Beatty's creation of the stud.

In "Studs Have Feelings Too", Lucia Bozzola writes that Warren Beatty offers a subjectivity that can only cause unease for the male spectator. This is especially interesting to me because I felt incredibly uncomfortable while watching Shampoo. I didn't think that his acting in the film was anything spectacular and found it equally interesting to learn that he produced the film to further his image as a sex icon. "The most critical reference is Jay Cock's assertion in Time that the film, produced and co-writen by Beatty as well, could have been called 'Advertisements for Myself.'" Besides Beatty's narcissism, this highlights the control that Beatty exercised over the film and his representation in it.

Rather than mastering a craft of acting, Beatty seemed to understand how he could use his physical appearance to become a "man for woman's eyes." In the article, "Articulating Stardom", King states that naturalism defines the way that an actor represents himself (utterances, behavior and appearance) in the everyday world - or in other words - without acting. Beatty's construction of himself (his persona), therefore, seems to be built on an effort to emphasize his naturalism rather than playing parts that he has to transform into.

His sexual identity, however, was not only created by the obvious use of his body, behavior, etc, but also by the way that the other character in the film interact with him. He doesn't work hard at attracting women - they just come - and other men idolize him ("Now that's what I call fucking...") It seems like a casting director who casts an actor (or model?) to play a specific role because they naturally fit the character's attributes is far more common than in the 70s. While I am trying to examine both Beatty as an actor and actors for the sake of acting, I cannot help but to come to conclusion that his art comes from utilizing what he already has (his image) and his ability to take that and create a film that revolves around it and emphasizes it.

It is Beatty's use of himself as the male gaze that makes it so uneasy for men to watch. At the same time, this is the very thing that made his movies sell. "The person who wants to know if this film is Beatty advertising himself would have to see the film, read the articles and decide, since Beatty has not denied that reading." His ability to create himself into a playboy is exactly that of which makes him marketable - and so intelligent.

While it seems so common for the playboy to exist in many films nowadays, it is particularly interesting that he created this himself - rather than a corporate formula. Have we seen anything like this in recent times? If Beatty did not utilize his sex appeal, would he still be considered an "actor"? Maybe I don't see what the women see while watching the film, but I wouldn't see him as such a lady's man if he wasn't constructed ("I fuck them all...I listen to them.") to be one in the film.

Warren Beatty: Performance and Sexuality, One Big Mess

We often hear critics and fans talking about how much an actor or actress sucked in a certain film. How they weren’t good enough. Even I critiqued Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law in Sherlock Holmes for not embodying the wittiness that both characters, Holmes and Watson, illustrate in the original plot. Then again, I might have been influenced by my personal expectations from having read the book before watching the movie. I was expecting something different, but because I didn’t get what I wanted, it does not mean that their performances weren’t credible.

Performance is much as part of film as cinematography, editing, production design and any other cinematic term that can be thrown in there. Performance as Dyer mentions it “is how the action/function is done, how the lines are said” (134). In other words, performance is how the character transgresses through the story making it grow, reaching the climax and then having a resolution/conclusion. As performance has this great impact within the context of film, although Barry King argues that theatrical performance outweighs cinematic performance, many theories have evolved in terms of how to read and analyze a star’s performance within a film.

One aspect of performance that King, Dyer and Bozzola all hit upon is how the personal life, the metaphysical aspect of a star/performer can influence his performance or how the audience’s reception might be. For instance, if Pamela Anderson, an overly sexualized figure in Hollywood were to portray an innocent housewife with kids, it would be difficult for the audience to comprehend and accept that performance, and would dig deeper to find the persona that Anderson usually portrays in her characters. Applying this theory to Warren Beatty can be a bit deceitful and confusing. Lucia Bozzola mentions in her article, “Studs Have Feelings Too,” that “Warren Beatty as a star is just as famous for never talking about his personal life; the power over his cinematic image exercised as producer/writer/director extends to his private activities.” Because Beatty never talked about his life many rumors ensued that he was a ‘lady’s man,’ someone that went around. Then, it isn’t difficult to accept his performance in Shampoo, where he sleeps with about four different girls, all within a couple of days.

Although Beatty’s performance of George is accepted as a somewhat-player figure, what is a bit weird is they way he expresses his feelings and how he becomes the center of the gaze on screen. Bozzola mentions that, “The benign nature of George as stud and the rethinking of male and female roles continue in the figuring of the women around him as decidedly not passive, and George’s own status as an object for their desires.” This changes the role, even though George is sleeping with all these women, he is not the one looking for them, but rather he is being used. Then, can this character reflect and parallel the rumors that were said about Beatty? Since it is not the same circumstance, is it okay to accept this performance or question it? With George being used, the females are the ones exerting the power, and George is the one being used. In a way, gender roles are switched here in the context of social indoctrination, where it is typical for the male to dominate the female. For instance, in terms of the gaze, the camera pays more attention to George’s body than any of his female partners.

Questions

1. How does Shampoo deter or exemplify Laura Mulvey’s theory of the gaze in cinema?

2. In terms of Beatty’s personal life, do you think that this character works because he is embodying himself, as an object that is used?

3. In terms of performance theory, do you see any intertextuality in Beatty’s performance and how does that relate to the sexuality of the performance?

Beatty’s Star Persona

Warren Beatty became famous as a sex symbol and his leading character, George Roundy, in Shampoo is known for exactly the same thing. A film about sexual exploration and freedom Beatty embodies Roundy. (Bozzola)
Bozzola explains how Beatty became famous for his relationship with Joan Collins before he was even in his first film. This is an interesting concept to grasp, because it is so rare. This clearly had a great deal to do with how Beatty was perceived throughout his entire career. Dyer goes through the different trends in stars performances, whatever medium and actor is performing in, there are trends that they follow to help keep up their persona. The choice to be an actor is choosing to market an item, but in this instance the item being marketed is yourself.
King discusses the incredible overage of “actors” in Hollywood. The only difference between the 90% of those actors earning less than a living wage and those who are making a living is the ability to market oneself successfully. We have seen in both historically and in modern cinema that ones ability to act is not necessarily what makes someone a star.
Beatty, like many stars do, chose to not speak about his personal life and attempted to keep it personal. Many stars make the choice to do this, and while it appears as though they simply want to have a personal life, one has to wonder if this is a strategic marketing strategy. By not saying anything about ones personal life, the public is forced to seek it out even further. Regardless of why Beatty did what he did, it is clear that his tactics were successful.

Can you think of a modern day celebrity who became famous due to a relationship they were in and how did this influence their star person?
Think of a star who has become famous as a film star not because of their ability to act but because of their sex appeal.
How did Beatty’s choice to not speak of his personal life increase his stardom?

Infidelity in Hollywood (Supplemental Post #4)

In light of watching, Warren Beatty's George sleep his way through Shampoo last week, and the recent break between girl-next-door Sandra Bullock and bad boy Jesse James, infidelity in Hollywood comes to mind. It's not that infidelity in Hollywood is more rampant than in everyone else's lives, it just that the paparazzi puts a magnifying lens on it.

Usually, I really don't care about these types of things, but I am a serious Sandra Bullock fan, and was really saddened to hear about her husband extramarital affairs while she was working on her Oscar winning film. That is the quandary. Are people interested in the Sandy/Jesse saga because it is frivolous drama to divert our attention, or is it because Sandra Bullocks star persona of girl-next-door makes us really feel for her pain right now. If Sandra were the bad girl would we care? I don't think so.

Mary Louise Parker's (star of Showtimes Weeds) boyfriend Billy Crudup of 8 years left her for Claire Danes when Parker was 7 months pregnant. We gasped, but we didn't give it nearly as much attention as this Sandra/Jesse breakdown. Maybe it's because Crudup and Parker weren't married, or maybe it's because Parker doesn't have the girl-next-door persona, maybe because she's not as famous as Bullock, or maybe its because Sandra Bullock's marriage was a ray of hope that yes, you can have it all - the career, the man, the kids in your late thirties early forties. But with Jesse James infidelity, that ray of hope is gone. So maybe we don't mourn for Sandra Bullock, but for ourselves and our love lives. If Sandy can't have it all, how can we?

Warren is George: Core Post # 2

Warren Beatty's star appeal asks the question if life imitates art or is art imitating life, especially with the parallels between the film Shampoo and his real life as a Hollywood Lothario. In Stars, Dyer discusses performance techniques and two main acting concepts: 1. acting from the inside out (the method) or from the 2. outside in (studying subjects). Beatty's acting comes out of "Method" acting. Beatty dated many of his female costars. Just like George "dated" many of his clients over the years in the film. It's hard to not see that as the article states, George is Warren. He would almost have to be for the "the method" to work.

In the article, Beatty is said to be equally famous for bedding Hollywood beauties as well as not talking about his sexual/personal life in interviews. It is his personal life the fuels his star persona. Because he didn't want to talk about his sexual prowess, it is interesting that he wrote the screenplay and stars in the film Shampoo, that is all about an up-and-comer using sex to get him ahead. It's as if Beatty is telling us how he really feels about sex, love and money, under the guise of a "film." Later in his career, when he becomes more famous for his political actions, he writes another film titled Bullworth, about a politician who hires his own assassin, but then decides he wants to live. In the meantime he explains why racism and class differences still exist. Again, Beatty uses a film to say what he won't say about his life and his thoughts in interviews.

Shampoo, feels like we're Warren Beatty's life, if he happened to be a poor hairstylist because we gather that the way Beatty thinks and feels is how George thinks and feels. When George falls in love, but loses the girl in the end, it's as if it's Beatty telling the world, "yes I'm promiscuous but that's only because I haven't found love, and when I did find it, she left." About which woman he is referring to in his real life, we don't know. If Beatty's star persona took another turn, I believe Beatty would write another semi-autobiographical film telling us how he really feels even though he has no comment in the interview.

Do some stars want to typecast themselves as a way to establish a star persona?
Do stars look for roles that are semi-autobiographical, to tell us something about their personal lives that they can't say in interviews?
How does a star change his persona?

Authenticity, From Bob to Gaga

Last night I rewatched I'm Not There. As much as I love Velvet Goldmine -- and that is a lot -- I'm Not There is even better. It follows Dylan rather than Bowie, in an even more abstract and probably fitting way.

In any case, I came across this bit of the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RltIUKEpukg&feature=related

While there are tens of things going on in it, what I focused in on this time was the bit at the end -- Cate Blanchett's (yes, that's Cate Blanchett) Bob's frustration at his "true" "identity" being revealed, in regard to questioning his authenticity.

As always, I was reminded at this point of Lady Gaga. Video of her performing at NYU pre-Monster-dom just surfaced (I believe someone already posted it on the blog, but in any case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNq1jSqakIQ), in which she has long, brown hair, visible features devoid of sunglass covering, and -- perhaps most significantly -- performs songs that sound nothing like what she does now.

SHOCKER: public and private lives do not conicide. This has been an issue for Gaga for some time now. In perhaps her best known interview -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IljmjabjUP0 -- she admits her greatest issue is people believing she is fake. Every time a photo arises of her dressed at all "normally" -- offstage -- uproar again erupts.

Really? Really? Beyonce needs to create an alter ego for her to go onstage -- Sasha Fierce (not comment on the name choice, here) -- is it really so baffling that Gaga would too choose a personae? (her name itself screams that). Indeed, derived from the Queen song "Radio GaGa", Stefani Germanotta's stage name is nothing but homage to the artists that have inspired it. It denies her obviously Italian roots (as does her bleached hair, and bangs/sunglasses combination that hide any and all facial indications of un-American ancestry [all you can discern is a white woman]), and individual identity, to give itself over entirely to stage pesonae.

So? Yes, the implications here of identity crises and schizophrenia are obvious, but there's always been an acknowledged distinction between public and privates lives. Perhaps Gaga is only criticized so for not admitting that difference.

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner Versus Adam's Rib

The race issue in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner is obviously what everyone focuses on, and probably what the film intends to focus on. However, there is another interesting relationship going on, aside from the interaction of the races: the interaction of Katherine and Spencer.

Their performances in the film are infused with extracinematic text: their decades long affair (he was married, but Catholic, so refused to divorce his wife), previous collaborations, his death soon after (Guess is the last film he did), and infamous uninsurability (due to his rampant alcoholism, fueled in part by his affair) -- to name a few.

But most of all, their relationship in the film reminded me of one of their earliest -- and arguably best (known) -- collaborations: Adam's Rib. Indeed, the films are similar overall: though one deals with race rights, the other women's rights (albeit not as overtly). The basic plot is this: Katherine and Spencer played a married couple, both lawyers. Spencer gets a case to represent a cheating husband whose wife shot him upon discovering his infidelity. Katherine, siding with the woman, then chooses to represent her, and chaos ensues.

Katherine's character turns the suit into a feminist issue: women are mistreated by men (the husband cheated on his wife) and so deserve whatever retribution they may get. The film ends significantly, with Spencer pretending he is about to shoot Katherine, in order to get her to see that it is never alright for anyone to attack anyone, regardless of feminist etc. motivations that may be read into the act.

Alright, so how does this movie relate to Guess? Aside from the similarities in their star partnering and social problem film tendencies, the films cast Katherine and Spencer in similar lights. In both, Katherine is the raging liberal, who is on the side of the minority at the time whatever that side may be. Spencer is, as always, the more level-headed one, actually considering issues rationally rather than ideologically.

This distinction is particularly interesting considering their personal histories. Katherine was only married once, for six years, when she was very very young, and before she got famous. So for the whole of her career, she was a single woman -- not so interesting now, but considering the decades she worked during ... What's certainly more radical is her ability to have a decades long affair with a married man, and broadcast that indiscretion time and time again with their undeniable screen chemistry.

Furthermore, Katherine put up with Spencer's alcoholism -- she was the one to pick him up after his lost weekends. So while she may have followed the traditional trajectory of committing herself to one man for a multitude of years, their partnership appears nothing if not untraditional: unmarried, without children, he an alcoholic ...

And as for Spencer, while clearly somewhat lax with his values, he is also obviouly conservative. His Catholic guilt forbade him from ever divorcing his wife for a woman he clearly loved, and drove him to drink.

I am not aware of how well known their stories were at the time, so I cannot speak to whether Guess and Adam's were working with Katherine and Spencer's personaes (which obviously may well have been influnced by their personal lives in any case), but it is interesting to note this overlap. What's also interesting is to note how the films do follow the trajectory of rights in America.

Black people got the right to vote before women -- they after the civil war, women in 1920. This African American rights was indeed limited until the 1960's, but still existed in a technical sense at least. Obama became president before a woman. The list of instances goes on. So why, then, if this is the order in which the nation deals out freedoms, do America's films deal with the issues in reverse order? Indeed, the amount of gender relations films in the '30s and '40s as compared to race relations in the '50s and '60s is astounding. Perhaps it is just that gender issues work better in the romantic comedy mode so perfected in the early decades. But is there also something more at work here?

Grey's Anatomy and Star Entitlement (supp. post 3)

On this week's cover of Entertainment Weekly, there is a picture of Katherine Heigl posing as if she is praying as she announces that she is leaving the hit show Grey's Anatomy that has perpetuated to stardom. The announcement does not come as a surprise, there has always been tension b/t Heigl and the showrunners and she has been absent most of this current season due to the adoption of her daughter. The image in the magazine represents Heigl as being angelic, completely innocent in the situation. This was her decision so she could spend more time with her child. It is as if she is saying, you can't blame me, i'm so perfect because i'm praying on the cover of a magazine. Heigl's reputation, however, is highly contradictory to the star persona she tries so hard to project.

What is interesting is how despite having a negative reputation (bad mouthing costars, publicly criticizing her own show), Heigl still manages to put out a positive star image. She is flourishing as the current reigning queen of romantic comedies and has proven she can open a film, which is all studio execs really care about. But in pursuing her film career, she has badmouthed her own show and criticized those involved in order to get more time away. Perhaps she feels entitled to do so because of her success in features, but as is constantly seen in celebrity behavior, entitlement gets you nowhere.

I work at ABC and though I can't reveal any details about Heigl's departure, i can tell you that what really happened is far different than what Heigl and EW are trying to portray. Heigl's feelings of entitlement in leaving the show are in no way justified, as her movies probably would not have been as successful without her being on one of the most popular shows on TV, a show that gave her an Emmy. Her contrasting star images (that of being sweet, innocent, and pretty vs. being horrible to work with) can only go on for so long before one wins out. Most young starlets have plenty of drama in their lives, but those who last are the ones who retain the good image. Heigl can only go on pretending for so long when it is so obvious that the image she is trying to hard to portray is not the truth.

The studios may not construct images for stars anymore, but through Heigl one can see how in today's world of celebrity, stars construct images for themselves. But due to the ever increasing glare of the spotlight and paparazzi, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain a public image that is not really true to who you are.

Objectification in Masculinity (Reading Response 3)

In the Bozzola article, he discusses how Warren Beatty's offscreen persona is somewhat autobiographically portrayed in the film Shampoo. Beatty was notorious for being a playboy even before he was a movie star, and this film gives some insight into his playboy lifestyle. Furthermore, Beatty's character in the film represents a new kind of masculinity, one in which the male serves as an object for women , rather than the other way around.

The character of George is presented from the beginning as being quite a man about town. Everyone seems to know him and, those who are female, all want to sleep with him. George's atypical job as a hairdress puts him in a unique postion of power because he is able to be around women all day long so he knows what they want. He is contrasted with the character of Lester, who despite having money and a wife and daughter, seems to have no idea about how or why women do what they do. Furthermore, he is entirely clueless to what is happening around him, including the fact that his mistress, wife, and daughter, are all sleeping with George, whom he wants to invest in. Lester's cluelessness is perpetuated to the very end when he still wants to invest in George, despite knowing that George has slept with all of the women in his life. However, it can be read that Lester wins out in the situation, seeing as he ends up with Jackie, the one true object of George's desire.

Throughout the film, George is presented as being objectified to women. The camera constantly focuses the gaze on him and his body, rather than the bodies of the women who surround him. Furthermore, George is a passive agent in his relationship with women. They throw themselves at him and he happily goes along with it. His relationships are also determined by women, for example, Jill is desperate to be with George and only George, but dumps him as soon as she finds him sleeping with her best friend. Rather than being convinced by George's charm, she represents a new form of feminism arising during the 60s where women call the shots. George does not seem to care much about anything happening around him until the end when he begs Jackie to stay with him. Despite his knowledege of women and his good looks, he eventually loses out on the one woman he really wants because he does not have the means to take care of her the way she wants.

Beatty's image in this film redefines older versions of masculinity. In the old John Ford films, masculinity is identified as being strong, aggressive, and always getting what you want by being the active force in a relationship. Here, Beatty demonstrates a playboy sleeping his way through life and allowing women to dictate his relationships. however, since Beatty loses out on the girl in the end, the film does make the statement that in order to truly be happy and get what one wants, the male must be active in his pursuit of the woman. By allowing himself to be objectificed and gazed at for so long, George lost all control and therefore ends up alone, watching the woman he loves run away with another man.

A Masculine Hairdresser (Reading Post #3)

In Shampoo Warren Beatty contradicts the stereotypical hairdresser as he embodies the playboy image. This type of masculinity that he portrays in this film is not a typical way to make the male figure look powerful and superior to women. George seems to play the role that woman usually have in films, while the women in the film play the role of men. George also plays the role of the one “to be looked at” (Laura Mulvey) by using his body as an object to gaze at. The camera never rests on the image of the women in the film they are seen as the subjects as George is constantly “put on display” (Lucia Bozzola) throughout the film. The camera repeatedly lingers on his body when he wears his tight jeans and tank tops that show off his muscle and masculine body. “George is presented to be looked at expressly as a desirable figure, but has to maintain an idea of manhood” (Lucia Bozzola). A scene that stood out to me as a force to show his masculinity was when he was going to Jackie’s house to do her hair before the Nixon event that night, he put his blow dryer in his jeans as John Wayne would put his gun in his gun holster. John Wayne represented the epitome of masculinity and the film’s reference to John Wayne helps to connect masculinity to George’s image. It’s ironic that Beatty would be playing the role of a hairdresser because of the sexuality he projects on and off screen, he defiantly reverses the role to not allow any kind of hesitation of whether or not he may be gay. Jackie knows that he is does not fully embody the stereotypical masculinity when she mentions to Jill that she did not feel secure with him and did not feel that she could rely on him for support.

Today the tendency towards personification may have increased to combine naturalism with personal charm helps the success of the sales pitch for the movie (Barry King 179), and by using Beatty’s real-life sex symbol image allowed for him to be type-casted for this role. Even though he said that he would not talk about his personal life it was obvious that he lived the life of a little playboy, this “results with the lines between character and persona to be blurred” (King 179). It became difficult to distinguish whether or not Beatty was reflecting his sex symbol from his personal life in his roles or if the sex symbol he portrayed in his films was carrying over into his real life. I was talking to a friend a while ago about acting and how it is so easy for actors and actresses to become lost within themselves as they constantly are changing who they are on screen. With this constant change the life and personality they once had can disappear to as they take on the traits of their onscreen characters.

1. Is the image of masculinity still changing today?
2. What is a controversial role that has been used in today’s films that demonstrates masculinity?
3. Did Warren Beatty have the same effect as John Wayne in the sense of masculinity?

Sandra Bullock and the "Mother" Image, Supplemental Post #2

Sandra Bullock's recent Oscars speech labeled her as an mother above all else. She gushed, "I would like to thank what this film is about for me which are the moms that take care of the babies and the children no matter where they come from." In the film, she plays a woman with the ideal family: a devoted husband and two loving biological kids. She is the perfect mother: her children appreciate everything she does for them, and she is able to extend her love to a child from outside the family. She is an empowered woman, but she is first and foremost a mother.

This becomes particularly interesting when exploring her personal life, especially during her present marital troubles. She has never had the natural nuclear family, but she has gone to great lengths to try to do so. Over the course of her 5-year marriage to Jesse James, she has suffered from two miscarriages. She had assumed the "mother role" for Jesse's daughter (tabloids are now playing up the fact that her absence is causing the child distress). And while she has never had children of her own, she had maintained the image of being in a happy, healthy marriage (though it has been revealed recently that Jesse has been less than faithful).

Thus, it is very interesting to contrast the image she tries to build in her on-screen performances and in her public appearances - her star image - and her real personal issues. Do her characters "make up" for her troubles at being a mother in the eyes of the public? What personal motivations lay behind Sandra's movie choices?

You're a Womanizer Baby (Reading Post #3)

There is no doubt about the obvious parallel between Warren Beatty’s star persona and the character he plays in the film Shampoo. They are both sex symbols that not only drive women crazy but bed them on a regular basis. In the article “Studs Have Feelings Too: Warren Beatty and the Question of Star Discourse and Gender” the author states the Beatty exemplifies the idea of both masculine sexuality and also feminine sexuality through his body and also his character types. The author explains that Beatty is the one being looked at not only by the female characters but also by the males. The best example of this is the scene where his character and Jackie are having sex in the clubhouse. His naked body is the only one the audience and other cast members see. This is typical of the feminine character because the women are typically the ones being gazed at. Another way in which Beatty is feminine in the film is that he is a hairdresser which is very feminine profession. However, he is tall and takes presence in the frame, which is characteristic of the masculine character (i.e. John Wayne). Everyone also desires him not only sexually but also professionally. This is a great example of the duel concepts of masculinity and femininity that he portrays since most men are desired professionally and most women are desired sexually, he encompasses both.

Dyer also discusses the idea of performance and performance techniques. In the film Shampoo, Beatty’s performance also emphasizes his duel masculine and feminine qualities. For example, when he cuts women’s hair, his hands are very feminine - moving lightly between the women’s hair in order to create new looks. However, he is also masculine with his performance in the way that he walks throughout the salon. He demands attention and takes up space. It could also be argued that Beatty takes the Stanislavsky approach and “becomes” that character from inside since Beatty was known to be a womanizer in real life. By analyzing not only Warren Beatty’s star persona, but also his performance style and duel masculine and feminine qualities of his character in Shampoo it becomes quite apparent the reason for his desirability among all women.

Do you think Warren Beatty ever cheated on his significant others and if so why was he not hounded in the media like Tiger Woods is?

Who is the new Warren Beatty of today? Or is Warren Beatty still the Warren Beatty of today?

Was it a wise choice for Warren Beatty to take roles that emphasized his womanizing status? Why or why not?

Entitled to What? (Supplemental Post #5)

It is hard to ignore the surge of cheating men in Hollywood. Of course there is Tiger Woods, David Letterman and now Jesse James. This increase and public awareness of these men’s cheating ways has created interest not only with the public but also within the media itself. I recently watched the newest South Park episode that discussed Tiger Woods’ infidelity and after watching that episode read an article discussing why successful women are cheated on and how it creates insecurity in many nonpublic relationships. All of these accusations of infidelity have made me wonder why celebrities feel that they are “entitled” to such “pleasures”. However, the recent scandal involving Sandra Bullock’s husband, Jesse James, shifts the question a little bit. I would not call him a celebrity by any means, definitely not of Tiger Woods or David Letterman fame, but yet he has cheated on his uber-famous wife, Bullock. I used to believe that celebrities believed they were invincible and as Woods’ so perfectly articulated, “entitled”. But the fact that men who are married to successful and famous women cheat makes me question the reason behind the cheating. Are they insecure? Rebellious? Bored? And is it only men who commit these lustful sins? Will we suddenly hear of new reports that Kate Winslet or Gwen Stefani have carried on yearlong affairs with male prostitutes, models or strippers?

My belief is that celebrities (male and female alike) have new opportunities thrown at them constantly and instead of using self-control they indulge themselves. They have been conditioned to believe they can do no wrong, which is pretty easy when everyone around you continuously tells you how great you are. I also believe that men who are married to successful women cheat because they are lonely and or feel inferior and use their wives status in order to make themselves celebrity like as well. This sudden surge of cheating men makes me wonder if this has been going on for decades (ever since celebrities were created) and that these celebrities may just have a bad publicist, or is this a product of the post-modern culture and the lackadaisical attitude most young people have about sex and the eagerness to categorize activity as a disease (ie. Sex addiction). I do however, believe that being a celebrity gives these men and women more of a reason to act foolishly and selfishly when given certain opportunities.

Ian Farwell - Core Post #4 - Did "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" Work to Lessen Oppression or Promote it?

Upon review of the readings it appears as though central idea is the cross over star. The text seems to illustrate how specifically Robeson is considered a cross-over star, because he doesn't bring black culture to the eye of white audiences so much as readily fits within the already preconceived white idea of what a proper black discourse (Uncle Tom Figure) ought be within a white world. Comparing the other reading on Michael Jackson, this reafing seems to show how Michael Jackson did not cross-over the way Dyers sees Robeson to have done. Mercer rather sees Michael Jackson as being one of the first black stars to really bring black music to the appreciation of the white world. Rather than cross-over, Michael Jackson, according to Mercer, could be more seen as blending rather than crossing. Interestingly, when Michael Jackson Died, and Jamie Fox hosted the BET music award, Fox said "He belonged to us." This was interesting because it really shows that even today there is a perceived dichotomy by some between the black and white culture or discourse in the US. The idea that a man, or his achievements, belongs to anyone, if not everyone, is very interesting. People cheered when Fox said that Jackson belonged to them. I wonder what Michael Jackson would think if the idea that he belong to someone.
The other Reading talks about the film Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. The reading seemed critical of the film on many levels, actually I think is what almost all the character representations that were discussed. The reason I wanted to change my Blog post to this weeks screening is because this movie touched me on a personal level. I myself am married to a women who's mother is from Belize and father is from Vietnam. So, I really was interested to see the film to maybe better understand the historical context of my own marriage that some would call "interracial," even though I feel like my marriage is a marriage that contains only one race, the human race. What I found most interesting about the film was that it seemed like it had good intentions, and I think it did really do a great job and illustrating the tension between "interracial" marriage within the nuclear family structure. However, I had two really major criticism of the film. One, had to do with the treatment of women. I think that Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, unless the film makers were trying to be satirical about the oppression of women, really did a poor job of illustrating how wrong it is for women to be treated with such disdain. I think if people left the film feeling that the world was a better place, because in the end Spencer Tracy's character gave in and condoned the marriage, then I think we still live in a sad world that needs change. The women in the film were treated horrible. I think, if anything, the film's mother character (Hepburn) illustrated the problems when she said that this was the first time she disagreed with her husband that her daughter should essentially marry a doctor. Why not stand up for the way the father figure completely degrades non-white/male people black or female? Its like everyone is waiting for his opinion at the end, but he shows no real sense of humility. He is still the dictator proclaiming his dominance over black and female culture. It almost screams that interracial marriages are only ok if the White Man says so. Everyone is still left at the end of this film less anxious as a result of the final white authoritarian decision.
The second criticism had more to do with simply asking the question of whether the film really addressed reality with it's character representations. I think the class reading called Sydney Poitier's character a "Prodigy," and would have to completely agree. I will reveal the rest of my criticism in this are within the questions below?

1) Does a black man have to assimilate to white culture in order for an interracial marriage to be justified?
2) Why must black men wear a suit & tie with little if no style in order to be acceptable in white culture?
3) Is a father a good man if in the same breath he can approve her marriage and tell her to "Shut-up."

I wish someone would have told the father figure to shut-up in the film, I think he had done enough talking for the entire year.

---JAMIE FOXX Claiming Michael Jackson...


One can see Jamie Foxx claim Michael Jackson as if MJ was a possession, and claim that he merely "Shared him."

Reading Post # 3: Poitier -- Robeson Revisited?

In Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?, Sidney Poitier portrays a character that installs him as a 1960s Paul Robeson, what Richard Dyer describes as a “crossover star:” someone who through his character traits and abilities is appealing as a star to both white and black audiences. Indeed, as if audiences did not already revere Poitier enough for his seemingly more well-rounded depictions of his race (as both intellectual and defiant, yet belonging firmly within, not outside society), this image of him as a trail-blazing African-American star was cemented when he was awarded an Honorary Oscar for his “extraordinary performances” the same year Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won top acting awards and Whoopi Goldberg hosted the ceremony. I doubt producers could’ve planned a more perfect evening in terms of making themselves and Hollywood appear “tolerant” and “forward-looking.” However, though Poitier was arguably the most famous black star of his time and is still revered by both white and black audiences today, the character of Dr. John Wade Prentice illustrates the problematic nature of his star persona.
As Dr. Prentice, Poitier plays a highly intellectual man who through his achievements in the medical field has clearly established himself as a well-respected and elite member of his profession. Though Robeson became an actor/singer, Poitier’s character in the film hearkens back to this earlier conception of “cross-over” star through his links with Robeson’s own educational background as an intellectual and graduate of Columbia Law School. Additionally, it situates Poitier within this conception of “the ‘good’ African with whom the whites can work” (Dyer, 93). Thus, Poitier’s links with Robeson establish him as acceptable as “cross-over” star, and therefore, perhaps acceptable in his “cross-over” in his wanting to marry a white woman. As Baldwin elucidates in The Devil Finds Work, it is clear that the only reason this is even a possibility is because Dr. Prentice is such an educated, over-achieving anomaly (among all men, not merely those of his race).
Furthermore, not only do Dr. Prentice’s achievements present him as an exceptional “Negro,” but the character further places Poitier in line with Robeson and white approval of the African-American as subservient and one who defers to the wants/needs of white society. So, though Prentice seemingly “transcends race” through his education and his respected position, he reassures his fiancée’s parents that he is not seeking to rise above his station in a sense. That is, he will not marry their daughter without their, aka white, approval. Thus, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? erases any success it may have at a progressive worldview with this implication of Poitier as the black man who will not do anything against the white man’s wishes. Indeed, this point is further reinforced in casting – as Spencer Tracy, a white icon of old Hollywood and the classic studio system, is given final power over the decision overshadowing any power Poitier, a symbol of new Hollywood and contemporary America, may have gained through his high-level education and the prospect of interracial marriage. By forcing Poitier’s character to seek approval from the parents, Stanley Kramer diminished the strides Poitier might have been making as a “cross-over” star and as a symbol of strong, exceptional black men, reducing him to a contemporary version of Paul Robeson. Robeson was made more palatable to white audiences as his educational background was obscured by his tendency to play more primitive, simple, and charming characters, “the representative of blackness” (Dyer, 69). Similarly, it is Dr. Prentice’s education undercut by his subservient nature that made this plot line and Poitier’s actions acceptable to a 1967 audience. Though Poitier had garnered success for playing strong, defiant black men (evidenced by his immortal line: “They call me Mr. Tibbs”), this film diminished his star power in his own right (playing second fiddle on and off-screen to the Hepburn/Tracy match-up) – though playing a man of dignity and education, his deferral to white preferences seemed to suggest that this was, ultimately, what Poitier the star symbolized as well – a black man seeking approval on the terms of whites as a marker of success.

1) Had Poitier played against less famous people in the film or more contemporary stars would it have changed the film’s interpretation of his persona and stardom? How big a difference does having Tracy and Hepburn in the roles make?
2) Was this film probably more representative of Poitier’s career in general or did other roles contradict the relatively mealy-mouthed fortitude of Dr. Prentice? How did this role fit into Poitier’s persona? Additionally, do you think white audiences of 1967 read Poitier’s blackness as non-threatening for the reasons discussed above? Could Poitier have played the role with drastically different character traits and achieved the same success?
3) In the recent remake of the film, Guess Who?, the races were reversed with Bernie Mac playing the patriarch and Ashton Kutcher the questionable future spouse. How do the personas of these actors affect the reading of the film? And in what ways might this race reversal change the meaning/message and effect of the film?