Mr. T

In my public relations class this week, we had wrestler/actor Mr.T as a guest speaker. I admit when our professor announced our surprise guest, I was unsure of exactly who Mr. T was. I knew the name and I recognized his signature look from photographs I've seen but why he was famous was very vague to me. It surprised me that a person could just be known, but I could still be so unaware of why or what I knew him for. But, as he talked about his life and how he got to where he is today, I became familiar with his wrestling and acting careers. Surprisingly, I was incredibly touched by him as a person and by what he talked about. When I looked him up online when I got home after class, a lot of the media represent him as a very tough and rough guy. But, in person, he was an incredibly humble and nice person (and also a self-proclaimed "old-fashioned mama's boy"). He is an example of someone who really puts his celebrity to good use by doing a handful of charity work for ill children and the homeless. I was touched by his determination and perseverance to help those that have less than he does. I thought it was notable when he said that he didn't publicly talk about his charity work through tabloids or press releases because he thought that once you did that, it was like you want people to know that you are a good person. For him, he said that it was enough to just do the work and to know that he maybe made someone's day a bit happier. After he spoke, I was left really satisfied and happy that there are stars out there who are completely selfless and who use their celebrity to help others and to make a difference.

A Throwback to the 1970s

It has been two years since I first got into USC's film school and while I've enjoyed the majority of screenings, they all tend to blur into one vague memory of being in Norris, Lucas, and the cinema library. But out of the dozens of screenings I’ve gone to (and other dozens I’ve fallen asleep to), one stands out. In freshman year, Dr. Fox(y) gave his CTCS190 class a rare treat: a screening of Todd Haynes’ Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story. As Dr. Fox explained, the movie is almost impossible to get a hold of (Richard Carpenter sued Haynes for using the band’s copyrighted material without permission and prints stopped being circulated in 1990) and most of the copies that exist are on bootleg VHS. Haynes is known now for his groundbreaking, more off-beat work as the director of Safe, Far From Heaven and I’m Not There but I think this movie is not only his best but one of the more fascinating films I’ve seen.

The film focuses on Karen Carpenter, lead singer of The Carpenters, who has over time become mythologized as a public figure who died from anorexia (she had gained a substantial amount of weight over a short period of time that strained her heart, which was already very weak after years of weight loss and abuse). Made years after Karen Carpenter’s death, the film is a reenactment of the life of one of the most popular singers of all time, one who was perhaps equally known for her personal battles as her singing. Anyway, I decided to google the film to see if I could get it on amazon and lo and behold, it’s on youtube and google video. I’m posting the film because if you haven’t seen it already, I think it’s worth it because it’s a truly unique representation of a star in both her public and private lives and brings up the question of what happens to a star after his/her death: how should they be represented? Should certain lines not be crossed? How does the dynamic between that star and the audience change?

Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story

Reading Response #3, Week 7

During the course of this semester we have discussed the many variations of actors/actresses to their roles as cultural icons and the implications of their status in terms of gender and sexuality amongst other social constructions. The insight of Barry King’s article on stardom, “Articulating Stardom”, comes from a change in perspective on stars as a product from within the industry rather than a cultural phenomenon. For this thesis, King sites various attributes of the production process (repetitious takes, editing, casting) that facilitate the growth of Hollywood stardom; the method of filmmaking itself develops stars as an inevitable side effect of mainstream film engineering. The difference, therein, for King is that the creation of the star actor relies upon not as much on the producers of the film but as a reaction of actors to the tenuous nature of their careers.

King, in making a point about the limits of film acting, discusses the lack of continuity and true relation to a character in film, “the actor as character must play to a character he has never seen or act our the aftermath of an affair that has yet to be enacted” (171): with this in mind, assuming you agree, does film acting necessitate a need to hide from the performance on the actor’s behalf? Does it cater to those actors who can not confront the audience and the character? Or, alternately, does it show a sort of sacrifice of artistic integrity for the sake of mass consumption and immortality (which only film delivers)? Can we say that film actors are inherently more likely to be stars because of their desire to promote themselves over a character or message? It is not that I wholly buy into King’s argument that film production robs the actors of “creative intentions” and, thus, limits the caliber of performers willing to take on the roles. However, it does beg the question of why film is the actor’s chosen medium. Rather than assuming that stars are the tools of producers for film marketability, could it be said that film (and tv more recently) as globally accessible mediums have been used as a catalyst for those who are in the business of self-promotion? While I would not go as far to say that this must be the case, I do believe the question complicates the matter even farther than what we have already discussed in terms of the psychological/ideological implications of celebrity. To look at Hollywood stars, it is no secret that they are considered amongst the upper echelons of society. They are not only idolized as glamorous but revered for their success in business (with exorbitantly inflated salaries and ostentatious lifestyles). They represent, very specifically, the economic system and social hierarchy of an individualist capitalist Western culture.

As to the point of those select truly talented actors, King points to the use of Method in terms of its transformational identity of the actor toward that of the character as being the security from which they maintain their art and career. For these actors, film may be an equally desirable medium to stage because of their ability to live with the character beyond the set and nurture it in the repetition of action while relishing the ability to challenge their skill in capturing those out of sync minutiae that compose their character’s psyche. However, even still, it would be only human for them to assuage their egos with the reward of filmic immortality and mass adoration. In each case, whether persona driven or Method driven, the fact of celebrity remains the same. Actors who choose to go into film must be striving for something unique that the medium offers whether it is their primary or subconscious goal, for themselves or their creative work, to achieve some form of stardom. This brings me back to the idea discussed much earlier in the semester, is stardom something that has always been desired by the social nature of humanity but only actualized within the time that such a medium of universal accessibility as film was developed?

Olivia Everett

Core Response #2

I thought that the King article assigned for reading was very revealing about why screen actors tend to do theater in times when they are not in films. I had never thought about why someone like David Hasselhoff would want to appear in The Producers, but I assume it is for the reasons that King explained; the stage gives an actor more control over the performance and allows them to be live and stand or fall on their own merits rather than those of the editors and directors.
I had actually wondered about why many actors who end up starring in plays would choose to do so, especially when the medium of choice for most actors has seemed to be television. I suppose that to keep a production alive does require a different skill set than to make a movie, but to me it would seem that being immortalized in a film would almost do more to cement credibility as an actor than being in a stage production. A flubbed line or misstep on the night a critic is at the theater might very well be cause for a bad review, even if the play goes off extremely well every other night of the week. A film on the other hand gives an actor the chance to try different versions of the same character and to ultimately choose the one that suits the part. A director obviously will have some control over the final content, but a solid performance can be nearly guaranteed on film. It would seem also, that a film would offer an actor the chance to perfect the character in a way that theater never could, in a theater each night the audience is different, but each night the audience expects the same performance so trying on new personas for a character seems impossible.
While I understand the premise of King's article, I tend to be unsure whether he is correct in the assertion that stage is superior to screen for the reasons that he mentions.

Reading Response

In the Glendhill article, the author explains how the popularization of Stainislavski’s Method acting affected the development of the personas of method actors. The first group of successful Method actors, those of the 1950’s, including Marlon Brando, Montcomery Clift, Rod Steiger and Kim Hunter, came to represent the very characters that they performed as. Their personas became ‘based on the unresolved tension between an outer social mask and an inner reality of frustration’ (225). Melodramatic actors begin to internalize and exemplify social and moral issues, as Glendhill describes it, ‘redefining the terms of the social occult’ (226).

Method actors and their related personas still exist. You know, those ‘specially trained’ actors that seem to exist on a higher plane of being still, to this day, seem to represent the same social malaise and psychological malformation. Some actors try to deny that Method acting is dependent on an abusive childhood or whatever, as Daniel Day-Lewis does in the quote from an interview with EW in this blog (I couldn’t find the whole interview). Regardless, its safe to say that Method actors tend to gravitate toward the same dramatic roles, thereby creating a persona based on past performances—emotionally unstable, tragically dichotomous, etc. I can’t help but name Johnny Depp here, whose constant selection (and mastery) of ‘loner’ roles seem to only contribute to his I’m-too-good-for-Hollywood-drama attitude.

Its so ironic, isn’t it, how the Method was developed to teach actors how to act more ‘realistically,’ when, in fact, it is just as artificial as ever? Even if, as Daniel Day-Lewis says, acting doesn’t necessarily come from a hidden part of a damaged psyche, then it is an artifice, one like those carefully constructed personas mastered by the Studios during the Golden Age of American Cinema. My point, then, is that the manufacturing of star personas did not end with the break up of the studio system or the popularization of Method acting. It just morphed into another sort of artifice, one perhaps more ‘hidden’ by so-called realism.

Actors today, like Sean Penn, whose political activism seems to run hand-in-hand with his selection of roles (think: I Am Sam and Before Night Falls), and Russell Crowe, whose various temper-charged characters (in LA Confidential and maybe 3:10 to Yuma or American Gangster) seem to reflect his own problematic violent outbursts (against reporters, mostly), seem to almost replicate the roles that they select. Thus comes the question of the chicken and the egg, did their star personas develop because of the roles they selected, or do the roles they select only reinforce their image?

The personas of modern Method actors, as I am beginning to understand, are of a much more complicated weaving than one might expect. While they aren’t so clearly formulated by studio executives anymore, they are still responsible for maintaining a persona—one that not only keeps them in the public’s eye, but one that makes them easily cast in whatever generic structures they specialize in (like Daniel Day-Lewis and character-driven historical melodramas—yes, I’m bitter about this if you can’t tell).

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

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

Week 7 Reading Response #1

After reading Dyer's discussion of star performance in Stars, I could not stop thinking about my favorite actors' lives and performances. Sometimes I could not fully separate the two and other times I could not figure out when or if they even were the same person, the actor and the character. The first of these two situations seems more prominent. Dyer did discuss different types of performance and ways in which actors create the characters on screen, as well as the editor and director, but I think that there are so many cases where the persona and the characters played match up.

Then I spent a little more time thinking about it and looking at parts of the reading again, and I have come to the idea that many stars have created a persona around the roles and types of roles they play or they are casted based on their preexisting persona. As Dyer talked about performances of stars like Paul Muni, Bette Davis and Katherine Hepburn as being able to draw on their theater backgrounds to bring performance I could not think of many actors that are known just for their past and how that formed their acting style now. However, there is credit that needs to be given to actors and their ability to create characters on screen that we all want to watch. From the days of the studio system to today, stars are manufactured. One part of the process is by creating a story that people love or love to hate. I don't know if I am alone in my wanting and thinking that my favorite celebrities are some what like some of the characters they have played. Let me know how you feel about that. I want the cast of Friends to all be real life friends and be really funny, some might be and others might not, but I still want the show that I love to be possible in real life. I think that is where the desire lies, in us wanting what we see to be possible in real life. We all want to be bitchy sometimes, but cannot, or achieve great things like save the world, or meet our soul mate through a seemingly misfortune of events and live happily ever after, so we look to film and television to see someone be that way. The business of publicists and agents and managers is based on making a star image and maintaining that image.

The performance piece is part of how we digest the images on the screen. We want the performance to be natural and real. The actors ability to create a character well is how seamless and unnoticed the actor is in the role. With that, the actor is seen in their role more widespread than they are walking on a Friday with their family, as Annie talked about Tom Cruise, so when we see the actor in other places than the characters they play we want a piece of that to be who they really are creating the tabloids paying big money for shots of Britney Spears not being the pop princess she once was or of wholesome female celebrities sunbathing topless. Once the image is broken there is a whole new fascination created by the downfall, but they fall from the image they created on screen and off.

Man Cold!

I forgot to post this link after last week's class.. this is a British commercial called "The Man Cold." And it's pretty obvious, but just in case - 999 is their equivalent of our 911 and Lemsip is their equivalent of our Airborne or Cold-Eeze.

The commercial is very funny - and very true. What really strikes me in watching it after our discussion is how complex the concepts of masculinity and femininity actually are. Though the typical masculine male that we outlined is tough and rugged, the commercial depicts a man helpless after catching a cold. It is funny not because it plays against the ideal of masculinity, but because it somehow plays into it. And unlike the helpless feminine woman we are used to seeing and describing, it is the female that is told to toughen up and get over her sickness. These depictions seem to reject how we characterized the polarities of masculinity and femininity - however, I think they actually support them.

The terms masculinity and femininity - even at the poles - change depending on the situation. While a masculine male must be tough at work or (in John Wayne's case) out in the wild, he is at the same time subservient to the woman when it comes to areas of domesticity. Similarly, while the women is meek and vulnerable in the world, she gains a powerful role once she steps into the house. This idea is strengthened when looking at traditional 1950s sitcoms that we discussed. It is Ricky Ricardo, Jim Anderson, and Ward Cleaver that seem to have control, yet Lucy, Margaret, and June ultimately have power in their homes. And that's where the comedic tension lies. So though it seems that the "Man Cold" challenges typical depictions, it is actually the domestic setting that continues to reinforce the ideas..

And without further adu, the "Man Cold" commercial:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rXLHWmjA5IE&feature=related

Core Post #5 (Week 7 Readings)

When reading King’s essay and arguments about the ways actors perform, it made me think a lot about actors today and what sets them apart from one another and what makes us respect and appreciate certain ones over others. What makes a star versus a celebrity? Or do the two come hand in hand? In some cases, I think that longevity of a career can establish an actor as talented, if not on screen, than at least in the way he or she has chosen film roles. However, I think that it always comes down to how good of an actor that person is that really makes them a star. On the other hand, I think a celebrity can be someone who does not necessarily possess acting talent, but is intriguing to the press and the public. Thus, I believe that acting ability is really the basis of what makes a person a star rather than a celebrity. Of course, a star can always become a celebrity if that person is outgoing or interesting in the eyes of the public. As much as I can try to differentiate between the two terms though, I think the two have slowly become interchangeable, with some actors being more of one than the other. Take Meryl Streep for example, she is extremely talented, versatile, and has had an incredibly long career. She is, without a doubt, a star. However, with new media and technology now at the hands of paparazzi, online gossipers, and magazine editors, someone like Meryl Streep is now a celebrity. In the end, I think that the notion of a star has slowly faded from our culture. When I think of screen stars I think of Bette Davis, Marilyn Monroe, and Cary Grant. However, with our accessibility to today’s stars having escalated in the past decade, these stars are no longer untouchable as they may have been in the past. They are constantly interrupted with photographs and inquiries about their personal lives wherever they go. Whereas a star may have been someone we put on a pedestal fifty years ago, now stars have been taken down from that pedestal by our very selves. Maybe it is time that we come up with another word for the star/celebrity?

Also, unlike the old days when actors could play the same role over and over again (Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne), not as many actors are able to do that today because critics and the public have turned toward praising versatility instead. There are few remaining actors who always play the same character, and even those actors occasionally step outside of their comfort zone (Will Smith in action movies vs. Will Smith in The Pursuit of Happyness or Ali, Adam Sandler in comedies vs. Adam Sandler in Reign on Me, Harrison Ford in action movies vs. Harrison Ford in What Lies Beneath). I know people who have criticized these actors as ones that always play the same characters; however, we still love them. I think there is a certain amount of charisma and smarts needed to become one of those actors that can be so good at playing the same character that audiences will always pay $10 to come see their films. All these actors became famous for playing the same role in blockbuster films; however, with the rise of independent film, the “real” actors sacrifice a blockbuster or two to do a film that is “meaningful” and character driven.

Ultimately, all the readings made me think about how our view of what "good acting" is has changed a lot in the past few years. It is not always having a consistent and amazing performance in every film (few actors do, among them Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Johnny Depp), it is having the ability to change completely from film to film and tackle a variety of different characters. Actors can give an okay performance in a film, but still be praised for abandoning their comfort zone. It shows that an actor has emotional range and is willing to take career risks for the sake of their craft. Since there are so many stars/celebrities today, I think that actors choose to focus on the art of acting to set them apart and keep them from appearing shallow in the eyes of the media: they’re not famous for nothing. Lastly, as King states, "the 'real' personality of the actor should disappear into the part" (68). In the 1950s, that personality of the actor was that actor's onscreen character. Today, we have been taught to differentiate between the actor's personality and that of his/her onscreen character.

No longer is good acting creating a persona onscreen that resonates with audiences to the point where they believe you are that person (John Wayne, Marilyn Monroe). Today, audiences already know that these stars/celebrities are real people and they are now just waiting to see them become different people beyond their public personas. People may consider actors “bad” or not real actors if they play the same role instead of trying something new that displays their talent (examples may include Jessica Alba and Amanda Bynes. While Bynes has had a legitimate career, her films are slowly doing less box office perhaps because she is always playing the same goofy/lovable character). As I stated before, there are a few actors left who do play the same roles over and over again, but it is no longer a trend and their careers begun long ago. I don’t think an actor today could begin a career like that now. Therefore, I wonder, what created this shift? What made us start out loving actors who always played the same character roles to criticizing those that do the very same today? Why do actors have to suddenly prove their talent through their versatility in films?

Week 7 Reading Response #4

I found Gledhill’s argument about the role of the melodrama in both stardom, as well as cinema today, to be particularly of interest both in how we perceive stars onscreen, as well as in the role stars play in our everyday life. She notes that the popularity of the melodrama has given way to realism and I couldn’t help but think about reality television, and how this manipulated form of “realism” has actually blurred the lines between the melodrama and realism. Reality television, in its name alone, promises the voyeuristic entertainment of reality, and yet we all know that very little on these shows is “real.” However, they are constructed to seem real, and to suggest realism; in shows like “The Hills,” for example, they show people chatting inarticulately and incessantly, obsessing over the mundane goings-on of everyday life, the technology we are plugged into... There is very little substance to these shows, and yet they are full of emotion, with the characters constantly mugging for the camera. The melodrama, much like reality television, is overwrought with emotion; as Gledhill notes, this emotion is externalized through gesture and expression. Furthermore, “the moral forces” Gledhill speaks of, much like in the melodrama, are externalized in reality television in “physical being, dress, and above all, in action.” The people on these shows are inarticulate in expressing anything intelligently, especially something as deep as morality, and so they wear it on their sleeves.

But because this is a class about stars, and I’m too much of a snob to consider the people on reality television as anything more than novel celebrities, I’d like to take Gledhilll’s melodrama theory into consideration in the context of today’s cinema and stars. Perhaps melodrama has given way to realism because we no longer want to see our problems given significance onscreen; with the current administration, the problems in the Middle East, and the constant onslaught of self-help books telling us about a new problem we didn’t even know we had, our problems have enough significance in real-life that we don’t need to see them overly dramatized onscreen. Perhaps that’s why fantasy films like “Pirates of the Caribbean” or comedies like “Knocked Up,” which make light of our problems, are more successful at the box office. “Juno” is a perfect example: the film is about a teenager who gets pregnant. This idea is a melodramatic Lifetime movie just waiting to happen, and yet this film transcends that, confronting a real problem with comedy and heart. Juno seems much more real, much more relatable, because her problems aren’t overly signified – they just are, and she deals with them. I would much rather watch a teenager flippantly tell her dad, as she roots through the fridge, that she’s “dealing with things way beyond [her] maturity level,” than to watch her sob and sniffle it to him, because the first scenario allows for character and quirkiness; the second, suggestive of melodrama, is blander, more stereotypical and expected. And these days, we all want to possess Juno’s individuality, rather than the broad stereotypes of ‘woman in distress’ or ‘handsome heroic man,’ that perhaps better applied in, say, the WWII era.

I also think that perhaps we do not need the melodrama onscreen because we get our dose of it, in the context of stardom, in the tabloids. Gledhill comments, “If melodrama, while confirming the boundaries of social convention, derives its energy through the villain’s willingness to break them, the star system promotes model domestic lives irradiated by exciting hints at scandal” (213). We get our dose of excitement, of overly signified problems, not in the stars’ roles, but in their personal lives these days: take, for example, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. They may take on roles of realism (notably, Jolie in “A Mighty Heart”), and yet we get the melodrama in the tabloids, as they confirm the social convention of raising children, with just enough willingness to break social convention in Pitt divorcing Jennifer Aniston for Jolie, and starting a family out of wedlock. Their story is ripe with exciting hints of scandal.

I’d like to conclude with a look at King’s analysis of impersonation. Impersonation dictates that actors disappear into a role, and any trace of their personality that bleeds into the role is an indication of poor acting. I think that while this is a valid point on performance, as characters need to be original, unique, and organic, the audience also often goes to a movie expecting to see a star persona, and thus see that persona played out onscreen. Furthermore, I’d like to take King’s theory into question in the context of child actors – take Lindsay Lohan, who was raised to be a star. Her personal character is made up of stardom; she was never allowed to cultivate a sense of self before she was pushed into pretending to be other people, so there is little sense of self that can seep into her roles. It becomes self-reflexive. At a certain point, it seems that stars become lost in their own personas – is this the point at which they begin to impersonate themselves? And then, do they even exist outside of stardom? It is tragic cases like Britney Spears, who seems to exist in such a vacuum of stardom that the little girl from Louisiana she once was no longer is. And what about Paris Hilton, who’s famous simply for cultivating an image of herself – she’s said that the Paris on “The Simple Life” is an exaggeration of herself, so is she impersonating herself? With reality television and the immediacy of the internet and all of its gossip blogs, has stardom become so personal and self-reflexive that stars are impersonating themselves? Granted, King does acknowledge that for actors without ability to impersonate, cultivation of a persona is paramount to their staying relevant and serving as an economic commodity. However, the lines between impersonation and personification become blurred when one can make a star out of oneself, with no acting talents beyond that – Hilton’s “The Hottie and the Nottie” is a sad example of this. Gledhill notes, “The first promise of the star is access to the personality itself” (226) – have we become too reliant upon this, in the age of gossip blogs, paparazzi terrorism, and reality television?

CELEBRITY SIGHTING!!!! One big happy family...

I've got my fair share of things to say about Tom Cruise (scientology, marriage, those rumors...), but my jaw hit the dirt when I spotted Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, Suri, Tom's adopted daughter Isabella, and a bodyguard hiking at Runyon Canyon. (I'm telling you people, the place is overrun with stars and celebrities -- especially on a rainy Friday night, when the big ones like Cruise think it will be uncrowded enough to come out of hiding!) I get excited about celebrity sightings, but rarely starstruck. But on Friday, I couldn't help it -- I mean, have ya'll seen "Risky Business"?! And the funny thing is, even though they're probably one of the most photographed families with one of the most warped lives out there, they looked so normal. Tom was especially friendly, saying hi, but the whole family smiled, bodyguard included. Tom had his arm around Katie, who was carrying Suri, and they looked like any average family on a Friday night (minus the bodyguard). It made me think about this week's reading -- perhaps Tom is such a star not only because of his charisma onscreen, but also because of his carefully culivated, maintained, and coiffed persona.... I've heard some dubious things about him, but he had even me convinced when I spotted him in person. Perhaps the greatest character triumph in his career is that of Tom Cruise, the role he plays for the public.

Victims?

Alexis's post about Moby made me think of this notion that there are maybe a thousand people that are somewhat famous for one thing or another, but only a few dozon that show up in gossip magazines or have paparazzi camped outside their house. Maybe its their age or glamour or relavance, or maybe its that the press had respect for those with talent. But even among those who are young, beautiul, and currently working so many are not hounded by paparrazi, why not Keri Russel, or Hillary Swank, or Christian Bale, these celebrities are maybe photographed at premires or big Hollywood events, but not in their daily lives.

I really think their is a large amount of voluntary exposure involved in becoming a tabloid regular. We tend to have this sympathy for celebrities who are constantly in the public eye that they are victims of the magazines and photographers, but to get in that position they must be provoking it in some way. To go out to the celebrity hotspots, appear at the big parties in the newest fashions, get themselves into trouble with a DUI or nipple-slip, they are makking a decison to attract that kind of attention. Sure some attention outstays its welcome, a la Britney, but its hard to get your way out of a contract with the devil. So I feel a little apprehensive about extending my sympathies to celebrities for their public positons.

Celebrity Meeting: Moby

Moby came to the film school today to talk to us about his new website http://www.mobygratis.com/ which lets film students use his music for free (unless it is for commercial purpose, then there is a nominal fee to the humane society). It was wonderful to listen to him speak. He was very intelligent, self-aware, and incredibly funny. At one point in his talk though, he mentioned where he lived in New York and that he 'goes out' way too often.

I am very aware of who Moby is and love his music...but I don't see his escapades or anything negative about him at all anywhere. I think a lot of entreprenuers and really upstanding artists manage to keep out of the blog/magazine spotlight but we do know who they are (John Williams, Steve Jobs, Hans Zimmer, Jerry Bruckheimer, Enya, etc). Why aren't they mobbed by paparazzi too? Does the media have a degree of respect for them? Is it because they are in their 40s and beyond? What's the deal?!

Interesting article...

I came across this article about Joan Crawford, the way she defined a movie star, and the contrast between that movie star and the actual person she was:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/movies/homevideo/19dvds.html?ref=movies

After reading this, I did a little research on Crawford and saw that, like many other stars, Joan Crawford was not her birth name. It is interesting to me that so many stars choose a name that sounds the way they want to be perceived: Marilyn Monroe sounds sexy and just rolls off the tongue, Carmen Electra sounds like a stripper name, Joan Crawford sounds strong, American, and commanding.... The more and more I pay attention to the construction of a star and not just the face I see onscreen, the more I see how manipulated the persona is, almost as if stardom is a lifelong role for a person, just another character they slip on that somehow sticks in the public's mind as reality.

"Gossip is probably as old as the cavemen"

Every time I go to the airport, I have a personal crisis regarding reading material.  I inevitably have weighed down my bag with the book I'm reading, the book I would like to start reading, and the book I know I should be reading.  However, my pull toward the magazine stands (despite completely absurd prices) is undeniable.  I usually board my flight with "People," "Star," "In Touch," and (the more acceptable) "In Style."  It is like candy and I am like a five year old.  I always am sure to fold back the cover so no one around me will judge me too harshly for reading a magazine that's lead story revolved around Britney's mother's love affair with K. Fed.

Watching this video has made me feel at least a little bit better about my airport attraction to "trash."  I suppose gossip is a natural (and as long as it doesn't get too nasty) harmless tendency.  Sometimes I'll feel bad for the actors whose lives are dissected in a fabricated fashion every week, but my sympathy wavers when I realize there are many actors (young and old) who manage to lead their lives without papparazzi interference.  As I've now been in several social situations with celebrities whose publicists have called papparazzi regarding their client's social plans for the evening, I realize that many celebrities put themselves in the magazines (and enjoy the process of doing so).  

"Gossip is probably as old as the cavemen"

Every time I go to the airport, I have a personal crisis regarding reading material.  I inevitably have weighed down my bag with the book I'm reading, the book I would like to start reading, and the book I know I should be reading.  However, my pull toward the magazine stands (despite completely absurd prices) is undeniable.  I usually board my flight with "People," "Star," "In Touch," and (the more acceptable) "In Style."  It is like candy and I am like a five year old.  I always am sure to fold back the cover so no one around me will judge me too harshly for reading a magazine that's lead story revolved around Britney's mother's love affair with K. Fed.

Watching this video has made me feel at least a little bit better about my airport attraction to "trash."  I suppose gossip is a natural (and as long as it doesn't get too nasty) harmless tendency.  Sometimes I'll feel bad for the actors whose lives are dissected in a fabricated fashion every week, but my sympathy wavers when I realize there are many actors (young and old) who manage to lead their lives without papparazzi interference.  As I've now been in several social situations with celebrities whose publicists have called papparazzi regarding their client's social plans for the evening, I realize that many celebrities put themselves in the magazines (and enjoy the process of doing so).  

Images of Masculinity Outside the US

I meant to put this up last week...but alas I forgot. It does fit a bit with this weeks discussion of sexuality but on masculinity instead. I found this music video by the ridiculously popular Columbian pop singer Juanes. (Maybe some of you are familiar.) I thought it would be worth while to show this video for its depiction of masculinity in Columbia as opposed to what you generally see in US music videos. We discussed a bit about the "Latin lover" ideal in Valentino, but I think its interesting to see a star portrayal from another country. In light of this week's topic, I also think its relevant to look for the differences in perception of sexuality. Many of Juanes' songs are love songs (and that probably has something to do with his popularity amongst teen girls) but this video in particular shows a vulnerability and simultaneous spectacle of voyeuristic pleasure that I think is often considered too effeminate for the US male pop idol. Could you picture Justin Timberlake or whoever else doing something similar? Granted the entire video is uncharacteristic of its US counterparts but I think it does say something about cultural standards.

Tourists in Los Angeles

So I was eating lunch at Cheesecake Factory in Beverly Hills on a typical tuesday and the table next to us consisted of two moms and two girls probably between 14-17 years old.  This group was not from Los Angeles, which I always find fascinating, being a LA Native: why people visit here.  "Hollywood" (blvd) is gross yet tourism is huge.  I am sure its the same concept as me visiting New York, which I do often, however I don't do the typical attractions, but this is neither here nor there. None the less, I get a kick out LA Visitors.  The best part was their discussion of star sightings and more or less the point of their trip out to the land of Hollywood.  In fact, as they sat there eating, they traded pictures they took while visiting and went over the plans to track down their next star.  They some how knew where and when he was going to be and how one of the mothers was going to orchestrate a diversion so her daughter could get a picture with him.  They then took turns talking about how long each one of them was going to spend touching him, or simply being in his presence.  They went over their collection of photos like baseball cards and after lunch as I was walking back to my car, they walked into Ritz Camera, presumably to load up on more film and/or to pick up the reels they left to get developed.

Now here I am eavesdropping and studying them just like they do with the stars, so quite frankly I am just as guilty and the point I keep coming back to this semester is by talking about them here and studying them, I have just made them a celebrity of sorts.  I am putting allure and fascination into these people and making their dream live on just like they do with the star they were stalking.

Unfortunately, I did not catch who they were talking about for their next prey but none the less, what a treat to witness!!

Star sighting story

I forgot to share at the beginning of the class my star sighting story from summer vacation. I went to a book signing in Portsmouth, NH in order to see Rue McClanahan who is best known for starring as Blanche on "The Golden Girls." While standing in line I and others saw Tom Burgeron, star of Hollywood Squares who was also standing in line to meet her. It was very strange to see one star standing in line to meet another star.

While he was standing in line people who were already in line with cameras in order to take pictures with Rue McClanahan moved to take pictures with Tom Burgeron. Many people approached him, and he was very kind about taking pictures with them.

I also was able to meet Rue McClanahan after standing in line, but what I found very strange was to have a random star sighting while waiting to have a planned star sighting. It was a bit of a surreal experience for me because I have had few star sightings to begin with, planned or otherwise, and I was able to have both a planned and unplanned star sighting in the same day at a Barnes and Noble.

Reading Response #4 - Week 6

While reading Harris’ essay on building images in Hollywood, I realized what I had already kind of known.  We all recognize that our favorite stars are usually cast in the same types of roles, and usually made to look like that kind of person in the public eye.  For instance, Britney Spears is a great example, as always.  We’ve known her since she was about sixteen, and she was always supposed to be the sweet, innocent virgin teenager.  However, when it came out that she was getting married to Kevin Federline and her reality show exposed a completely different side of her, the public was taken aback.  This is an unreliable way to judge someone though, because the image of her before could have been completely fabricated.  The problem with “building images” of stars is that once their true self leaks out it gets blown way out of proportion, as we have seen with Britney.  There are, of course, other celebs that have stayed true to the image built for them by their publicists.  But those are not the ones we become obsessed with knowing about.

Modifying a role for the actor, or modifying an actor’s public perception for a role, are two things I never really thought about before reading this article.  I always thought that studios would chose an actor based on the role, rather than the other way around.  But in the case of Marilyn Monroe, she had such a particular personality and look that if the studio put her in a film, there was already a strong perception of her and what to expect from her performance.  When I think of actors in films today, I like to think that they have been chosen for that role because they have the talent necessary to play it.  The fact that film has become all about marketing and money-making takes away from the movie-watching experience.

Discussing Marilyn Monroe this week, I find it only appropriate to bring up the Lindsay Lohan photo shoot for New York magazine (I too saw it on perezhilton.com).  I guess it is because Marilyn Monroe is such an iconic figure that I can’t call Lindsay the “new Marilyn.”  Although the two share many of the same public image characteristics (party girl, posing nude, etc.) I am standing firm that there can only be one MM.  Still, it is shocking to see Lindsay doing a photo shoot like this, when her publicity image prior has been trying to keep her a “nice girl.”  Clearly she is fighting hard to keep her good girl image non-existent. 

Big Women: Femininity & the 50s

So I found it fitting that upon finishing this week's Dyer reading, one of my friends who frequents celebrity gossip sites, turns to me and tells me that the man who photographed Marilyn Monroe in her "Golden Dreams" pinup session for Playboy just recently captured Monroe-wannabe Lindsay Lohan in the newest issue of New York magazine. And funnily enough, as I was reading Heavenly Bodies, I couldn't help but try to make connections between Hollywood starlets of yesterday (Monroe) and today (Lohan). It's no secret that Lohan, along with perhaps many other up-and-coming actresses, have looked to Monroe as a personal icon, idolizing and fawning over her success and "natural sexuality". I feel as though I've read countless interviews in which she has spoken to wanting to achieve the same sort of renown and infamy as Monroe- and to a certain extent, she has accomplished exactly that. On paper Lohan and Monroe share similarities in family life and with battling personal demons, having both come from broken families and dealt with drug issues. Dyer comments that Monroe was a habitual user of prescription drugs, lacked familial stability and was a nymphomaniac; the same sorts of accolades that have been attributed to Lohan recently (at least, as mediated through tabloid magazines and especially celebrity gossip sites such as PerezHilton.com). Though in other ways, Monroe is more legitimate in her natural sexuality than Lohan and conversely, Lohan is more of a talent through her acting than by what her body can suggest. Moreover, Lohan isn't exactly type-casted as "the girl" the way Monroe commonly was. However, I find Lohan's case somewhat troubling. Exactly what image is it that she wants the public to perceive her as? As a waif trying to pass for Calvin Klein coke-chic or as a busty playful blonde with a heart of gold? It seems her chameleon-like style and approach to celebrity (note the frequent change in hair color and weight during the height of her career) were all calculated so as to give off the notion of Lindsay as desirable beyond her red hair and freckles in The Parent Trap. No doubt, she's had ample publicity in the press, ranging from image to work ethic and her "hard-partying ways." Yet, after reading the short chapter on publicity in Stardom: Industry of Desire, I can't help but wonder how much of it is true and not true- what was planted and what is an actual reality in Lohan's life. Not too long ago, Lohan was the subject of much uproar over the roller coaster-like fluctuation of her weight. She was practically a spitting body image of Olive Oyl, whose thin and wiry build could only be acceptable in comic strips. Yet once the bobble-headed thin-as-a-stick spectacle passed, then all of a sudden she was singing her praise of Monroe and her overflowing womanly parts. I wondered, was this something her publicist/agent told her to talk about in her interview to quell fears about her weight? But then again who wouldn't speak favorably of Monroe's beauty and natural sexuality? She was undoubtedly gorgeous and would not have been the original playmate to grace the cover of Playboy had she not fit the quintessential ideal body of woman. But today's starlets- and in turn, society as a whole- are not as accepting or heedful of the Big Woman 50s ideal, yet cling to the classic Hollywood ideal of Monroe as the epitome of what is desirable (and bankable) at the box office. I suppose it's not enough to have Kate Winslet and Scarlet Johannson advocating for natural and "big woman" bodies. Beauty, like sexuality, is fluid and on some sort of continuum that no one can really position at any given moment. Looking at what has been seen as beautiful throughout the decades, who knows what other kind of beauty trends will make themselves known in upcoming years.

breaking news!

I went to perezhilton after I posted and the second item on the page is a story about Lindsay Lohan posing nude for New York magazine.
I was shocked, horrified, and so intrigued.
I made the title click-able, so if you want to look at the pictures (WARNING: uncensored!) there they are.

What is our world coming to now that Lindsay is the new Marylin?!

I was reading the articles for today and, especially in relation to the Harris article, I found myself trying to think of a current-day comparable actress to Marilyn Monroe and/or Grace Kelly. For some reason, the only actress I could come up with that was even close was Scarlett Johansson. She has the sexual seductiveness of Marilyn, and the more serious acting credibility of Grace Kelly, (though granted she is very different from both of them) and a distinct persona, which is pretty much the same on screen as off. She usually plays the sexy siren, (even in music videos like Justin’s “What Goes Around”) and is very mysterious not only in many of the roles she plays, but in her daily life as well. She isn't often in the gossip magazines, especially when compared to someone like Paris or Britney, and she's always very secretive about who she's dating. I think this is cultivated just as Grace Kelly and Marilyn’s personas were cultivated, only now instead of a studio behind it, there’s a team of publicists.
The fact that I could only come up with Scarlett as a similar type of persona was slightly distressing to me, not only because I don’t think she has enough talent to be in the same category as Grace Kelly (one of my all time favorite actors) or Marilyn Monroe, but because I could only really pinpoint one reason for my comparison: her looks. Blonde, fair, and curvy. I was intrigued by Dyer’s reading of the "blondeness" of Marilyn Monroe, and I think it applies to Grace Kelly as well. They are the epitome of beauty, in our society, because they are the epitome of whiteness; they are blonde, have light skin, innocent faces, and an overall aura of vulnerability. Even though Scarlett may not have an innocent face now, or appear vulnerable, think back to her earlier roles, like Lost in Translation. I think Scarlett fits into the same category. Much of Scarlett’s Info section on her imdb page is devoted to different "Hot" lists that she made it on to, similar to Marilyn's. Even Grace Kelly is on a "sexiest" list, though she is also on best actress lists. Both are legends, and I feel like Scarlett could be on that list too, in the future, if she stays away from movies like The Island, because she has the "look" that fits with our American standard of beauty. That brings me back to the question we faced in class earlier, which is what exactly makes a star? Do you think that these actresses are celebrated more for their looks or for their talent? Does it matter?

Core Post #4 (Week 6 Readings)

I found the reading about Marilyn Monroe and her sexuality to be very in depth and interesting in the Heavenly Bodies book this week. While the analysis of many aspects of Monroe’s stardom was captivating, especially after viewing Gentlemen Prefer Blonds in class last week, it made me think about her role as a so-called sex symbol in the 1950s and how that image has become adopted and has changed in contemporary culture. After reading Dyers’ essay on Monroe, it can be concluded that her natural sexuality shocked and surprised not only those in the film industry, but the general public as well. The way she got away with her sexuality was what Dyer and Monroe herself called her “naturalness” and her belief that sex was simply just another part of one’s life and body. I think Monroe may have sparked our culture’s obsession and fascination with sex and finally made it public. Between her openness about her body and about her sexuality and Kinsey’s sexual discoveries at around the same time, sex became a talked about subject that was no longer repressed in society. Monroe was practically the first full on sex symbol to hit Hollywood and the tabloids and to begin a nation’s increasing interest in sex.

Even though Monroe’s sexuality was overt to many people at the time of her stardom, she would probably just be another Hollywood starlet by today’s standards. These days, many stars, young and old, have become completely open and comfortable with their sexuality and are willing to divulge information about their private sexual lives with interviewers or in magazines. Additionally, photographs taken of celebrities and stars today have become much more risqué and suggestive than they ever were in the 1950s. Almost every famous Hollywood actress has become their own version of Marilyn Monroe today.

While people in the 1950s may have been taken aback by Monroe’s representation of sex and the formlessness and naturalness of her body (as stated by Dyer), many people today believe Monroe to be classy and infamous. College students put up pictures of Monroe in their dorm rooms and adults may express deep admiration for her and her films. It is interesting to note the dramatic shift in outlook on Monroe; she used to shock and surprise the public with her overt sexuality, now the public admires her for it. Additionally, the iconic pictures that were taken of her are sprawled across pop culture, making her iconic status even more influential. In Heavenly Bodies, Dyer mentioned the events in Monroe’s life that may have led to a life of pain and sadness for her and I think that people today may recognize this and feel sorry that she had to suffer. Therefore, they may appreciate her for doing what she wanted to do and enjoying life.

I also found the fact that Monroe liked being looked at and liked being sexual to be very interesting. Even though Dyer said that Monroe didn’t want to be viewed as a “thing,” he mentions the contradiction of this statement. Whether she meant to contradict herself or not, I found it notable that she recognized her place as a sex symbol, and yet still enjoyed and aspired to maintain that level of status. I think that few female stars today would openly say they enjoy being a sex symbol because they would be called too loose sexually or “whores” or “sluts.” I think that over the past few years, sex has become less sacred and more public than it ever was before. This may have to do with Hollywood and the increasing number of suggestive pictures and/or scenes in films that have been produced by it, making sex look more like an activity or a hobby, something that should be flaunted rather than concealed. Also, I think female stars today use their sexuality to sell themselves and in turn become too overt in their sexuality. Monroe did not set out to use her sexuality to sell herself, the media created that persona for her and she adapted to it. She found her sexuality to be completely innocent. Her innocence combined with her sexuality can be seen on screen and in interviews and therefore does not come off as being “dirty.” Today, many photographs or sex scenes with female stars can be distasteful because that’s what stars and the media believe will sell.

Today I do not think there is anyone who lives up to the icon that is Marilyn Monroe. There are too many “innocent” young starlets or female movie stars that publicly show their sexuality and are grouped together as so-called sex symbols. At her time, Monroe was the sex symbol. There have been female stars that have been called modern day’s Marilyn Monroe, like Scarlet Johansson, who see their sexuality as natural and do not apologize for their bodies. (Other stars such as Angelina Jolie are equally, if not more, comfortable with their sexuality as well). However, I think that the Monroe/Johansson comparison is also based a lot more on similar physical features: the platinum blond hair (occasionally with Johansson), the curvy figure, the big smile, etc. Johansson, however, has not reconfigured our perspective or view on sex as Monroe did and she does not embody the innocence that Monroe did both on and off screen. Monroe told the world that it was okay to be comfortable within one’s own body and sexuality and that she was going to show off her’s no matter what people thought. It is Monroe’s unfailing naturalness and innocence about her own opinions and sexuality that not only make her an icon today, but have redefined our society’s views and uses of sex in the public domain.

Week 6 Reading Response: Sexuality in The Fifties

“As The Women’s Room Makes clear, sex was seen as perhaps the most important thing in life in Fifties America (Dyer 22).”

As little surprise, this week’s topic is “femininity and the Fifties” and the focus of our two readings were image and sexuality. What was most fascinating to me in these articles was not so much the images that the “publicity, advertising, and exploitation (Harris 41)” were producing, but the effects those productions had on viewers. Harris begins his article noting the correlation between how Americans spent their leisure time and the influence media had on their choice of public heroines. Marilyn Monroe was the choice of 1953 and for reasons Dyer makes very clear in Heavenly Bodies with his discussion of sexuality and her prominence with it (for example, being the centerfold for Playboy). With the “scandal” involved with addressing sexuality in Fifties era period films like Kinsey and Far From Heaven, it was somewhat shocking to read that it was the most important thing in life at that time. More important that it seems to be today? The different views on sex were complex and fascinating; for example Dyer brings up the Fifties thought that “…sexuality is designated as the aspect of human existence where we may learn the truth about ourselves (23)” but it is also noted from The Women’s Room that “sex was for most of the men and all of the women a disappointment they never mentioned (22).”

Surely women and men view sexuality differently and therefore in many ways femininity itself. In Dyer’s article, the reactions of men and women to Marilyn Monroe varied considerably. The women shared what was largely my opinion of Monroe in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes – “rather silly and at worst on the verge of disgusting (22).” The men wanted to sleep with her. I asked some males last week about what they thought about Monroe and they simply replied, “eh, well she’s a classic…like Elvis.” They did not sound interested in sleeping with her…but of course, she is deceased and so I’m sure that comes into play. Harris brought up further allure to Monre because of her seeming accessibility due to her troubled past…death is the ultimate inaccessibility.

-->Sidenote, I posted the picture above because it is one instance that I think that Marilyn actually looks "larger." Everyone kept referring to her as "large," but in comparison to her companion in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, she looked small! So then how big was THAT girl?

The Blonde

When someone mentions the quintessential blonde bombshell, thoughts immediately gravitate towards Marilyn Monroe, however, there were others who preceded her and were in their own time a cultural phenomenon. Notably among these are Jean Harlow and Mae West but in contrast to Monroe, neither was ever really depicted as being vacuous. Quite to the contrary, they were smart women who epitomized a sexual freedom that many who lived in the prison of moderation only yearned for. It was not until the early 1950s that the blonde suddenly was being born with some prenatal deformity that excluded her from having a brain. Before Monroe, there was Judy Holliday in Born Yesterday, but at least in her case, her character was attempting to attain some degree of intellect and culture. Monroe was somewhat of a cruel experiment in which a movie star was built from the ground up without any sense of self-worth. It is sad to consider the fact that the sole purpose of her existence was to provoke erections. Even more disturbingly is that Monroe was engineered by the studio system to essentially be a child with all the sexual apparati necessary for male sexual gratification.

As somehow a response to this creature of befuddlement, Hitchcock and many film noir directors shot back with his own trademark blonde, a woman of cunning who was cold on the outside but ardent within. She was the lady of propriety to the outside world but a “lady of the street” in the bedroom. Grace Kelly, Kim Novak, Tippi Hedren, Veronica Lake, they all did their part in creating this entirely new addition to the infamy that Monroe had given to that golden mop. Gone were the days of Shirley Temple. The blonde was now either the secretly evil and conspiring seductress, or the Eve too ignorant to have any comprehension of either good or evil. The stereotype had taken up permanent residence in our American culture. The benevolent all-around happy, well-adjusted blonde had no median to take refuge in.

Sadly, the mass media has not pulled back from this image for blondes. Even sadder, women yearn to change their natural hair color to fulfill this fabricated role, as if it is license for them to engage in activities that darker hair does not permit. As if sexual inventiveness and freedom is exclusive to that bright and shining yellow. If our fascination with a yellow-orange hunk of gas has not dissipated in thousands of year, there is little chance for the blonde to return back to earth among the mortals.

Reading Response 1: More complicated than meets the eye

I found Thomas Harris’ article interesting in looking at the very carefully crafted public images of both Marilyn Monroe and Grace Kelly. The hyper-managed personas of stars are something associated with the studio era but undoubtedly occurs on a star to star basis today. The subcategories of celebrity promotion Harris lays out, publicity, advertising, and exploitation, definitely still rule the star industry today. What I found most interesting, however, was the conclusion drawn in 1957 that both Kelly and Monroe’s personal lives in one way contradict their publicized personas. But despite these glaring inconsistencies, all-American Kelly marrying a foreign prince and dumb blonde Monroe marrying an intellectual, their legends reflect the studio personas and not the inconsistency. Monroe, particularly, is an interesting case of mismatched qualities both on and off screen.

I had never seen an entire Monroe film before and I was really taken aback at how unabashedly she plays up the dumb, child-like personality in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. The scene that sticks out the most in my mind is when Lorelei’s husband is trying to talk to her about something serious before he gets off the boat and she gets distracted by the bed and acts like a child bouncing on the bed and ignoring her parents. But as the film progresses it is clear that Lorelei is not as dumb as she seems. She comes up with great ideas and clever solutions to the jams they get themselves in, there was even a moment when she remarks something like, “I can be quite smart sometimes.” There is also this sense that she must have more to her if her very loyal best friend is the clearly intelligent Dorothy. This is the same in her personal life; there must be something more to Monroe if she gets married to intellectual playwright, Arthur Miller. Monroe was not a dumb person; she climbed to the top and managed her career with deliberate aptitude. But even as Harris seems to predict in 1957, her image is remembered as simplistic as the persona the studios put forth.

Reading Response #3: Nostalgia and Contradicting Images

It was fascinating to read the 1957 article about Grace Kelly and Marilyn Monroe. At the time, each starlet had acted in a way that contradicted her well-constructed persona. Because of this, the article questions their potential to remain iconic stars and answers that only "time will tell." And now, with time, we can say that they have only become more popular. What I find so interesting about their lasting popularity is that it is the original images that the studio and publicity departments had constructed that remain with us. Grace Kelly is known for her elegance and poise, not as an expatriot; Marilyn Monroe remains America's seductive sex symbol, not the woman who married an intellectual. I think the fact that their constructed images are how they are best remembered is a tribute to both the meticulous planning that created those images as well as the American desire for them. I think that Americans are nostalgic for the simpler past and don't want to tear down the famous stars of 20th century. Instead, they want to celebrate them. And the way to do that is
 to reminisce about them in their heyday—not their complex, controversial reality but their idyllic, constructed image. For me, when reading the posts that critique John Wayne or Marilyn Monroe, something in me rejects what is being said. I like to remember them as capturing all that was perfect in a simpler, better time—of course this isn’t actually the case but it’s so much easier to believe!

I also found it interesting that one of the rules in creating an image was to repeatedly reinforce the image through interviews, comments, and, most importantly, movie roles. Yet now an actress is celebrated if she contradicts her image - beautiful Charlize Theron went grungy in "Monster" and America's sweetheart Julia Roberts played against that role in "Closer." What has changed? Perhaps we know even more about a star’s personal life now so that even when they contradict that image on-screen, we still know the “real” them via interviews and social commentary. What do you think has allowed this contradiction of image and movie role?

Reading Response 1: The New Marilyn Monroe

In his chapter on Marilyn Monroe, Richard Dyer examines the components that raised Monroe from just another Hollywood star to a Hollywood icon. I still do not entirely understand why her iconic image has endured because based on Dyer’s argument, her appeal was primarily focused on the male audience and does not take into account the desires of the female audience. Regardless, I think that the relationship between Monroe and the audience is the most essential factor behind her status as an icon. For example, he writes that “[The Prince and the Showgirl] constantly plays with our supposed desire to see Monroe as sexual spectacle” (20). For me, this statement embodies his argument because it brings up both the idea of Monroe as a consciously constructed “sexual spectacle” and the notion of audience desire. As Laura Mulvey argues in “Visual Pleasure of Narrative Cinema,” the classical Hollywood cinema works based on the notion of woman as object to be looked at or as a spectacle. However, does that construction reflect our “innate” desires or is it a device used to create that desire and make it feel “natural,” or “innate?”

I think that this relationship between what we, the audience, wants and what we think we want emerges in contemporary pop culture because there is a bevy of stars who attempt to channel Marilyn Monroe and in doing so, play into this notion of supposed audience desire. Dyer discusses the power of Monroe lying in the fact that her image could mean anything: sweet, naïve girl next door, sex kitten, dumb blonde, etc. Certainly there are many in pop culture who overtly evoke Monroe, whether successfully or not: Madonna, Christina Aguilera and maybe even Gwen Stefani. But while reading this, the one name that kept coming to mind was Paris Hilton. I know, blasphemy! Paris doesn’t do anything and she shouldn’t even be famous. But she is famous and many of the qualities that Dyer outlines about Monroe resonate with characteristics and actions of Paris Hilton.

First of all, whether she does nothing or not, Paris Hilton is undeniably an image and although she may not do it as well as Monroe, Paris can mean anything: socialite, dumb blonde, sex kitten, or victim. Dyer also discusses Monroe’s position as the ideal woman: white, platinum blonde, available, and vulnerable. Monroe was the ideal not only because she embodied these characteristics but also because of what she was not i.e. the Other. When initially reading this, my first thought was if this notion of the ideal woman had evolved since Monroe’s time and thinking about Paris Hilton, I realized that it hasn’t changed at all. Certainly a lot of people might not call Paris Hilton the “ideal” woman but her image does work to construct itself as such. Take, for example, the fact that this blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl is actually a blonde-haired, brown-eyed girl because Hilton wears blue contacts. It’s a small detail but an interesting one that works to better align her with these Monroe-esque characteristics of the ideal woman and remove her from the “otherness” of dark hair, skin, and eyes that Dyer identifies.

Perhaps most importantly, as noted earlier, Monroe’s power lies primarily in her position as a spectacle and I think that Paris Hilton has certainly adopted this position as well. Famous for nothing other than her very existence, I think that Paris Hilton embodies spectacle like no other because there is no outside career, talent or force to take away from her being looked at just for herself. And for me, I think this is the primary connection between her and Monroe and perhaps why her name came to me most powerfully out of all the contemporary Marilyn Monroes out there. I can’t say it’s a good thing but I think it certainly helps to understand why Paris’ 15 minutes aren’t up and why they probably won’t be for a while.

Sidenote: On a related note, Lindsay Lohan recently recreated Monroe’s final photo shoot, "The Last Sitting," for New York Magazine. I think that like Paris Hilton, there are several connections between Lohan and Monroe in terms of their images but unlike Hilton, I don’t think hers is constructed as well or even as consciously. A link to the photos, although they’re NSFW (Not Safe For Work, for the people that don't spend way too much time on the internet).

When Masculinity Decides to Dance...

The other night, I was watching "Footloose" with my boyfriend and a few of his male friends and, I've got to admit, I was watching them more than I was the TV. This film was more of their generation than mine -- I wasn't born yet when it came out, while they were old enough to love watching it as a kid -- and these boys were obsessed with the film. One of them, a traditionally "masculine" sort who played college football, knew entire dance sequences by heart, and frequently got up to dance along with the movie. The other boys would cheer him on as if hollering for a sports team, not their dancing friend. And, whenever Kevin Bacon would perform a particularly difficult move, they would yell, "that's so badass!"

The whole scenario struck me as very interesting, given our recent discussion of the masculinity we see in film, as well as the qualities of masculinity women look for in a real-life man. For example, when watching Bacon execute his dance and gymnastic moves in the film, I might have commented that they were graceful and delicate -- badass didn't necessarily come to mind. And in most situations, if a boy broke out in a choreographed, subtly homoerotic dance (such as the Kevin Bacon/Chris Penn dance montage), men would not toast with beers. And yet, these guys felt comfortable really appreciating the movie because they were countering any homoerotic (or homophobic) suggestions by acting really masculine: swigging beer, yelling words like "badass," cheering on their football player friend's moves... I wonder if the football player had been more like a ballet dancer in build, or if I'd daintily quipped "That Bacon's so graceful!," or if I'd poured Cosmos instead of tossing out beers, that they would have felt as comfortable enjoying the film in the same way. And would I, as a female observing men, have still laughed at their antics, or would I have quietly worried that I'd gotten myself into a relationship with a closeted Rock Hudson? Why did their overly "masculine" behavior have to be funny and over-the-top in order for it to seem okay that they love this film so much?

This incident caused me to think about the masculinity we expect to see in a male hero protagonist, and how his masculinity is exerted, even if his motivation in the film is to get people to dance, not a traditionally masculine quality. And furthermore, how do with expect that masculinity reflected in the male audience? What does it say about our society that men have to act overly "masculine" when watching something that isn't?

Dallas and Ringo in Stagecoach

I know I'm too late for this post to count for this week which means most of you will read this after our discussion. But these thoughts came flooding to my head this morning (aren't you glad I wake up to thoughts of CTCS 412?!) and I wanted to write them down before class..

Reading the article about John Wayne, it is more than clear that he embodied the American myth- the old frontier, the masculine male, everything Americans thought their ideal American should be. And the article further explained that the idea of myth is useful to understand what Americans were thinking, whether or not it was true or accurate. So what does it mean in Stagecoach that Wayne (as Ringo) is the only one to accept and even love the ex-prostitute (Dallas)? (I think that's the past they kept alluding to in her former sinner's life.. )

The film was made in 1939, which means America was between World Wars and proudly isolationist, lead by Roosevelt. So this message to accept one another and forgive past faults is not likely to extend beyond country borders. Instead, perhaps Wayne as the ultra-American figure is giving Americans permission to accept the changes in society. After World War I, women's roles had changed and were establishing new places in the traditionally masculine America. And with World War II coming soon, they were about to have an even larger impact on America's home front. So perhaps Stagecoach is being used to advocate the idea that masculine men should forgive and accept the changing woman's role? This was the best explanation I could come up with, but it still doesn't fit that she was a prostitute turned marrying woman. It would make more sense if she were a docile woman turned boisterous independent.

Any ideas on what Ringo and Dallas' relationship - specifically Ringo's ability to look past her past and love her - symbolizes?

Decades of Style

I found this marketing campaign from Saks Fifth Avenue relevant to our class, as it uses iconic stars from various decades to sell an array of contemporary fashions. Love the 60s looks....

Celebrity Sightings Galore

My parents came to visit and over the span of just two days, we managed to get in a bunch of celebrity sightings. First, we went out to dinner where we were seated just a few feet from Harrison Ford and Calista Flockhart. My mother didn’t really react because she and Harrison had “met” in an elevator in New York years before and I didn’t really react because I don’t care that much about either of them and whatever Calista was eating looked far more interesting to me than her or Harrison. The next day, we went to Cut, Wolfgang Puck’s steakhouse, where, sure enough, Wolfgang Puck himself was seated at the next table.

Again, despite the fact that all I ever do is watch Food Network, I felt nothing but a brief moment of excitement which quickly transformed into an excitement for the upcoming dinner. Within 24 hours, we managed to see a few substantial stars without even trying and yet neither my parents nor I had any reaction to them other than indifference. I think that many people who have lived here, in New York, or both have similar reactions because after a while, you realize that celebrities are just, to be clichéd, “people” and that it’s actually really tacky to approach anyone while eating.

Yet for me, this reaction is always interesting because if you ask anyone from my high school about me, they’ll mention at some point that I’m “obsessed” with celebrity. It’s understandable considering I was obsessed with celebrity and I did start a celebrity blog last year. But for someone who spends so much time reading US Weekly, I rarely get star struck. The few times I have felt speechless have been when I’ve unexpectedly seen one of my favorite stars—people who aren’t just celebrities, like Calista Flockhart or Harrison Ford (in the sense that although they each have their reasons for being stars, I’m not particularly invested in either so I lump them in the general celebrity category with other actors), but people who are famous for participating in something that I love. People who are “my” celebrities.

So, when I randomly saw Sarah Michelle Gellar, I nearly had a heart attack because she’s not just SMG, she’s Buffy. Same thing for Lindsay Lohan—she’s not just Lindsay Lohan, party girl extraordinaire, she’s Cady Haron, the main character of Mean Girls aka the movie I’ve seen billions of times. I guess in the end, contrary to everyone’s assumptions that every time I see a celebrity I freak out (or in the case of my parents, that I actually came to school out here just to see celebrities…because clearly there are NO celebrities in New York), I don’t fall apart every time I see one. And the only times I do are when I see those people who made me “obsessed” with celebrity in the first place.

Celebrities we love to hate.

I've been think recently about celebrities that we love to hate, people who essentially become villains because of opinions or simply because of their existence. For me that celebrity comes in the form of Ann Coulter, conservative political commentator. I'm starting to realize that for me the dislike of Ann Coulter isn't just that she can be a completely heartless person during interviews and that she makes unbelievable comments; I like having something that I can quickly connect with other liberals on, and in this case it's that Ann Coulter is crazy.
I have found that Ann Coulter is someone that I actually enjoy actively disliking. I do not just ignore her every time that she comes on TV or she is mentioned in the news somewhere. I am unsure as to why I actually prefer to have an active dislike for a woman that I have never met than to just ignore her; I think that it has something to do with knowing the enemy, but that does not explain the interest in celebrity hating in daily life for most people. While it does make sense that if someone is making political statements that I strongly disagree with I might want to know what they are saying since it could very much threaten my rights; that just does not make sense when it comes to the strong dislike of Paris Hilton or other celebrities who do not make strong or any political statements.
Perhaps the fact that we love to hate celebrities has more to do with jealousy than it does with an actual dislike for the person. I have never felt any strong emotions for Paris Hilton, but I know many people seem to hate her because she is rich, and essentially she is famous because of it. I wonder about this because while I can explain my own political hatred for Ann Coulter I find it difficult to explain the hatred for Paris Hilton or other celebrities.

Reading Response Week 5 - What has happened to Masculinity?

Since a lot of people have already commented on the Wills article, I thought I would write my reactions to the Cohan article.

I really found the definition of 1950s masculinity as found in Cohan's article "The Spy in the Gray Flannel Suit" very interesting when compared to masculinity today. Cohan describes masculinity, as seen in Hitchcock's "North by Northwestern", as a clean-cut, professional man who is able to find a wife, avoiding sexual temptresses, and establishing a home to care for. He shows how Cary Grant's character goes from a confused twice divorced advertiser into a government spy with an fiancé who has found his masculinity by the end. He points out that once Grant's character finds his mission in life (his masculinity) after pretending to be shot at, he begins to dress sharply and openly purse the female protagonist, Eve, with hopes of marriage. This 1950s icon of Grant is described as being clean-cut with tailored suits. This image painted for us of the exterior of a manly man is interesting to me once compared to modern masculinity. Today if a man is clean-cut, shaven, and fashionably dressed he is more likely than not labeled as a metrosexual or a homosexual, not a manly man. For a man to be fashionable in today's world is to loss his masculinity in the sight of other men. Masculinity today is defined as being roughly dressed and openly promiscuous with different women, lacking class (except for the exception of some celebrities such George Clooney). It makes me wonder when the ideologies of masculinity changed from classy to gruff and homophobic. At what point did we lower our stander of masculinity while at the same time out casting any man who even shows the slightest interest in style? What do you all think?