Reading Response #2: Week 3

For the focus of this reading response, I have chosen our first article, “Seeking Stars” by Janet Staiger. (Gledhill, 3-17) Staiger discusses at great length the tireless battle between the various film producers for publicity to distinguish themselves in the developing market. In this battle, actors became the main (and, in hindsight, the longest lasting) institution for film advertising. As the article explains, companies promoted the actors to a celebrity status through advertisements and even the beginnings of producing a star persona through the media. What moral implications are there (if any) in the literal commoditization of people (actors) as sellable products for the price of an admission ticket?

While all of this is interesting and pertinent to understanding how stars came to exist, it is Staiger’s interaction with the why it worked that is most telling of the system. Had it not been for the success of films as a business investment for its early entrepreneurs, the star system would never have sustained for as long as it has. The system was able to gain momentum by using its early revenues to draw the talent of its players. As Staiger wrote, “the timing of that exploitation [the promotion of star personas] is related to the current economic conditions in both film and theater.” (10) It is in the interest of the market to foster competition and alternative services which is precisely what the individualized hype of actors served to do for the film industry. So, it might also be argued that the star system grew out of a particularly fervent moment in the rise of the American capitalist economy (during its Golden Age). But why did this method succeed? What cultural value did the concept of stardom feed to receive such a welcome audience?

Generally, the arguments that we have come across recognize the mid-19th century theater as having the first “stars” and thus being the first to “need” such an outlet. I wonder, though, if this is a contemporary issue or an inane sociological/psychological desire. Perhaps stardom is something that has had many different incarnations whether it was the idea of “courtly love” in the Medieval Era or the athletic champions of the Greek Olympics. What would it be that we seek in such an idolization? Granted, these examples lack an important characteristic, a ubiquitous cultural presence, which, from this vantage point, seems to have only been filled by mythological figures or royalty. Could it be a modern construction in reaction to a perceived loss of culture (in a unified religion, mythology, etc.)? Can we explain it as a human “need” (as seen in Dyer last week) if it is a new development? If not, what can we infer about contemporary culture/society that would explain the seemingly sudden obsession with unfamiliar people?

Olivia Everett

Week 3 Response: From Hiding Names to Praying For Them to be Noticed!

In this week’s deCordova reading, Harry S. Northup’s reasoning for working in cinema and never returning to theatre is hilarious juxtaposed with the world of cinema today (pg 27). Staiger’s article explained the early world of cinema in a similar vein using phrases such as “the moral healthiness of cinema (14).” Yet by the time I got to Hansen’s article on the male star Valentino who starred in 14 films between 1921 and 1926 (261), the discussion of cinema already had turned to what dominates the industry today – sexuality, desire, the gaze. It is for this reason that I am choosing to focus this response on deCordova and Staiger’s articles; the young, innocent cinema they write about is so different than cinema today.

Staiger’s article focuses mainly on the history of how stars came into household conversation and deCordova starts right up where that article left off and presents his view on how that actor/presenter/one who poses transitioned from a hidden name to a family icon. By the time the discourse of acting (1907) had been surpassed by the picture personality (1909) which was finally morphed into the star (1914), early cinema actor’s names were advertised. It is understandable why actors would have been ok with it at that time – cinema, as supported by Mr. Northup’s description of the work schedule, was viewed as family oriented.

Now the industry is notorious for destroying families but the actors are more desperate than ever to put their name in the spotlight. Personally, I feel I would constantly be on the defense if I was a well-known actress – defending that I am humble, an honest person, a hard worker, devoted to my loved ones, and even sober. With such negative stigmas so easily attached to the star of today, why are people as drawn as ever to being one? Judging by what Mr Northup wrote about theater (which now pertains to film), “not on your life (27)” would he be in a film today. Has there been a change in values of American society? What if Mr. Northup had been born in 1985? Well if he wanted a relatively unexposed life and a noble career, he would probably be a theatre actor. As the cinema image shifted one way, theatre (according to Mr. Northup's account on 27) went the opposite direction - a serious, not-as-scandalous profession.

Do you think aspiring ‘stars’ (not lovers of acting itself, but of fame) have poor values? What do you think it is that they truly desire (the money, the image, the sex)?

Reading Response #2 (Week 3)

To me, the most interesting aspects of this week’s reading were those that drew parallels to the star system and consumption that exists today. Staiger and deCordova in particular highlight the foundation for the existence of stars, and their observations call to attention that while stardom is elusive and impossible to create or force, it is absolutely an element of business or commerce like any other, only with a glamorous face in front of it.

Previously, I considered the birth of the star system to be as sensational and intangible as the stars themselves; however, Staiger’s article clearly indicates that it was a business maneuver that came along with the birth of film. It was surprising, but not entirely unexpected, to read that Carl Laemmle began promoting actors’ names and images along with the films in order to remain competitive with the Patents Trust. The similarities in his modes of promotion struck me as the groundwork for the promotion of celebrities today; then, it was “trade photographs, slides, posters in lobbies, ‘star post cards’ and fan magazines. Today, it is all of that and more: appearances on late night talk shows, tabloids, even “celebrity” reality television, like “Dancing with the Stars,” or “Celebrity Poker Showdown.” We see further evidence of the star commerce in the foreign sales of movies; often, films are financed based on pre-selling in a foreign territory, where stars essentially have a number on their head, as related to how much they are worth at the box office and in DVD sales. Stardom is not just for the sake of satiating viewers’ curiosity, but rather as a mode of commerce to bring in more money for the film.

deCordova’s discussion of the three predominant forms of knowledge regarding the “picture personality,” however, struck a cord with me as being the antithesis to stardom today. Most noteworthy, the circulation of a name; deCordova acknowledges many film actors’ fear that associating their name with the “lower class” film industry would damage their artistic stage careers. Furthermore, the identification of an actor was strictly with that of the character in the film, and the character’s personality was associated with the actor, as opposed to who he was in real life. Finally, the viewers’ understanding of an actor’s personality was limited to and derived from the actor’s professional experience; there was no scope beyond that of the films the actor had been in before.

This summation of the “picture personality” struck me as more relevant to today’s notion of the character actor, who’s name we may not associate with the face we see onscreen, (in fact, we may not even know the face), and yet, we are familiar with that actor because he seems to play the same “type” in every film. Stars, on the other hand, rely on their name to have a successful career. In fact, the name has become part of the business jargon – in the movie business, you don’t get a greenlight to make your movie until you have a “name” actor attached. Actors also fuel their careers by allowing their fans access to their personal life, giving them a sense of their personality beyond the characters they play; we see this in reality shows like “Newlyweds” or “The Osbournes,” as well as in stars’ interviews with magazines that discuss their personal life, and even the tabloids that speculate and critique the stars’ personal lives. From this, we develop a sense of the star beyond their professionalism, and the films that make up their career, and also calculate in the elements of their personal lives that they reveal to the world.

deCordova notes the “picture personality” as only one of three elements in the appearance of the actor in cinema, among the discourse on acting and the theory of the star itself. I’d like to conclude by asking, do we maintain the same standard of acting in today’s films, whereas in the early days of cinema, actors were triple-threats with Vaudevillian backgrounds? Or, is the standard higher now that we have sound, and do not rely on the expository acting that was required in the silent era for stars to show emotion and move the plot forward using only their expressions and movements? And finally, to what extent do we separate stars’ onscreen personas from their personal lives we read about – for example, do you think Angelina Jolie really would have been cast in “A Mighty Heart” during her Billy Bob Thornton, brother-kissing days?

Response to Week #3 Readings in SID

I found this weeks readings in Stardom: Industry of Desire of great interest because I was really unaware of how the star system came into existence. Although the few accounts given don’t match up completely, the idea of creating the star grew because studios found that not only do stars bring audiences to the movies, but they also can produce major revenue from fan magazines and other items as fans become obsessed with the lives of the stars. This fact in particular is interesting to me because I was talking to a friend today and found out that the production of modern fan magazine is a billion dollar industry. I was shocked that people actually are willing to spend that much money to learn about their favorite stars. But, I guess the original idea of training the audience to “fall in love” with a particular screen star for revenue has obviously stuck with audiences today. We are accustom to talking about the private lives of stars and paying money to see pictures and read gossip about them, good or bad. The star is purely a spokes person for the film industry to cash in on, whether they have talent or not.
Hansen’s article about Marilynn Monroe and Grace Kelly was particularly interesting to me because I really had never thought about how the onscreen personas of film stars generally match their off screen personas (or the of screen personas which are sold to us). While reading, I found myself thinking about how I really do view actors and actresses as being like the characters they play, and when they fail to be that person I imaged, as a greatly disappointed. For example, I really like Katherine Heigl and view her as a natural, kind, modest beauty, as I have seen of her in film. If I was to learn that she was really a rude, self absorbed celebrity with some sort of addiction, I would have a hard time believing that truth. That image does not match the image of Heigl that has been sold to me, so why would I believe it? I guess I never really realized that every part of the star that the audience sees is a product, and was always meant to be a product instead of a real person.

Week 2 Reading (Core Post #1)

I would like to start out by saying that, like Julie, I too was confused about Hansen's analysis of Valentino and his role and effect on women and men. I was unsure about how he posed a threat to modern masculinity because of his perceived vulnerability and femininity. I also thought that men would want to look up to a person that all the women around them admired and wanted, however, I think that today, a little bit of vulnerability or feminine traits are much more socially acceptable (hence the term, "metro"). I think that at the time, this kind of "man" was somewhat different and as a result caused men to defend their own terms of masculinity and believe that anything that strayed from that belief posed a challenge to them. I also thought the article was a bit confusing because it jumped between a more general analysis of men/women and back to the analysis of Valentino. I was also lost when Hansen was discussing Freud's essay "A child is being beaten" because I was having trouble connecting its relevance to Valentino. To an extent, I feel like the overall effect of Valentino on his female audience was perhaps over analyzed.

I found the other two readings to be very interesting in that they displayed the possible differences between the early star system and the star system of today. I thought it was really interesting what Staiger said about many early screen stars not wanting to be known because movies were not on par with the theater. She suggests that many of them wanted their identities to be kept secret for this purpose. Today, it is almost a reversal of this in which the film industry is that which everyone wants to be a part of. Of course, Broadway and the theater are still incredibly prominent and many still aspire to be a part of it. However (and I'm no expert on this!), it made me think that maybe those who want to be in the theater are those who are more interested in molding one's craft. Some may say that actors of the theater possess a certain kind of talent different from those of the screen since theater requires a continuous and constant performance rather than one that is pieced together by an editor over three months of filming.

In another comparison between theater and film, deCordova discussed how in the early days of the film industry, good acting legitimized a star. Perhaps a star's acting was the first step in ending the initial fascination with the film medium and moving on to a focus on story and acting instead. This made me think, is the path to fame today similar and defined by the same things as it was in the beginning? It used to be that acting would make an actor a star, however, with the onslaught of reality television, anyone can become a star without having any specific skills. In films, we have kind of gone back to the beginning of the film medium in that people are becoming re-fascinated with technology. CGI, HD, home theater systems, 3D, etc. All of these technological advances are beginning to dominate stories and actors. Take Beowulf, for example. Using motion capture technology to capture the actors' performances nicely displayed the technology, however, the performances were dull and lacked emotion. In a way, we may have begun to go backwards in our fascination with films. With so many stars already in Hollywood, people may be becoming more interested in the CGI or the 3D, the things they don't see and hear about in the tabloids and on the news. For example, few people went to see Transformers for the stars, they went to see it for the Transformers (also, James Cameron has said that the star in Titanic is the boat, not Kate and Leo). Thus, the term "star" has become loosely applied to more than just actors but to technology and even animals (penguins could be considered stars of 2006). More than before, people are going to see films for the technology and/or the stars, not just the stars. This is not to say, however, that good acting goes unnoticed because it can still propel actors to stardom (for example, Ellen Page in Juno). However, if good acting was the only thing that makes a person a star today, we would be hearing more about the lives of what are now little known actors who have given dynamite performances in films. It poses the question of what makes a star out of one person but not one out of the next? This may have to do with the way our culture has built a world around stars. This is in contrast to early films in which deCordova says that intertextuality "restricted knowledge about the players to the textuality of the films they were in" (p. 25). At the time, people had to go see movies in order to know a star; today, all a person has to do is read Perez Hilton or glance at a cover of US Weekly. Stars have become much more accessible to us today and this has therefore contributed to the making of a star in our cultural sphere. Ultimately, the notion of a star and what the term even means today has changed drastically from the early days of the industry and continues to shape Hollywood and the world we live in.

How Do Stars See Each Other?

I am sure most of you saw, or at least heard about, Daniel Day-Lewis' acceptance speech at the SAG awards this past weekend. I immediately thought of this class and wondered what you guys would have to say about it. I posted the YouTube video below if you haven't had the chance to see it or want to see it again (you should also take a look at the viewer comments and constant use of the terms "respect" and "class" toward Day-Lewis). Anyway, I thought it was an interesting clip because it gives us a glimpse into the inter-celebrity world (their impact on each other) and simultaneously seems to infer a distinction between the fame of an actor and the persona as a star. We don't often think of one acting star (especially one as reclusive from Hollywood as Day-Lewis) as being impacted and touched by another's work. Sometimes it is easy to think that all celebrities know each other or are above being "star-struck" or even fans, so I think a moment like this, when they are humbled by another, reminds us of their humanity. They too have idols and inspirations in their life pursuits, even if they serve as a star the world. It is particularly touching in this situation, where an actor as prestigious as Day-Lewis cites Heath Ledger (a Hollywood star) as an inspiration.

Reading Response #1 - Week 3

The first two chapters of Stardom were very interesting to me because they both explained how the star system emerged in Hollywood.  However, Staiger and deCordova provided different points of view on this movement in the film industry, which was equally interesting to see how they differ.  Regarding Staiger's essay, I found it extremely odd that at the beginning of cinema, the actors in films often did not want their names known because "of the stigma of working in the lowly movies."  I guess living in the culture we do where being a famous actor in movies is pretty much the ultimate fantasy, our view of the star is jaded.  Today our actors and actresses are at the top of society's rankings, whereas in the early 1900's it was the opposite.  It's funny though how much our opinions of such things can be altered by the media.  Once Laemmle, Edison and others began to actually promote films with their players, the public opinion and status of their job changed.  All of sudden people wanted to know everything about their favorite players, paving the way for what we now call tabloid magazines, websites, and even tv shows.  

I had trouble understanding deCordova's explanation of the emergence of the star system.  I see where he is coming from in introducing the three transformations the system underwent, and his explanations of the discourse on acting, the picture personality and the star are clear, but I'm not sure how they fit together.  However, his characterization of 'the star' is interesting, because he says one becomes a star only when there is particular fascination with both their professional life and their private life. At least I think that's what he is saying.  Only with this emergence of the star system was there interest in actors' lives outside of their work.  And as we know, that interest has grown so much in the past 100 years, that it is almost out of control.

Britney $pears...

I'm certain this topic will come up again in future conversation of the class, but with the budding coverage of Britney Spears lately, a friend of mine sent me this link.  It analyzes the amount of money Britney spends a month, as well as how much money people are making off of her coverage.  Take a look at it, and be sure to glance through all the pictures and captions.  It just reminds us that, while stars are definitely making money, so many other people and companies are cashing in as well (not to mention her $800,000+ monthly contribution to our economy).  Especially when talking about Britney, who has become laughable in terms of her own integrity, talent, and career, it becomes apparent how much the American economy relies on the celebrity and star.  I think this link really puts into perspective just how much money Britney's breakdown has brought to magazines, photographers, and bloggers.  Not to mention Britney's outrageous income despite her recently failed endeavors.  It really brings us deeper into the discussion in regards to what makes someone famous, what needs to be in place for stardom to rise, etc, and tackles the entire notion of celebrity as a business.  However, when looking at celebrity as a business, a certain humanistic quality must be lost.  It might be because of this that there is such a lack of privacy for stars today.  Crazy antics bring revenue to so many companies.  The overzealousness of the paparazzi today can be contributed to the fact that celebrity has become a business, and that there is so much money to be made.

 

Anyway, just take a look at the link, it really is fascinating to see celebrity in terms of numbers and dollar signs.

http://music.aol.com/news/story/_a/examining-britney-spears-bottom-line/20080125102509990001

Confusion about Hansen's Analysis of Valentino

I am going to use this “core post” to try to make sense of a reading that utterly confused me! I was most fascinated with (and bewildered by) the Hansen reading about Rudolph Valentino - so much so, in fact, that I ended up researching Valentino afterwards to learn more about him. Perhaps I need to be more open-minded in my analysis of Valentino , but I cannot understand why he intimidated men or attracted women. I would think that because he was a ladies' man, men would look up to him and see him as their icon. But he was somehow left out of the "boy's club." It seems that his alternative type of masculinity (differing from other leading men of the day, such as Douglas Fairbanks) was too new – and people tend to reject what they haven’t seen or don’t understand. The reading asserts that he upset men because he undercut traditional masculine "instrumental rationality" and resisted "everyday pragmatism." I might be too rooted in modern views of masculinity, femininity, and sex appeal, but this just does not ring true with me. I can't understand how these characteristics made him unattractive to men - or attractive to women, for that matter. After all, the overbearing, s
mirking Sheik is not the "Latin lover" I would want. Hansen argues that women were yearning for an emotional man as they dealt with their own insecurities of defining feminine roles in post World War I society. It just didn't make sense to me though! My only explanation is that I am trying to view him too narrowly through modern eyes.

In my attempt to understand Valentino and his affect on America, I found this quote from him: "Women are not in love with me but with the picture of me on the screen. I am merely the canvas on which women paint their dreams." I thought this quote tied in perfectly with our conversation from last week. Stars are not stars because of who they are, but instead who they are constructed to be. And stars are not only constructed by the studios as we discussed, but by the audience members themselves. This explains why Valentino became the type of male lead he was - it was what women wanted and projected onto him. So my confusion once again isn’t about Valentino but instead about the psyche of the early 20th century woman (and man). Any other confusion or thoughts about Valentino.. or is it just me?!

In response to the Spencer Pratt Sighting

I think "stars" as found in reality tv will never die because I believe that reality tv will not be gone anytime soon. It is a genre that is too addictive and inexpensive to make. Therefore producers will always rely on reality shows for revenue, and people will always be hooked. Although the faces may change, the "stars" associated with them will always be around. Take for example American Idol. Every year major stars are found and Americans knows every single singer on the Top 12 by name, but unfortunately by the next year audiences almost forget who was even on the show. I mean, who even talks about Sanjaya Malakar anymore? Last year he was the biggest pop culture sensation, but what is he even doing now? I think Spencer Pratt will most likely fall into this category of the "has-been."

Stars + Celebrity

In the initial chapters of Stars, Richard Dyer makes clear and solid points about the understanding of the star system. The first two authors and references in which he addresses the star phenomenon establish the sort of arguments his book tackles, such as the issue of political significance and influence by celebrities on a society as a whole. King writes that “stars have a privileged position in the definition of social roles and types, and this must have real consequence in terms of how people believe they can and should behave.” According to King, stars in their own way are unavoidable images of representation in society. For instance, though I know we’re all sick to our stomachs by the mere utterance of her name, Britney Spears’ activities are without a doubt documented day to day from her exciting ventures to Starbucks, Kitson’s and the like. Though she seems to be out of work as a "singer" (/pop star), she still is delivering to her audiences entertainment-wise by her constant exposure in the media. Though seemingly too pre-occupied with failing to show up to her child custody hearings- and as documented heavily by aggressive paparazzi- her daily attention-acquiring rituals do not change and she just can’t seem to get out of the limelight. Or perhaps, this is exactly what she desires; what she has grown accustomed to: the constant attention and criticism, regardless of whether the interest is unwanted or offensive. Alberoni remarks that the “socialist press” victimizes stars more so than envies them, which has become true with every passing moment in Britney’s recent tabloid-ridden life. Nevertheless, how could we forget the tabloid whirlwind that was Paris Hilton during all her legal woes? Has her stay in prison completely been forgotten? What about the countless other celebrities with mugshots to their name? The brevity in which these headlines that accompanied the sort of celebrity mugshots that were made public just as quickly fade from our memory (fortunately for the stars). Phases come and go, as do celebrities, and star appeal. I must say that I agree with Dyer when he makes the distinction between the phenomenon of stardom and celebrity as a tendency that we make as a society, rather than an already full-fledged process. The term tendency perhaps connotes an evolution away from and an inclination to shun such celebrity consumption whereas a “fully worked-through process” is much more concrete and finite. Though it seems idealistic to hope that these intense incidents of celebrity obsession and curiosity (a la bloggers like Perez Hilton) are just a passing phase, I believe that the Star and our perception of them in society is still evolving.

Pseudo-celeb sighting!

I spotted Spencer Pratt, the ultimate celebrity wanna-be, at the Apple Store at the Grove today.... It really made me think, as this is a class about stars, that there is an absolute difference between stars and celebrities. These days, there are so many people who are famous for no reason other than who they are: Spencer Pratt, Heidi Montag, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, Tila Tequila, the list goes on.... Celebrity seems to be more of-the-moment, something catchy but fleeting, where as stardom is something of more significance. To be a star, I think more substance is required, and yet a celebrity can also be a "social phenomenon" -- perhaps, representing the baser values of society. Like now, our generation will be remembered for its reality television, and celebrities like Pratt are the face of this social phenomenon, but can we consider them stars because of that? What do you think? A lot of deep thinking over such an empty celeb sighting...

Reading Response # 1: Week 2

My first response to Dyer’s analysis of the star system was in wondering why he chose to focus on stars 30 years or more removed from the active stars of contemporary Hollywood. It seemed to me that an analysis of the stardom would only benefit from the being able to draw on the readers’ experience of those celebrities during their height. I wondered if there was a reason for the specification of the era but as it turns out “Stars” was first published in 1979 and Dyer, apparently, had not updated it since. However, the question of the experience of stardom in the past 30 years kept resurfacing as I continued to read Dyer’s analysis of the “sociological” and “industrial” concerns that have developed the star phenomenon in Western culture. Dyer explores the various theories of the star in relation to reception, representation, and creation and posses the star as a uniquely industrial phenomenon. He traces the origin of the star as far back as vaudeville describing their creation as a vehicle for serving the economics of the “industrial” in the capitalistic market and their “sociological” consumption and representation as formed by their culturally specific desires (citing Morin and Merton’s terms of “needs” and “dreams” to describe how the persona of a star becomes popular, defining of a moment in time, and representative of the developing ideology). Still, I can not help but wonder about that 30 year void and how the Hollywood has seen since the arrival of the Blockbuster and the influence the “Information Age” has impacted industrial and social production and consumption of stars. Dyer briefly touches on the shift to sound in cinema and the affect of that change on the perception of the star from a godlike figure serving as an ‘ideal’ to a ‘typical’ figure that no longer commands the same infallibility but responds in a manner considered average to human behavior. However, I question whether this remains a fair assessment of stardom; mostly, that the line is so clearly distinguished. For there are those stars for whom their persona is that of the “ideal” such as Tom Hanks and Oprah Winfrey while at the same time there are those whose personal (off screen) behavior can clash with their on screen roles, such as Lindsey Lohan, creating a vastly more complex picture of the audience-star relationship and also the star-film relationship, especially in light of the accessibility of information and ‘tabloidization’ of modern stars. This is not to say that the model of stardom Dyer puts forward is straightforward and simple but, perhaps, there has been another transition through which the expectation and roles of stars has again changed. It also, in my opinion, begs the question of whether there is a difference between stardom and celebrity (where the former denotes a certain amount of respectability and the latter maybe leaving room for infamy) and whether Dyer is accounting for such a separation in his book.

- Olivia Everett

Core Response #1

This being my first film class, I was struck by the amount of scholarly theorizing done on something as (an elitist would say) "pedestrian" as celebrity.  So many people (including myself previous to reading this week's assignment) discount the role of "celebrity worship" as being a meaningless and dangerous distraction (and at times addiction) for many Americans.  However, I have come to believe that the role of "stars" plays an important part in the development of imagination and even the aspirations of those impressionable youths who attend movies.  I have to imagine that much of my decision to become an actor was inspired by the movies I watched repeatedly as a child.  In a world absent of "PerezHilton.com" and "Star Magazine," it was the performances of my favorite actors and the journeys their characters took that allowed me to experience the four categories referenced by Dyer (p. 18).  The emotional affinity I felt for Pollyanna (Hayley Mills) and the self-identification that marked my childhood in the form of "keeping house" as Samantha Stevens (Elizabeth Montgomery) on "Bewitched" are two of my predominant memories of childhood.  The way I tried (in vain!) to imitate Julia Robert's hair and makeup in "Pretty Woman" and the way in which I projected myself into part of the Von Trapp family (to the point of screaming at my parents that I knew I had been adopted in Vienna), both extended into my early teen years.  All played major parts in the development of my imagination as well as formed the basis for my career aspirations. 

 This week's reading exposed to me the invaluable nature of "stars" and the movies that serve as their vehicles.  It is my belief that (though celebrities must establish themselves in some way before becoming famous), "stars" primarily "make" movies in the sense that the right name behind almost any film means at the very least, great attendance.  I read an article this week that announced Katharine Heigl officially a "movie star" as her presence on the poster for "27 Dresses" resulted in an incredibly lucrative opening for the film.  The implications of this result support what Dyer writes when he speaks of celebrity as being a powerful economic force. 

This weeks reading taught me most importantly that celebrity is a powerful economic force that plays a fundamental role in the formation and development of children and the "distraction" (in both good and bad ways) of American adults.

Week One Reading Response: STARS, Dyer

Throughout this week’s reading of Richard Dyer’s STARS, I had to laugh at myself for having shamelessly fallen prey to the studio and star's tricks throughout my life. Proving Balasz's point, I am that girl that fell in love with James McAvoy, not because he’s cute (I didn’t originally think so), but because of the way his eyes welled up in a close up in Penelope.
Reading about all the power and manipulation of personas lead me to thinking about Dayan's article "The Tutor-Code of Classical Cinema." Pardon the incredible simplification, but Dayan wrote about the relationship between an audience and the set up of a movie theater (where the projector is, shot-reverse-shot, etc). In the proper set up, the system of suture could "tutor" audiences and subtly change their ideologies.
I thought about that reading because that theater set up explains a lot of attachment and influence (also carried on in Baudry's "Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus"). But with Stars, a lot of the manipulation and power that this week's reading discussed (our identification with, how values are reafirrmed/deconstructed, etc) was happening outside of the theater. What is the psychological relationship between a reader and a fan magazine or gossip blog? Is there a proper "set up" to best manipulate?
One thing is clear, we are influenced by stars outside of the movie theater (fashion - Victoria Beckham, behavior - Lindsay Lohan, values - Angelina Jolie). Did the attachment have to start with that close-up in the theater or could reading about a person be enough identification to create a fan? How is that "read" identification different than what is achieved in a theater? Economically speaking, should studios take into account how big a star is via people reading about them vs people watching their films? Think about Lindsay Lohan...I read about her on a regular basis but I don't go see her movies.

The Powerless Elite

I found that Richard Dyer's use of Francesco Alberoni's discussion of stars at "The Powerless Elite" to be very telling about the star phenomenon. The consideration of stars as such seems to indicate that the stars have little influence on society in their own right, but instead are used as tools by others to have influence on the public. It is also true when considering that actors have little say in whether they will actually become stars, instead they must put their fate in the hands of studio executives and the public to become stars.
I can't help wondering, however, if the classification of stars as powerless elite is true. It seems to me that Dyer's discussion of Shirley Temple as a figure portraying and encouraging values makes her in some sense a powerful figure. Even if she is being given the lines to say and the character to play the actor herself must have some rapport with the audience in order to actually influence their values or make them consider changing their ways. It seems something else can also come into play when considering whether stars have power in their own right, the way that they are often blended in the minds of an audience with the characters they play. If those characters have influence over the audience then in some sense the stars must also have influence. For example, an actor who is always playing heroes like John Wayne are emulated by children and even some adults. The values promoted by heroes become entangled with those of the actors who play them, giving the stars power. Margo in All About Eve is a good example of this, although not a movie star she has incredible influence on Eve's life, although much of this Eve made up. Eve chooses to walk and talk like Margo, she impersonates her and even surpasses her in the theater in a very real way, but she is always going to retain the influence of Margo, a star, on her life.

Reading Response #1

I believe Dyer’s introductory statement that stars are a “social phenomenon” to be the foundation of this week’s reading, for at their very core, stars are simply people who ascend beyond normalcy and rise above being within a community, to being a fixation of that community. We watch films to see a more glamorous version of ourselves, to see someone solve the same problems we have in the comfort of a narrative that provides a resolution, when real life is much messier; or, to see someone worse off than us, to remind us of how good we have it. In this sense, both the sociological and semiotic theories are valid – we watch films because they possess the stars we wish we could be like, and reflexively, these films turn the people representing the more glamorous version of ourselves into stars. Stars are a social phenomenon because, as Walker indicates, they reflect the lives, goals, worries, needs, and cultures of the communities that worship them; they put a face, an identifiable, empathetic, living, breathing being, to the whole of society. Whether they reinforce social norms, seduce the audience to break with these norms, or even transcend above them, perched on a martyred pedestal, stars indicate the dominant values of their era, and through the medium of film, capture the life of that era in history. Because of the power of their identifiable nature, I think it is impossible to ignore the political power of stars; as a community, we look to these people as representations of certain values and when we see a star aligned with values similar to our own, their support for a political candidate carries weight. We’ve seen examples of this in Oprah’s support for Obama helping his caucus win in Iowa, as well as Chuck Norris’ support of Bush and Huckabee carrying credence with the southern, Christian demographic. The allure of celebrity calls into question, to what extent does the character a star plays lend to their identity as a person? In considering Dyer’s theory of inference, to what extent do we infer the motives or history of a character based on what we know of the star’s personal life – for example, Angelina Jolie’s charity work and worldliness serving as a backdrop for her role in “A Mighty Heart?” Furthermore, does casting a certain star lend authenticity to a role based on who they are as a person, such as Bette Davis’ self-reflexive role as Margo in “All About Eve?” And, at what point does that role stop being a character and become a representation of that star? Finally, on this note, I’d like to consider whether the person makes the star, or is it the talent and acting ability that makes the star? There are plenty of talented actors who are not stars, and plenty of stars who are not talented – what is it about a person that gives them the power to be a social phenomenon, to represent social values, to be a star?

Star sighting!

On Saturday afternoon, my roommate and I went to Bark N Bitches, a pet store on Fairfax, to check out their Saturday pet adoption program. I adopted a puppy over Christmas, and we brought her with us to meet the dog my roommate was interested in. We walked in, and Adam Sandler was there checking out the dogs with his family! He told me I had a cute puppy, and then his wife came over with their daughter, who wanted to pet my dog. His wife said she wants to get a smart dog this time -- Sandler is known for his pet bulldogs, so I guess she is ready for something new! She seemed to like this small, fluffy little puppy, but he didn't seem as excited about it, and they left without a dog. They were so friendly and down to earth! They were all in sweat pants and seemed like any normal family. What a thrill!

A Downside of Celebrity..

I'm sure by the end of the day, most of you will have heard that Heath Ledger was found dead this morning, likely the cause of a drug overdose. I'm sure the downside of celebrity is something we will come to discuss, but a sad story like this makes the issue even more prevalent. Some say that celebrities are heightened versions of regular people. Just as everyday people become involved in drugs and can die of an overdose, so too can celebrities - their stories are just publicized. It seems to me that it's more than this, though. There is something about celebrity - perhaps more money, or less privacy, or a wilder lifestyle - that makes young deaths all the more common. What exactly is it about Hollywood and the world of stars that continue to produce these tragic tales?

For the news story: http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/22/heath.ledger.dead/index.html

Let's Give this a Try...

I have always credited stardom and celebrity and the amount of media surrounding them as the effects of a community on a large scale.  As with any community, there will be politics, gossip, affairs, and more.  Word will spread at common places of interest: bars, salons, etc.  In a way, stars transcend these small social structures as their audience (as well as critics, etc.) effectively becomes their community, with common places of interest becoming mass media.  However, I do agree with Alberoni’s findings.  There does need to be social mobility and economic development in order to produce stardom.  I found his point on the Depression most interesting in the acceptance of celebrities within each class.  I think he truly understand the star power that celebrities have, but I do think he fell short when he neglected to acknowledge the political impact that these stars have, which is exemplary more now than ever with the upcoming election.  Celebrities must have some sort of political influence as even in small social structures, more popular people can sway political standings.  Especially today, when Oprah, who epitomizes stardom yet is still completely run by a corporation, supports Obama, we listen.  Or do we?  Maybe we only listen when it’s a star that is socially accepted.  Oprah, for instance, who is a respectable and charitable woman who has risen from the very depths of the social ladder, is more influential than, say, Paris Hilton, who was raised wealthy, and is less than charitable.  What do you think constitutes a star’s validity in this case?  Is it where they came from?  What they do?  Race?  Gender?  Lineage?  While I did find the history of stardom and the various consumption aspects of the reading interesting, I found it a major miscalculation to leave politics out.  In my opinion, just as attaching a celebrity to a clothing line can attract or detract customers, these stars can also persuade or dissuade political opinions and votes.

Welcome to the CTCS 412 Blog

This blog is a communal space for the class that we will use to address and ponder course themes and to point each other to interesting materials. During the semester, you will be required to post to this class blog at least 12 times. Five of these posts should be in the form of weekly reading responses (approximately 300-350 words). These “core” responses should engage critically with the course reading for that day and should demonstrate both a grasp of the material and your own considered response to the same. Simply saying you liked or didn't like something or providing a straight summary of the readings is not sufficient; you should demonstrate careful, analytical thinking. Please also pose questions for group discussion for the next class. Feel free to draw on class screenings or materials outside of the course as well, integrating them into your discussions and analyses. These 5 “core” responses should be posted by 11:59 a.m. on the Tuesday evening before class. You will sign up in advance for these posts. Your other 7 “supplemental” posts can take the form of meaningful responses to your peers’ posts, star sighting stories, links to interesting celebrity sites or tales, etc. These should be posted by 10 p.m. on the Wednesday evening before class and can be posted throughout the semester. You are, of course, expected to read the blog regularly and are encouraged to post more frequently if the spirit moves you. The quality of your posts is the most important aspect of your grade for this portion of the class, but quantity will also be considered.