Movie studios curbing actors' use of social media

I came across this article on Cnet after I became curious as to what the movie studios, management, etc. are doing about their star's social media use getting out of control. I'll try to sum it up:

A Hollywood Reporter blog post recently reported that "there's a growing number of studio deals with new language aimed specifically at curbing usage of social-media outlets by actors, execs and other creatives." The studios hope confidential information about the films they're producing won't leak out on major social networks.

The Hollywood Reporter, Esq. blog reported that both Disney and DreamWorks have already added clauses to their talent contracts. A clause from Disney says that the actor should not make information available "via 'interactive media such as Facebook, Twitter, or any other interactive social network or personal blog.'"

Movie bosses have banned a series of stars including Cameron Diaz and Mike Myers from joining microblogging site Twitter.com - in a bid to prevent secret information leaking out.

...language saying the signer cannot mention their work on the movie until the studio has made an official announcement. After that, everyone working on the film (including celebrities), are free to talk about their films on any social-media platform.

The articles fetched from can be found here:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10377583-2.html

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni1096114/

Hard Bodies Take New Form: post4

Muscle men like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Hulk Hogan, and Vin Diesel have all stepped out of their normal heroic roles to participate in films where they portray previous crime busters, and military men and find a soft place in their hearts to care for children. These roles go completely against their typical hard body, action persona. This emerging trend began in the 1990’s with Schwarzenegger taking on Kindergarten Cop, Followed soon after in 1993 with Hogan playing Mr. Nanny, and this idea was brought up again in 2005 with Diesel playing a babysitter in The Pacifier. All these men have played significant action roles that have gained them their position in Hollywood, and one has to wonder why they choose to play these roles. Susan Jeffords recognizes the link between this trend and political/societal changes that represent a change in American’s expectations of gender roles in her article “Hard Bodies.” Jeffords points out that the rise of feminism and other societal changes redefined the role of men in society. Seeing a star like Schwarzenegger, who followed his role in Kindergarten Cop with Terminator 2, one of his most famous roles, clearly saw social benefit to taking on a very different character. “Kindergarten Cop anticipates the endings of many 1991 films that are resolved through a man’s return to his family” (Jeffords, 143). While, “the Terminator films offer male viewers an alternative to the declining workplace and national structure as source of masculine authority and power – the world of the family” (Jeffords, 170). Jeffords clearly lays out how the societal change that was taking place was reflected in films. Schwarzenegger was a huge part of this representation of the new male in very different ways in Kindergarten Cop and Terminator 2.

What are the changes taking place in our current society of the depiction of "male" and what films have reflected this change?
Jeffords discusses the representation of men and women in Disney films, particularly Beauty and the Beast, how have modern Disney films changed their portrayal of men when compared to "classic" Disney films?
What are other ways that Schwarzenegger's persona and depiction of what is masculine changed throughout his career? What films show this?

Reading Response 4 - Sensitive Masculinity Replicated and Terminated

While Susan Jeffords argues that the character of the Terminator in Terminator 2 represents the early 1990s shift in perceptions of masculinity by showing a man (or rather man-like machine) that sacrifices himself for his family and chooses to be a “father over a warrior,” she only examines part of the picture –situating the Terminator’s “machine-ness” as a form of imprisonment. However, though the Terminator ultimately “learns the value of human life” and becomes a father-figure for the young John Connor, he still maintains components of his hyper-masculine, killing machine persona. Thus, Jeffords fails to address that the Terminator, and thus what the film is espousing to be an ideal masculinity, resides in two extremes. He is not merely a machine who learns to be protective and loving – the more sensitive male that Jeffords expounds upon. No, it seems that as the Terminator posits it – the ideal male is one who is both a protective father who would die for his family and a machine unable to feel, or at least, display emotion and pain. The Terminator sums it up himself at the conclusion of the film when he tells John, “I know now why you cry, but it’s something I can never do.” Though crying is more a practical matter for the machine, metaphorically, it suggests that it is enough for a man to possess a family and love them enough to understand where deep emotion/feeling comes from, but still he cannot cry. To truly be a man, it is crucial that he not show weakness, and crying has long been problematically associated with femininity and the fragile, “weaker” sex. Furthermore, the Terminator’s way of expressing love for his family is through protecting them in a hyper-masculine sense – with massive machine guns and a determination to permanently eliminate the threat of the T-1000. Therefore, one could argue, in the process of displaying love for his “family,” the Terminator ultimately still reinforces the idea of hard-bodied, macho masculinity. Because, the way for him to express his love is to protect his family from danger, which requires that he shoot people, cause many explosions, and drive a truck through a glass wall to return and retrieve the injured/trapped Connors – all hyper-masculine activities.

Furthermore, though the Terminator is reprogrammed so that he can learn and thus comes to represent a father figure to John, his protective nature is part of his assignment. Though the closeness he develops with John and the human characteristics he takes on – learning slang, how to smile, why humans feel certain emotions – represent a movement to a slightly more sensitive version of the male, ultimately, his role in the family unit as fatherly protector arises from his orders. At his core, he is still an efficient killing (or rather wounding) machine fulfilling his responsibility to protect the young John Connor. The tagline of the film reinforces this point. Jeffords points out that in the early 1990s sequels to the Rambo and Lethal Weapon films, the protagonists refuse to take action until it becomes “personal” with their family/friends involved in some way. However, the tagline for this film was “It’s Nothing Personal,” driving home the point that the Terminator’s actions are not derived from any real personal, human connection, but rather because he has been programmed and ordered to do so.

Though his self-sacrifice and relationship with John seem to suggest a shift in masculinity, they are essentially merely a component of his mission. Indeed, when Sarah waxes poetic on the Terminator as father figure in a chaotic world, she explicitly states, “It would die to protect him.” Sarah fails to see that this fact is not a result of a shift in masculinity towards sensitivity, but rather part of the Terminator’s responsibility to protect John at all costs. And his ultimate sacrifice at the conclusion is still in line with protecting John and by extension, mankind. Ultimately, what seems to suggest a new family-based masculinity merely reinforces the concept of the hard body. At his core, the Terminator is still an unfeeling machine – one who cannot cry and who fulfills his duties using weapons and violence and only takes on a more sensitive, fatherly role because he is ordered to do so.

1) How does Arnold’s current persona and representation of masculinity shape the reading of this film? Does his role as our state governor cause us to read the film differently than audiences, who knew him as a star and body-builder, did in the early 90s?
2) With characters like Ripley, Sarah Connor, and Neytiri (and the other women in Avatar), James Cameron seems to have created a wealth of strong female characters. To what extent do these roles actually present a feminist viewpoint? Do they merely seem to stand for feminist ideals while the film subverts their meaning? How do the different masculinities of the Terminator and Avatar’s Jake affect the readings of these women?
3) Is this type of hard-bodied male action star still relevant today? Most films seem to present an even more sensitized version of the male (Tom Hansen in 500 Days of Summer) or in reverse, a man-child (all of Judd Apatow’s men). Is there still a place for such a star or character like the Terminator? Or does the newest installment in the series, which uses the more sensitive, less bulky Sam Worthington as the human-esque machine suggest otherwise? How do newer action stars like Jason Statham and Vin Diesel enhance and expand upon this hard-bodied masculinity?

Arnold as a Girly-Man: Core Post # 4

After reading Hard Bodies it seems like Arnold Schwarzenegger might just be a “girly-man,” and that is perfectly okay for the 1990’s Cinema masculinity. In the Susan Jeffords article, overt un-wavering masculinity is compared to the Reagan era, whereas the more evolved male that is concerned with family and protection is compared to the Bush era of the 90s. Seeing as how Arnold is California’s Republican governor and a long time Republican booster, it makes sense that his portrayal of masculinity in the two terminator films critique and praise the above mentioned political tickets.
In the first Terminator, the ideal of masculinity was to kill or be killed, but in order to survive Terminator 2; Arnold’s strong body must be used for protection, not murder. For example, Arnold uses his body to shield John and Sarah Conner from the T-1000s bullets – metaphorically taking care of the family (wife and child), unlike the previous Terminator where he was trying to destroy the family. Also, in Terminator 2, the audience is supposed to feel bad for Sarah Conner, but in the sequel, Sarah’s adaptation of masculine, Regan era qualities makes her unlikable especially in the scenes where she scolds John for saving her (rejecting John’s girly-masculinity) and when she attempts to kill Dyson (a loving husband and father). At the same time, the Terminator is praised for his adaptation of Sarah’s previous feminine qualities of showing time, attention, protection and love to John. Thus a “manly-girl” is not acceptable, whereas, the fate of human life depends upon a “girly-man.”
According to Dyer, masculinity isn’t seen as talent. So, for a man such as Arnold to show he is an actor and thus reach stardom in the 90’s, he must adapt femininity into his acting repertoire. Socially, audiences connect femininity with emotions, sacrifice, and tenderness. All of which Arnold exhibits in T2, especially in the scenes with Dyson and later with John before he commits suicide in the lava. Ideals Masculinity in star discourses is also reflected in politics. Bush era politics had to adapt more feminine ideals of “gentle, protecting, humorous, emotional, antinuclear human machine,” (Jeffords 39) just like Arnold.

1. Is Terminator 2 more of a leftist Hollywood film about the dangers of technology and nuclear war or a right-winged film about a less aggressive Republican party?
2. Why can Arnold be a girly-man in his films (Kindergarten Cop, T2) without being stigmatized or emasculated?
3. Why the shift in acceptable ideals of masculinity from the 80s to 90s in cinema?

core post 4

I never thought that I would find such a connection between the movie Kindergarten Cop and Terminator 2, until reading the Jeffords article. Arnold plays almost the same masculine character in both, an imposing robot of a man who finds tenderness and love. Much like Kimball forms a relationship with the young boy, who then leads him to his future love interest, the Terminator creates a strong bond with John and consequently with Sarah. Kimball’s two occupations of a police officer and teacher are strangely similar—both require justice, protecting, and enforcement of the rules. The same goes for the Terminator—it is his occupation to protect John and Sarah as a police officer would protect citizens. Both characters also learn a great deal from the people they are caring for, which enables them to access their feelings and grow emotionally.
Terminator 2 also exemplifies the idea of the 1980s masculine man that is discussed in regards to Kindergarten Cop. The 1980s man is thought to act hard and macho not by choice, but because society has programmed them to be that way. The Terminator is a clear representation of that concept because he is essentially a computer—something that is completely programmed and created with the purposing of serving the wants and needs of society. The Terminator is defined by the idea of a technology-crazed, and crime conscious society. Also, the 1980’s male characteristic that they act in a highly macho manner because of their bodies; clearly the Terminator acts this way because his body is made of metal—he’s a robot. His path is determined by the fact that his body is a machine programmed by the society of the future.
I think that for male actors today, there is a much bigger focus on adapting acting style and body language to fit the part, and not necessarily basing a role on body alone. Actors like Christian Bale completely change their bodies to physically adapt to their roles, they do not just choose roles because their natural physique would allow them to play the role best. I think that most would argue today that playing a role that is so dependent on your body type would mean that the actor isn’t as talented or diverse. The sign of a more talented actor can be considered to be that he is able to blend into whatever role he is placed into, regardless of the body type that the character was originally thought to be.
Some questions to think about are whether an actor’s physical stature should impact how people perceive his talent. Also, whether this question is applicable for female roles, and if this question were raised would females be offended.

Core Post #2

In “Terminal Resistance/Cyborg Acceptance,” Scott Bukatum discusses the masculine/feminine implications of the presentations of cyborgs in cinema. He argues that cyborgs don’t just embody our subconscious fear of and need for mastery over machinery, but they can also be representations of the battle between masculinity and femininity. The machinery of cyborgs represent a kind of pre-electronic age, industrial armor of masculinity that protects against the feminine forces of both the natural world and of softer, more internal electronic technology. In his view, older industrial, factory technology made of iron, rivets, and gears represents the masculine, and the more delicate computer electronics made of plastic, silicon, and glass is the feminine.

It’s easy to relate this idea of a cyborg as some kind of male paradigm to the Terminator films. Schwarzenegger himself is a male archetype, a cigar-smoking body builder in life, and action-hero on screen. The stoic, robotic Terminator character is a kind of John Wayne meets Mr. Spock – the ultimate strong silent type who can’t express his feelings but can kick ass.

Bukatum goes on to argue that the T1000 that represents femininity, battles Arnold’s masculinity. Masculinity is rigid, and the T1000 is the ultimate in fluidity, he says. He also relates its changeability to a feminine penchant for changing physical appearances through cosmetic products and procedures. On the surface, Robert Patrick’s character hardly seems feminine. But compared to Arnold, the elements of the feminine start to stand out. He is much more delicate-looking both in his body and his facial features. He is more clean-cut, and he is more slender, lithe, and agile. The T1000 can take whatever shape it wants, and so it automatically has a kind of androgynous quality to it. Twice in the film, it even takes on the outward appearance of a woman.

It’s also interesting to note that the central female character of the film, Sarah Conner, is very masculine. She works out, knows how to use a gun, and is a lot stronger and tougher than any of the human men in the movie. The film can be read as one long battle of male vs. female elements, with the males as the winners.

Questions

1) How do cyborgs in film represent traditional masculine qualities?

2) How do cyborgs in film represent post modern anxiety over the growth of technology?

3) In what way is the first terminator film be an example of the cyberpunk genre?

Unmasking Masculinity - Ian Farwell Core Post #5

Before I get into the reading, I must comment on the end clip on Terminator 2. There is a scene where the strong maternal character Sarah Connor it blasting the Evil Terminator with the most Phallic of items, a badass shotgun-like piece of equipment with about 10 rounds, which she must pumps repeatedly as she fires into the bad terminator. However, just as she need only one more shot to push the bad terminator over the edge into the hot melting inferno below, you hear the click of her empty gun. Thus, her strong phallic object is rendered impotent. Luckily (conveniently) Arnold in pulled over a large gear mechanism to blast the terminator with an even larger gun which implodes in the guts of the unsuspecting evil terminator and the masculine man saves the day. Why couldn't she have struck the final blow?

Now to the reading. Dyer talks about how some believe that masculinity is not respected as a talent with the modern movie goer. In fact, Dyers points to the fact that masculinity and the strong body is often laughable and quite the anti-talent in Hollywood. Examples of Maryl Streep are used to counter how impersonation in the form of vocal changes and other non-bodily rational in film more seem to exude talent and thus receive Oscars accordingly.

Ironically, I think it is funny to think about acting like a robot (or terminator in this case). I usually think of acting as eliciting and impersonating some kind of emotion. I mean to say that we are human and all of us (short of us with Schizoid Personality Disorder or High Levels of Psychopathy) have emotional responses, and thus to make one believe that you are actually a robot that has no emotion is kind of remarkable if one stops to ponder it. However, I guess one can argue either way and I would not disagree.

But, not to digress away from the masculine construct and the body. Dyers seems to argue, with the help of others, that the body is what we are in fact pining over in action films. However, I think the human species in general seems to be much more involved in wanting control. I think the physically strong characters like Sarah Connor and the Terminator take control of their environment. We as human will all face our own death one day, and thus we actually know that we have no control over our futures. Thus, characters that can put up a fight are provocative. We all have a survival instinct, and a strong body screams out "I can take care of myself and others". Many of the main characters in action films have money, physical strength, and charism, because they all scream "power". I think this power allow viewers the luxury escapism. People don't go to the action movies to me enlightening so much as to escape the harsh reality that all that is certain is "Death & Taxes". However, I do understand that there is a fascination with the human body, otherwise the Olympics wouldn't be so popular.

Furthermore, on a final note, The Terminator series is loitered with cultural norms. For instance, the nuclear family. Father (Arnold), Mother (Connor), & Son (ed). Another, is that the bad guy takes on the impersonation of an authority figure cop. And, they're are many others.

Questions:
1) What would the ending of The Terminator 2 look like if Sarah Connor delivered the finishing blow instead of Arnold?
2) Who was a better Californian actor gone politician Reagan or Arnold?
3) How is Arnold portrayed differently across his films such as Predator and Terminator, and compared to Bruce Lee?

A Terminator Who Doesn't Terminate (Reading Post #5)

In just a decade the idea of hard bodies in Hollywood has changed drastically. The 1980’s marked a time when audiences needed to be reassured that the white man was still in power and that they had control over the government and rules. The hard masculine body of Arnold Schwarzenegger was the perfect fit for 1980’s audiences. However, the idea of the hard body changed in the 1990’s according to Susan Jeffords in her article “Terminal Masculinity: Men in the Early 1990’s”. There was a shift from the hard masculine body upholding rules and regulations to the hard masculine body upholding family values and holding the family together. This change can be seen in the film Kindergarten Cop and shows how manhood is going to be addressed in the years to come. It also emphasized how these men from the 1980’s were being destructive because of their hard bodies and the fact that they were able to do things that others were unable to do, such as physical violence.

These ideas about the masculine body in the 1990’s are present in the 1991 film Terminator 2. The first example involving the masculine body and family is seen when John Conner and The Terminator are playing a game while the mother, Sarah Conner, looks on. In voice over she discusses how The Terminator is the closest thing John has ever had to a father and that The Terminator will never leave him or beat him. This is in stark contrast to what The Terminator is actually made for; terminating people. The other example involving how these bodies actually hurt the protagonists in the 1980’s is present as well since John Conner constantly insists that The Terminator not kill anyone and thus not to be destructive.

Although the look of men in the 1990’s is still the same as the 1980’s and can be seen in the image of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the men of the 1990’s may look hard on the outside but inside they are quite soft and vulnerable, still reeling from their destructive past.

Do you think the idea of the hard body has changed from the 1990’s to the 2000’s? How so?

What does Arnold Schwarzenegger and his masculine body say about the fact that he is California’s governor?

Why would the masculine body change from the 1990’s to the 2000’s and onward? What political or historical events could have changed that image?

Our Governor in the end of Terminator 2

Core Post #3: Enter the Dragon

Throughout the history of American cinema, it has proven extremely difficult for an Asian to become a major star in the Hollywood system. When discussing the few who have broken into the mainstream, Bruce Lee cannot be ignored. According to the Tasker article, the film "Enter the Dragon" was Warner Brother's attempt at forcing Bruce Lee into the mainstream media. He also discusses how Asians in Hollywood have been "feminized" for the screen. Although Bruce Lee is the kung fu beast we all know him as, throughout the film he is dressed up in Asian robes which makes him look feminine and hides his masculinity when he is not fighting.

In Teo's article, "Bruce Lee and the Little Dragon", Teo says that Lee is "all things to all men". Although he is not your average white movie star, in his movies he is always fighting for the righteous and for the good, which hopefully in the end is what every man stands for. Bruce Lee was able to become famous in mainstream media because of these values and also how he attains them. He is one of the greatest martial artists the world has ever seen. You would not think this by looking at him, he is rather short and doesn't look like a fighting machine with his asian robe on, but when he takes it off it is amazing to watch his tight body take down forces of evil.

Also in Tasker's article, she discusses the confidence that Lee carries. The confidence Lee has in his physical skills carries over to his inwards confidence. I think this is another reason Americans connected with him. We live in a society that is obsessed with image, especially Hollywood, and Lee was able to use his body to show how far your physical gifts can get you and also how it can empower you mentally and spiritually as well.

Questions

1. How does the image Jackie Chan compare with the one Bruce Lee has?

2. Why do you think Asians are still not an integral part of American cinema?

3. Do you think Asians could ever become a consistent starring role? Why/why not?