There are still celebrities that represent specific items, like Jennifer Aniston’s unofficial endorsement of Smart Water, as well as celebrities who are models for different clothing lines, like Patrick Dempsy for Versace. There are also a lot of tie-ins on TV shows: Snapple on 30 Rock (even though they’re poking fun at themselves) and a bunch of different products on all of Bravo’s reality shows.

What do you think it is about our society that makes us want to follow celebrities in everything they do, whether by reading about them, dressing like them, eating like them, or driving like them? I think it’s the same basic instinct that makes me, at least, compulsively check celebrity gossip sites. I admit that it may not be healthy, but it’s become such the norm in our society. I hardly know anyone who doesn’t keep up with celebrity news, and I’m sure anyone, if asked, could provide an example of a celebrity tie-in. Our culture is very consumer-based, especially now that the internet makes purchasing so simple. I don’t know if this is an applicable topic for this class, but I feel that the United States is more extreme in its consumerism than almost any other country, and I wonder why? Is it because Hollywood started us on that path 80-something years ago?

Star Sighting

Hey everyone! So, this past weekend I was at a Coffee Bean my friend all of the sudden pointed out to me that Brittany Snow was ordering a drink. My friend was all excited that see had seen a star, but I'll I could say back to her was "hey, now I have something to write in my class blog!" Well, from this point on, my friend watched the door endlessly, hoping another star would walk in. My friend wanted more stories to talk about at the party she was to attend that evening(but she made an excuse about trying to find stars for me to write about). Her constant stare made me realize that by seeing and having a close interaction with a star, it somehow gives her the upper hand when in a social situation. She could impress people with her story and start discussions with her friends because everyone loves to gossip, especially about celebrities that we hear about all the time, such as what we did our first day of class. Stars are such a huge influence in our culture, so it is only natural that we should want to brag when we see or meet a "familiar" face.

Hollywood.. or High School?

As I was reading Dyer's chapter on star types, I was not thinking about Hollywood, but high school. It’s a connection that I found telling, humorous, and worthy of a Reading Response. While Dyer cites problems with Klapp's types, I found them both true and useful. After all, it is with these very types that we define ourselves in high school. You become "the jock," "the nerd," "the prom queen," "the class clown" (just look at The Breakfast Club!). Just as with stars, we pigeonhole both ourselves and one another into these types so as better to understand one another. A tangible manifestation of these types are year-end superlatives - my high school gave out awards for "Best All Around," "Most Likely to Succeed," "Best Smile." This is similar to the first chapter of Dyer's about stars as superstars (Morin's Olympiens). We constantly define stars (or they try to define themselves) as the sexiest in the world or the richest, always attempting to reach that categorical top.

These characteristics - types and superlatives - define both high school and Hollywood. The fact that such similarities exist in these two worlds demonstrates a characteristic of the audience. In fact, I think the existence of types says something more about the way we, the audience, interact with and construct star images, rather than studios. Just as we categorize and prioritize our roles in high school, we categorize and prioritize the stars of Hollywood. So why do we do this? Why do create types for ourselves, and then project these types onto the stars of Hollywood? I think it is in part due to the convenience of these actions as shorthand in understanding people. Pegging someone means you don't have to spend as much time getting to know them; you already have their basic characteristics figured out (“the jock” will be athletic, unintelligent, determined; “the nerd” will be smart, socially awkward, easily intimidated; etc.). Also, relating Hollywood to a world we are already familiar with allows us to better understand it. With Hollywood as an extension of high school with types that we already know and accept, we can better understand a world that is in actuality quite foreign.

Why do you think types exist – both in high school and in Hollywood? What is our obsession with creating and even reaffirming these types?

Reading Response Week 4

My guilty celebrity-obsessed website is Oh No They Didn’t.  When perusing it this morning, it occurred to me how many of the celebrities mentioned on the page were not film stars.  The page is bombarded with images of musicians, models, socialites—even Larry King got a post—which begs the question, what is it about film stars today that don’t seem to attract the attention they used to? 

 

Richard Dyer says that celebrities appeal to the public’s fascination with their extraordinary qualities, but are comforted by their everydayness.  Do contemporary celebrities still maintain this balance?  Are celebrities as glamorous or as ‘normal’ as they used to be?  Are Dyer’s celebrity images, the good joe, the tough guy, the pin-up, the rebel, and the independent woman, applicable to contemporary celebrities?  My first instinct is to say no; with the latest obsession with drug-users and clubbers (think: Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse, the Olsen Twins…), clearly celebrity status is more publicity-driven instead of promotion-driven as it was for stars during the golden years. While clearly the star system has mutated since Dyer wrote and published his book, I still wonder what categories celebrities are now put into.

 

Regardless, celebrities are still celebrities for the same reason: they represent the attainment of some twisted version of the American Dream.  I guess it just follows suit that as the American Dream mutates, so does our star system.  Cinema has failed to dominate the entertainment industry of late, which explains the growing population of non-actors in the celebrity realm.  Perhaps the so-called American Dream is more fairly represented by reality-TV stars and celebutants—those who didn’t have to actually work for fame and fortune—in a society that seems overwhelmed by get-rich-quick schemes and America’s Next so-and-so TV show contests.  

 

My biggest concern with the reading for this week is the lack of film stars in the celebrity market, when clearly they were the cause of mass stardom during the studio system.  Are film stars no longer as powerful publicity machines because they have to actually work for a living?  When did film stars just become actors?

Team Britney

I love Britney Spears. Really, I do. Because even with her shaved head and refusal to wear shoes at gas stations, she will always be the person who brought the world “Baby One More Time,” “Toxic”, and the entire Blackout album (which more people need to recognize as a work of staggering genius considering the fact that BRITNEY SPEARS recorded an album in 2007). Which is why I feel like the world’s biggest hypocrite because I am one of the millions who have pushed her into near-insanity by constantly reading and commenting on news about her. Even worse, I’m one of the thousands who owns one of the very blogs that thrive on the downward spiral of the biggest pop star of my generation.

I helped create Britney Spears and am subsequently destroying her because it is within the audience’s power to do so to any star. A person remains a star so long as he or she is relevant to the public because we are, after all, the ones who are watching. And Britney Spears has certainly done a great job of staying relevant since she first came out in 1998 but that relevancy has moved from revolving around her artistic accomplishments to any and all of her decisions in her private (or really, public) life. We created Britney Spears because we continued to listen to her music and we are ruining her because we continue to go to Perez to get an update of her in a hospital or to write a post about how much change she put in the parking meter.

Britney is making all of her own decisions—there is no question there. But to assume no responsibility for why she might be acting the way she does is questionable. Obviously, in general, people are accountable only for themselves. But this isn’t general—this is the world of celebrity where the actions of millions of people who thrive on the overexposure of one person can have an effect. There is a general lack of accountability even on the part of the stars (which is perhaps best summed up in Lindsay Lohan’s statement that the “pants weren’t mine” when she was caught drunk driving with a bag of coke in her pocket). But we, the audience, also need to be held accountable because without an audience, there is no celebrity.

I know that this comes off as hypocritical because I’m a blogger but I also know that if Britney were to die tomorrow, as many are claiming and/or hoping, I would feel responsible. It’s one thing to become famous and suddenly be in the unique position of being in the spotlight. It’s another thing to become famous and suddenly have the entire world examining your every action and judging nearly every aspect of your existence.

I think that what is happening to Britney Spears parallels Michael Jackson. You’d be hard-pressed to find many people who can deal with being the most famous, powerful and watched person in the world, let alone many 17-year-old girls without a strong family or education who could handle that kind of fame in a “good” way. And while most people recognized what happened with Michael Jackson as a sad, even tragic example of the pitfalls of fame, we still continue to latch onto Britney, discussing all that’s wrong with her while never once considering what we might be doing wrong.

my celebrity news obsession

I got to work this morning and, as with all mornings, I turned on the computer, checked my email, and automatically started typing the web address for facebook. It didn't matter that I was at work and had other things to do, I wasn't even thinking about what I was doing. After getting my fill of mindlessly looking at other peoples' profiles and events, I started to type in perezhilton. I really didn't have the time, or desire, to look, but again, I wasn't consciously doing it. After looking at the latest news, including Britney stuff I really don't care about at all, I started to think about what I had done. I think that the same basic instinct drove both of my website choices. I will admit it, I like looking at people. I wouldn't say I'm particularly nosy, but I am usually the person people come to to find out information about who's doing what, whether it's with high school friends, people at USC, or celebrity news. I think that facebook is the gossip website for non-celebrities, and so my obsession with celebrity news websites is the natural extension of my facebook habit. I definitely think we, as a culture, like to know about peoples' personal lives, and the fact that we have easy access to previously private information about celebrities' lives is what makes the gossip website such an overwhelming success.

Also, as a somewhat unrelated comment, I was reading an article about Rachel Zoe from the NY Times in September (an activity fueled by perez's distaste for her, of course) and she said something that I actually thought was pretty interesting. She was talking about how she had taken Nicole Richie and made her into a star through her styling, and said that "The nature of what, or who, is a celebrity has expanded. We aren't saving lives here, but we are creating images, and images create opportunities in a lot of areas." I thought that was pertinent to our discussion on how certain people have become celebrities. She was also talking about how someone so talented like Nicole Kidman has much less influence than Nicole Richie, who has arguably no talent whatsoever. It was maybe the first time I ever thought Rachel Zoe (who, by the way, sent back her steamed vegetables in Paris because there was sauce next to them on the plate) had said something worthwhile, so I thought it was noteworthy.