Jennifer's Body Post #7

One of the most evident features of Jennifer Lopez’s celebrity as described in the readings, is her mild form of ethnictity, and the exaggerated response of white and mainstream audiences to this hint of “otherness.” Frances Negron-Muntaner also points out the fact that wile Latinos are treated as a homogenous group by Hollywood and consumers, “Latinos” themselves are well-aware of the stark division between different ethnicities and nationalities. In other words, within this group there are obvious divisions between Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, etc. However, should Cubans only be allowed to play or represent other Cubans, there would be very few roles available. Part of why Jennifer Lopez was able to achieve such success is because of her ability to cross ethnic divides, not only representing non-Puerto Rican Latinos, but also playing other ethnicities. It is her ambiguity and ability to straddle the line between mainstream American and minority that makes her successful, though as is expressed by Abraham in the movie, Selena, “Abraham: "We've gotta be more Mexican than the Mexicans and more American than the Americans both at the same time. It's exhausting!”

Sadly, as Erin Aubrey observes in her piece on Jennifer Lopez’s over-hyped behind, often what is publicized to be a great leap for Hollywood, is but a small step for minorities. Aubrey observed that while she had heard ravings about Jennifer Lopez’s butt, when she saw it herself, it hardly left an impression. While by Hollywood standards it is surely outrageous, by everyday standards, it is unremarkable. Thus, Jennifer Lopez’s body is more remarkable for the way it illuminates the staunch requirements that we as an audience demand of those on-screen, an altogether baffling fact as we as a country are grossly over-weight and under-exercised, than for its innate splendor. Through Jennifer Lopez we are forced to face the fact that other types are only acceptable if they are wrapped in recognizable packages of light skin. Lopez is able to be sexualized as a way to embrace minorities, while still keeping them at a distance, outside the realm of more proper white women.

1) What restrictions are placed on male minority celebrities? Are they sexualized in the same way women are?

2) In a society plagued by obesity, why do we continue to have such an unattainable standard of beauty in Hollywood?

3) How has Jennifer Lopez transformed herself physically to fit into the standard mold of beauty, and does conforming to these standards lessen her impact as a “Latina” actress, if in fact her minority status is represented primarily through her physical appearance?

It's interesting how stars encorporate their nationalities into their texts ...

The Negron-Muntaner and Aubry articles both take issue with (or, at the very least, note) how Jennifer Lopez's "ambiguous ethnicity" makes her more pallatable to white audiences. Aubry's article, in fact, goes so far as to say that Out Of Sight does not live up to its promise of a really racialized leading lady.

The Roberts article addresses Carmen Miranda and her legacy, and the Latina identity in American film more generally. Though the first two articles, about Jennifer, seem more to be critiquing the system within which she is working -- the Hollywood studio one -- there is also an implicit disapproval of her allowing this watering down of ethnicity to occur.

However, I think that stars can (and have) deal with the issue of nationality in one or two ways. The first, I would associate with Jennifer Lopez (and Bill Cosby), the second, with Don Cheadle (who's particularly interesting to consider given that that he and Lopez were both [obviously] in Out Of Sight.

I don't believe that Lopez has done anything to hide her ethnicity. At the same time, though, I don't think she's gone out of the way to emphasize it. It was an inherent part of her role in Selena, admittedly (Negron-Muntaner's whole article is based around this film). However, since she gained stardom -- and assumedly, then, more say in her roles -- she has played it safe, working largely as a romantic comedy leading woman, not in social problem films, for instance.

This is not a critique of her. In fact, almost the opposite. Lopez's approach reminds me of that of the Cosby's during The Cosby Show (not his more recent behavior and comments). He too seemed to ignore the race issue, but not in a way that denied it -- in a way, rather, that deemed it too unimportant to even address. It was the "yeah, so?" approach, that had a racialized body focused on reversing stereotypes by acting against them (being a upper middle class father with Leave It To Beaver-inspired values) rather than complaining about them.

Contrast that to the Don Cheadle approach (again, this is not a critique of his trajectory either). As I said in a previous post, he appears to have taken the stereotyped roles (as in Out Of Sight) as a stepping ladder to roles that he's more interested in. Whereas Lopez did the same thing with Selena, the roles that she's been interested in since have not been social problem ones, as Cheadles have (again, Rowanda, Traitor).

Although Cheadle's roles are not didactic (they would not succeed if they were), they obviously make more of the race issue than do Lopez's, and take a different approach than Cosby's lack of address of ethnicity.

Both approaches are effective -- though Lopez is a bigger star than Cheadle, both their names are known -- but Lopez's lack of direct address and more MLK-style passive resistance may contribute to the criticism that the Negron-Muntaner and Aubry articles speak to. But then again, perhaps she is the most misunderstood modern actress, following in the footsteps of Sidney Poitier and Bill Cosby in fighting stereotypes by acting against them quietly rather than loudly.

Questions:
1) Is Lopez uninterested in enacting social change, or is she doing so subtly?
2) Do all racialized actors need to play to stereotype at first to act in Hollywood?
3) Which do you find more effective in changing your preconceptions about people: someone hilighting prejudice and pointing out how it's wrong, or someone ignoring prejudice and acting against stereotype?

Core Post # 5: I like big butts...well, not really.

Although Jennifer Lopez is a crossover artist, her stardom is heavily based on the fact that she is racialized and sexualized body. The presence of such, depending on what character she plays may or may not be present. When Lopez plays Selena, her ethnicity and her full figure frame – read derriere – are at the forefront. In Out of Sigh her butt is literally “out of sight.”
Her breakout role in the Selena biopic gets Lopez many accolades and articles written less about her acting and more about her body. In the “Jennifers’ butt” article, Lopez comments that this was the first movie where she played a Latina and her butt was prominently displayed instead of the costume people working doubly hard to cover it up. That being said, the popularity of Selena not only in Latino and Hispanic communities but in crossover communities as well, allowed/made acceptable for a voluptuous Latina actress playing a serious (not parody) Latina character to show her behind in all it’s glory. Even that is problematic.
Lopez’s exposure has not made it acceptable for other ethnicities, such as African-American’s to show their sexuality in ‘butt form’ unless it is a parody, as comment on in the “Back is Beautiful” article, but neither has Lopez’s stardom made it acceptable for a serious Latina actress playing anything but Latina to show off her behind either.
Hollywood capitalized on Lopez’s popularity by showcasing and starring her in films, but in order to appeal to crossover sensibilities, they “whitened” her. She no longer plays Latina, but tan European characters or racial mixes. She is Italian a lot of the time or just very tan. Although audiences know of Lopez’s proud Puerto Rican heritage, filmmakers know if they can erase her butt (the one thing that makes audiences remember she is Latina), they will. Out of Sight does not prominently display Lopez’s backside although is does show her as sexual in her scenes with George Clooney – white playboy. For whatever reason, Hollywood refuses to show Lopez as a Latina (unless in a biopic, or playing a maid) and trust that she can still be a box office draw.
If it were not for Lopez's adaptability - read: light skin - I fear her stardom would not have come. It is only in her recording/singing career that she is able to be Latina and openly discuss her ethnicity and her derriere. This conundrum has forced her to be "white" in her film career and "Latina" in her music career, a contradiction. Her video for the song "I'm Real" she is hanging out in the 'hood' looking very Latina with other Latino's. And in "Ain't It Funny" the first line in the song is "It must be the ass...!" Even Lopez is aware of the fact that she is "deracialized" in order to be a movie star.

1.Why can’t Lopez be a Latina wedding planner, cop, alien, etc…
2.Were there other women, particularly black women who were allowed to show their bums as a serious actress before Lopez?
3. Why is it that when a star becomes crossover, they are then restyled to look like more of what Hollywood already has instead of just embracing the racial characteristics that were there when they earn crossover appeal?

With light-skined stars like J.Lo, and Halle succeeding, dark skinned become more "Out of Sight" (Core Post 5)

After reading the Salon article by Erin J. Aubry, “Jennifer’s Butt” by Frances Negron-Muntaner, and “The Lady in the Tutti-Frutti Hat” by Shari Roberts I began to see that there was a clear consensus that stars like Jennifer Lopez can succeed, and because they have the fair skin that makes them more palatable to white audiences, but feature something like Lopez’s million dollar ass that this audience is interested in seeing because it doesn’t exist in their world all the while keeping racialized audiences satisfied because there is someone on screen that you can identify with. I have a real problem with this because it basically confirms the unspoken of ideal that to be successful in America you have to be white, or as close to it as you can be. The issue of race can not fully be addressed when actresses like Halle Berry and Jennifer Lopez are frequently given roles that transcend their race, and are more preferred ethnic characters need to be casted over arguably more talented actresses like Angela Basset, who suffers in Hollywood with the types of roles she can audition for because of her darker skin.

Having fairer skin is a gift and a curse because it discredits the actor or actress who obtains roles because of it. On the one hand it’s gift because Lopez can get a role in Out of Sight that was written for an Italian actress, but it is a curse because some Latinos will see her as a race traitor for not representing Latin culture. I come from a background where my mother is a Latina, and my father is Black, and because I am light-skin I feel that when issues of race come up other Blacks feel that my opinion is not as valid as theirs because of my perceived racial ambiguity. The same happens the opposite way when I have been in an all white class at USC talking about race and prejudices, and my opinion seems invalid because many classmates incorrectly think that I am half-white and can not relate to the black experience in America.

The point I am trying to make is that these articles are getting it wrong. They frequently say that Halle Berry and Jennifer Lopez have succeeded because they have an exotic look, but are nonthreatening because they can pass as white is bullshit. America does not understand that people of color come in all different colors, and Hollywood buys into these ideals and cast accordingly. This is a big problem, and further pushes society as a whole back as far as race goes as racialized bodies who are darker toned don’t get fair representation and start to resent fairer skinned people of color, and white audiences only become comfortable with people of color who can pass in their world.

Questions
1. Does Hollywood's ideal of the light skinned actor being more palatable match up with the real world's?
2. Will Smith broke boundries by being casted in a orignally white role (in the tv series the character was played by a white actor) in Wild Wild West, but the film suffered critcally and didn't live up to box office expectations. Because of this have black actors suffered in getting a high profile role that has nothing to do with because of their race?
3. Why are Latina stars like Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Alba, Cameron Diaz, and Christina Aguilera frequently asked to play white.

Supplemental Post #3: Angelina Jolie in Action Films

Our discussion last week centered on the portrayal of masculinity in action films- how they mostly feature male protagonists, how they are often hyper-masculine in their physical build, how female action films are rarely that successful. However, there are a few exceptions to this general rule. Angelina Jolie is one of the more obvious examples - though she has starred in a variety of film genres, the ones that are successful - the ones that have molded her star image - are action films. She is one of the rare female action stars.

However, we must ask the perception of female stars. Just as the bodies of action stars such as Schwarzenegger and Stalone become sites of discourse of masculinity (EG: masculinity in crisis, using the male body as a focus of the "gaze"), the bodies of such a female action star is also a central in analyzing the perception of women in today's culture. Specifically, is Angelina Jolie only continuing the male fetish of seeing skimpily dressed girls with guns, or is the focus on physical prowess in these films a truly feminist statement?

The answer undeniably lies somewhere in the grey area between these two extremes. Jolie's star persona is also extremely distinct in terms of the kind of action flicks she chooses - they are usually intense and straightforward. Her ferocity is real: there is no cutesy, feminine aspect to her characters (as opposed to the kitschy female action movies like Charlie's Angels). Moreover, though she has tried to branch out into different film genres - most notably, as the passionate mother role in The Changeling - it is evident that she is most successful in roles where she is the action hero.

So, exactly what does her star persona represent in today's culture? What does her type-casting reveal about concepts of femininity? How many different ways can you read her star image?

Ian Farwell Misc Post #5 - Products of People (Magazine).

In my television symposium class, which I often mention for supplemental posts, we had another set of actors attend our class. The theme revolved around the HBO Miniseries "The Pacific," and thus one of the actors Joseph Manzello (USC Alum) attended. I must say I was a little disappointed, because I was really hoping for one if not both of the executive producers (Steven Spieberg or Tom Hanks). But, oh well. So, I want to talk about Joseph Manzello, but first I need to talk about the dichotomy I have seen emerge for me.

I learned a lot from this class. We had significantly more behind-the-scenes guests in this class than stars, but I got to see the dichotomy between the two types of people that make the film and tv industry run, stars and everyone else. I realized that although maybe talented, stars are a different breed that the rest of the creative team that really make a movie function. It seems from my limited experience that stars are often far less interesting than the roles they play on screen. Thus, I think it is fitting that upon real interview, the audience of these Q&A session leaves unfulfilled by these stars. However, the creative teams behind the scenes are so fascinating to listen to. Clearly, it is too dry for the cover of people magazine, but so interesting none-the-less.

Upon listening to the stars over the course of the semester, I found them to be self indulged. Almost like they were similar to the rest of the world in that they indulged in the lives of People Magazine, but the life was not some unknown star's, it was their own. The creative teams were able to speak about so much more than what they felt by something. All the stars would do is talk about "I felt this..." and "I felt that....." - Creative teams would talk about how something was done or what they did, not about their personalities, emotions, or personal life. It was quite interesting to see, and I apologize because my explanation does not do the phenomenon I experienced justice.

So, back to Joseph Mazello. An interesting and nice individual, but typical of what I have been talking about for these stars. I want to make it clear that I don't fault them for being relatively naive and self interested, because I think they are products of what we demand of them, but it is just so interesting to see them talk about themselves like it is their favorite thing. Much the way people talk about them like they are their favorite things. Joseph Mazello was like this, and I think a lot of lifelong stars are too.

So, I guess as we have moving toward the end of the semester I have learned this... I have always known that I don't really care to hear about the lives of stars. However, I think learning about what star constructs and depicts say about our culture can lend awesome insight into many many many avenues of knowledge, especially in the social sciences. And, I feel bad for any star that feels they have to live up to the perfection of the characters they portray in film.

Latinos: The Chameleon Minority Group

Post #5

It is rumored that by 2050, the United States’ population will be over 50% Hispanic. From being the largest minority group in the country to the majority group, Latinos will most likely have a bigger influence in they way America runs. Even now, Latinos have become such an important part of the American way – traditions, language, art – much has influenced the American people. When it comes to media, we have shows like The George Lopez Show and Ugly Betty, where Hispanic culture and heritage is showcased to American popular culture.

As this acceptance of Latin American culture has become a staple in Hollywood, critically analyzing it, there is a hidden agenda behind it. Many of the representations that appear on the screen with Latino characters and celebrities portray the stereotypes that Americans want to see. When looking at Latin female celebrities specifically, it is evident that they are sexualized and seen as exotic figures. Looking at a television example, Sofia Vergara’s character in Modern Family as Gloria is always introduced wearing provocative outfits and has an accent when speaking English. Because of her accent, we do not accept her as a white character, reinforcing her Otherness, he exoticness, which is reinforced with the ideology of wanting the Other, based on the way she looks. This example parallels Carmen Miranda’s star image in the 1940s like Shari Roberts mentions in her article, “The Lady in the Tutti-Frutti Hat’: Carmen Miranda, a Spectacle of Ethnicity.” Here, Roberts mentions that, “If Grable [a blonde, white woman] was the norm, Miranda was the allowable cultural Other for wartime Hollywood, playing the dark but comic and, therefore, unthreatening foil to all the gilded wartime female musical stars” (4).

Shifting the scene from contemporary television to contemporary film, many Latina celebrities on the big screen face many stereotypical representations and roles. Analyzing Jennifer Lopez, one of the biggest personas in Hollywood, can become a bit convoluted as her celebrity image is all over the place. This is ironic based on the historic trajectory of Hispanic representation in Hollywood in the past century. From foreigners to banditos to maids to nannies to blue-collar workers, these are the roles that Latinos have had. Roberts mentions that Miranda always had the supporting role, and not until a long career was she given a protagonist character. Jennifer Lopez has overcome many of those set representations that are left for Latinos. Although her breaking role in the biopic Selena is stereotypical – a Latina impersonating another Latina, much can be said about that. Americans tend to assume that all Latinos are the same. There is the general misconception that all Latinos are Mexican – but countries like El Salvador, Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Cuba do exist, and people do come from there. Each country has its individual ethnical background, so not all Latinos are the same. It is mentioned in Frances Negron-Muntaner’s article that there was a lot of controversy when Jennifer Lopez was casted as Selena, because Jennifer was of Puerto Rican descent and from New York (the Bronx), and she was representing a Chicana from Texas. A lot of the controversy was coming from the Latino community, who knows the difference in cultures, but the American audience cared less about it, they believed the representation because a Latina was representing another Latina from their perspective.

Just from this post, it is evident that the discourse of Latino celebrities can be very complicated. From the mixture of cultures and ethnicities to the exotic and wanting the Other, Latinos represent a very convoluted group in Hollywood. They become chameleons, in the case of Jennifer Lopez, because her look is very ambiguous can represent various ethnicities and races. For instance, in Out of Sight she plays a non-Hispanic character.

1. Based on the readings and the trajectory that Jennifer Lopez has had in Hollywood, what discourses can you extract from the career of Salma Hayek? Has her career been different or similar to that of Lopez?

2. Do you believe there is difference in ways that Latinos are portrayed on television in comparison to movies?

3. In 2050, when it is expected for the Latino population to surpass the population of whites, do you believe that there will be a major switch in the way the media portrays characters? If so, what do you see happening?

S.P. Post 3

If you thought that Tiger Wood’s dad or the Williams sisters’ dad pushed their kids too hard, take a look at this poor kid:

It’s amazing the lengths some folks will go to achieve some fame and fortune. Folks like these parents or the balloon-boy dad:

don’t seem to care what the consequences are even for the little children. It demonstrates the premium that is placed on fame. I think this trend is only getting worse. The digital culture has made it easier for average people to suddenly become famous. Talent, skill, even charisma isn’t really needed any more. There just has to be something that catches the audience’s attention for a little while – the length of a YouTube video. At the same time, the digital culture has also increased the size of the audience and, consequently, the rewards for those who achieve fame. There is both more at stake and it is easier to obtain. Seems like the temptation is just irresistible to some people. And it’s only going to get bigger.

Core Post #3

Both Negron-Muntaner and Aubry address the social/racial significance of Jennifer Lopez’s butt. Each of them talks about the significance for minority women, and even men, to see a Hollywood star who con

forms to a more Latin or African-American standard of beauty. Aubry touches on the fact that Jennifer Lopez sits in that perfect ethnic sweet spot for Hollywood. Like Halle or Barrie Barrack Obama, she was “just ethnic enough” to seem exotic, but not enough not to freak out white America.The question is, to what degree does her popularity reflect a shift in American attitudes and standards, or a shift in demographics. Negron-Muntaner only deals with this question in discussing Hollywood’s interest in tapping the growing Latino market. I think her popularity is a result of both a change in the ethnic makeup of America and a not unrelated change in attitudes. As American changes, attitudes change. It becomes harder to hold racist or ethnocentric ideas as our exposure and mixing with other races increases.

What neither author addresses is the potential downside of the shifting of America’s standard of beauty from super-thin to a more voluptuous ideal. Obviously, holding girls to a largely unattainable standard of thinness has its harmful effects – eating disorders, negative self image, etc. But, a certain degree of thinness is healthy. We are in the middle of an epidemic of obesity and more teens are getting liposuction and other cosmetic procedures than ever. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/fashion/15skin.html) As Jennifer Lopez helps to shift standards of beauty from this:

to this:

which is great, we just have to make sure we’re not encouraging unhealthy behaviors.

Questions:

1. Compare Rachel Welsh's Latin identity to that of Jennifer Lopez. What does the difference have to say about the cultural context of each star?

2. Given the fact that Jennifer Lopez is Puerto Rican, how valid is it for ERIN J. AUBRY to read her status as a sex symbol as a victory for African-American women?

3. What role, if any, does the current epidemic of obesity in America play in shifting standards of beauty to a more voluptuous, curvy body type?

Supplemental Post #3 - Celebrity Twitter

I'm constantly surprised at how interested much people (including myself)are obsessed with celebrity. I recently wrote a paper about Twitter, and found that a lot of my work revolved around celebrities' uses of the micro-blogging service that was developed as an innovative information network and means of helping individuals keep in contact with each other but has gone on to do that and so much more in the few years since its initial 2006 launch-- including celebrity tweets are just the beginning. Twitter is how you found out Michael Jackson died, why Avatar was the movie you needed to see, and that Kim Kardashian got a bad sunburn. Maybe it is an important tool in spreading celebrity news (like Jackson's death), but does everyone really need to see the picture Kardashian tweeted when she fell asleep sunbathing? Absolutely not, but enough people (including me) cared to a certain extent that we saw it. Moreso than ever, the everyday happenings of celebrities' lives are available to the general public. You don't even need to have a Twitter account to have an inside view. Search almost anything on google and Twitter posts come up as results; msn.com (and I'm sure several other homepages) have a daily Twitter trend report; there are even websites like these: http://www.celebritytweet.com/: a one-stop shop for celebrity Twitter updates. I'm amazed at how much we care about celebrities in our culture, and though we have studied what makes a star and why stars are important this entire semester, it still baffles me how much I continue to care.

Ideology of a Butt (core post 4)

In the Negron-Muntaner reading from this week, she writes about how the size of Jennifer Lopez's butt as signifcantly impacted her career. Though Lopez is a Latina, she is also American and is primarily known as being from the Bronx (aka Jenny from the Block). Despite her hispanic roots, Lopez has been able to play roles of all ethnicities because her skin is still fairly light. She is beneficial to the movie business because she can represent all different types of people, thereby driving more people to the theater to play. She has successfully passed to play lead female characters and is not reduced to a derogatory Latin stereotype. Her body is what relates her to her ethnicity but since her skin is still light and she makes deliberate references to growing up in the Bronx, she is able to relate to all different kinds of audiences.

Jennifer's most noted attribute is her rather large butt. No matter what role she inhabits or what minoritity she is playing, her butt is always there to remind us of her roots. As the author notes, when watching Lopez in the film Selena, there came a point when she stopped seeing Selena and only saw Lopez. Having such a notable body part attributes to this. Furthermore, the article quotes Jennifer as saying that costume designers tend to try and cover up her butt at all costs because it is seen as her being fat. Having a larger behind reminds audiences that Lopez is not white; therefore she is ethnic and the "Other" who poses a threat to the dominant white ideology.

Though Lopez is offended when costume designers try and cover her up, she still goes along with it in order to advance her film career. In Out of Sight, Lopez plays a strong female character with no discernible ethnicity although she is clearly not white. However, with her dark colored suits and drab wardrobe, she easily fits in amongst the white characters in the film with whom she is working. Because Lopez wants to be taken seriously as an actress, she does not draw attention to her butt by wearing colorful clothes or posing in such a way that her butt would be easily seen. Furthermore, while her character is incredibly smart and clever, she remains fairly cautious and soft-speaking. Leaving the comic and witty comments to co-star George Clooney, Lopez serves as the straight performer to his eccentric character. Had Lopez worn colorful outfits and been very outspoken and extroverted, she would be drawing to much attention to herself and therefore reminding audiences that she is in fact jennifer Lopez, big butt and all. Then once again she would be viewed as the "Other" and possibly not taken as seriously as an actor. When Lopez is performing her music, however, she wears wild and revealing costumes that accent all of her best qualities and quite often highlight her butt. In her music, Lopez can be herself because the songs are hers but when playing a role in a film, she must make herself as indescript as possible so as to fit the role she is playing.

Questions for Discussion:
1. Does Out of Sight ignore ethnic stereotypes by placing Lopez as a the female lead who is a federal officer? Or does it perpetuate them by not allowing her or the character to acknowledge her ethnicity and be herself?
2. Would the movie, and the character Karen Sisco, be taken less seriously if Lopez's character was more firm in standing up to the Jack Foley and allowing herself to be a little less stiff when handling various situations (with the exception of the one scene where she has to get drunk in order to have more of a personality)
3. Does the movie really portray her as being smart or independent or does the film suggest that she is only that way because of the men who surround her (father, boyfriend, even Jack Foley) and help her out by telling her what to do?
3.

A Tale of Two Movie Premieres (supp. post 4)

The past 2 times I have gone to the ArcLight movie theater in Hollywood i have been there on a night of a movie premiere. The first was for Miley Cyrus' new movie the Last Song and the other for Demi Moore's new film, The Joneses. While its purely coincidental that i came across these preimeres and their stars, i think its notable to share what i observed. Arriving at the theatre the night of the Miley premiere, the place was a madhouse. There were tween girls everywhere all with all of their Miley paraphenalia ready to be signed. While hanging out in the lobby waiting for my own movie to begin I was able to observe them all from a safe distance. The first celebrity I saw was John Travolta and his wife, Kelly Preston. Despite his huge star status, he garnered almost no reaction and i actually heard a few young girls asking who he was (which made me incredibly sad considering how excited i was to see him in person..he's Danny Zuko!) Then I experienced what is possibly the loudest screams I have ever heard and I knew Miley must have arrived. She went through the press line with her boyfriend surrounded by her "people" the entire time. When it came time for her to come into the theater, the security guards made everyone leave before she would come through. She did not acknowledge nor did she seem to notice the amount of fans who had come to see her.

The other premiere was notably less key as the movie does not have as wide of a release. The stars were mainly older and the only notable people who i recognized were David Duchovny, Demi Moore, Ashton Kutcher and one of her daughters. However despite there being considering less buzz surrounding this film and its stars, those involved seemed entirely more excited and passionate about being there. Within minutes of arriving, Ashton Kutcher was outside the confines of the red carpet signing autographs and posing for pictures with fans. He then proceeded to come inside and wait with just a few people for Demi Moore to finish press. When Moore was ready to come in, she simply joined he husband and walked down to the theater after signing a few autographs.

Despite Cyrus arguably being a much bigger star than Demi Moore at this point, it was interesting that she seemed to not care all that much about the fans who have made her so famous. Kutcher and Moore seemed incredibly classy and grateful for those who came out to see them.Miley is definitely a star of the moment, but it seems to be that the way to stay relevant and keep her fame and career on such a high would be to actually recognize those who are spending the money to see her. Furthermore, demanding everyone leave a theater lobby just so you can walk through seemed a bit absurd. If stars like John Travolta, and Demi Moore can handle walking around with just their family/friends, i think that she should be more than fine. Her fans don't want to jump her, they just want an autograph.

Article on J.Lo - Supplemental Post

Karen mentioned that Jennifer Lopez is perhaps now not as big of a star as she was when "Out of Sight" came out. The following article interestingly examines her career, noting what she could do to regain her super-celebrity status. Most of it references returning to her roots and de-glamming. Is this a way of suggesting that ethnic stars are more appealing when they're deglamorized? Is it tied to ethnicity or just stardom in general? How do the two incarnations of Jennifer Lopez: crazy, navel-bearing Grammy dress young J.Lo and balanced, loving wife/mother, reflect her own personal stardom and our expectations for ethnic stars?

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20356859,00.html

Race As It Relates To Gender In Out Of Sight

Ok, just initial question that comes to mind in seeing the movie ...

Do ethnic actors (especially African Americans) have to "pay their dues" in a way similar to attractive actresses before they can be considered for serious roles?

The most problematic thing in Out Of Sight is, I think, Don Cheadle's character, and the general -- and self-evident -- fact that all the criminals that are "animals" are black.

Although this is in keeping with Hollywood's tradition of ethnicizing (my word) the "bad guys", it's interesting to think of in relation to gender (what we're supposedly studying Out Of Sight for).

I knew Don Cheadle from the Ocean's movies, in which he played a criminal -- but a very different kind. He is smart in those films: he creates explosives, relying on his mind rather than his body. And he is one of the "good guys" -- all the characters in the series have the anti-hero appeal of George Clooney in Out Of Sight.

Aside from the Ocean's series, I associated him with social problem films: Traitor and Rowanda specifically. I very much considered him a "serious actor", and not one who panders.

Similarly, although I do not consider Isaiah Washingon a "serious actor", the role I know him from -- Grey's Anatomy -- is also one in which he does not pander to the "black stereotype" of violent thief.

Seeing these two actors' progressions into, if not serious, at least unstereotyped roles, reminded me of the evolution of actresses such as Marilyn Monroe. Although she is and always will be most associated with Some Like It Hot and the grate scene seen 'round the world, towards the end of her career she gravitated towards such serious works as Bus Stop and Niagara.

Interviews with the Jessica Albas and Beals of the world claiming their desire to be offered films roles in which more than their asses can act are easy to find. It seems, then, that some sort of dues must be paid ... Ethnic actors and attractive actresses are allowed into the industry because of their bodies and the associations that those figures inspire, and before they are allowed to leave the stereotype they must fulfill a certain quota of the roles that gave them access to the industry in the first place.

It's especially interesting to note that Out Of Sight and the Ocean's were directed by the same man, and compare, then, how drastically different Don Cheadle's criminal is in them.

Stars Spreading Submission post #6

In The September Issue, one editor both laments and praises Anna Wintour’s visionary decision to start putting stars on the cover of Vogue. Though the editor herself preferred models to grace the cover, she admits that the switch was forward thinking, and that stars are now on the cover of every magazine. Additionally, this weekend I saw a documentary about gender representations in advertising, and how roles of dominance and submission are assigned to men and women respectively based on how their body language is represented in print. It focused on women’s subordination is expressed through physical positions of weakness and infantilization, like recumbent poses, off-balance poses, and particularly women with their fingers in their mouths or holding themselves. All these poses are also sexualized and though they are often strange upon closer inspection, they have become so prominent in images, that they have become ingrained into our consciousness. Additionally, with celebrities being forced to take on additional roles as models, spokespeople, and fashionistas, these poses have become even more integrated into popular culture, no longer in the realm merely of models.

The real question is how these images are taking effect in the real world as they confront us on billboards, in magazines, online, and on TV. And as they have become more accessible given the relatable personalities of stars, how will they further affect society? One point of the documentary is that in a study of rapists and other sexually violent criminals, they admitted to targeting their victims based on their body language. They then identified some of the most common commercial poses described earlier as signals of a victim that most likely would not fight back. Thus, even if the poses themselves are not directly representative of weakness or submission, these images have come to symbolize this through their connection to a specific brand of femininity.

Carmen Miranda

Questions For Does Father Really Know Best?

1) Is Terminator 2 an endorsement or a critique of fatherhood?
2) Do Schwarzenegger's comedies rely just as much on his body as his action movies do -- only making fun of, rather than glorifying, it?
3) Are action hero's bodies objectified in the same way that women's are? (Another contradiction to think about: Women have historically, in film, been the ones whose bodies are objectified. But in the action films it is the man who is shirtless etc. Is this not a contradiction -- that the men who are the most "masculine" are the ones being objectified?)

Does Father Really Know Best?

The thing that the two articles and Dyer chapter seem to be picking up about Schwarzenegger's masculinity is the same thing that I did in seeing Terminator 2: contradiction.

The first article -- the Jeffords one -- discusses masculinity at the end of twentieth century, as it is influenced by Reaganism. It then goes on to discuss Kindergarten Cop, and ends with Terminator 2 -- with some analysis of other films of the era in between, particularly Beauty and the Beast and the other action blockbusters of the '90s (Die Hard etc.). In the article, Jeffords argues for seeing Kindergarten Cop and Terminator 2 as an encouragement of the Reaganist family values, specifically fatherood. Admittely, this interpretation includes complex nuances that don't mesh seamlessly -- the violence in the films, and unrealistically extreme machosim, for instance. The contradiction Jeffords sees is summed up with this line: "But whereas Reagan was able to balance the disparate and potentially contradictory interests of a hard-bodied militarism and a warm-hearted familialism, largely through the force of his personal image, George Bush could not manage the same feat."

Indeed, the second article sees a less direct but still present contradiction: "The first Terminator cast Arnold as a transtemporal assassin created by yet another computer out to destroy all human life, while in the second he becomes humanity's cyborg protector." Clearly, Hollywood wants to utilize Schwarzenegger's body, but it does not know how do to that. It is, at the same time, scary, and yet a salvation: a source of both fear and protection, it is represented as both in the same series. Indeed, Dyer points out this same disconnect: "Indeed, audiences do appear to adopt contrasting respones to the heroic body, for where some moviegoers seriously admire the hero's strength, for others the incredibility of his power becomes a source of disdain or laughter."

This contradiction between seriousness and satire can be seen in the casting of Arnold. Usually he is seen as an action hero -- and he is that. But he also starred in films such as Twins and Jingle All The Way that rely utterly on his masculine reputation as a point of humor (the same goes for Kindegarten Cop, the film Jeffords is so interested in).

The other contradiction Dyer sees is between the Terminator masculinity asserting itself as sincere, or as a critique of the falsity and superficiliality of such maschoism.

In seeing Terminator 2, the most striking disparity was between his actual actions, and people's perceptions of him as a father.

Sarah Conner keeps making reference to his role as such -- in one scene in particular, she compares him to alcoholics and absentee fathers, and says how he would never do any of those things. So he is held up as a father figure: both Sarah and John Connor's reluctance to let him self-sacrifice at the end -- for their (aka his proto family's) survival, no less -- indicates this.

And yet the Terminator does nothing to be considered a father figure aside from exist. He saves and protects them, yes, but out of duty not desire (perhaps a critique on fatherhood: it is engaged in not out of desire but feelings of duty? it is the "correct" way to behave?). He does not connect emotionally with them at all -- he cannot. Whenever John opens up to him, detailing his troubled childhood (aka his mom's many men), or his fear, the Terminator responds with apathy: "Aren't you afraid?" "No."

Clearly the Terminator is supposed to be a father figure, but he is so utterly unconnected to everyone else around him that either this is a terrible characterization or the most devastating commentary on the state and role of fatherhood I've ever seen.

Performances and Politics (Supplemental Post #4)

It is interesting to see how many celebrities are going on to impersonate various political figures, usually as a parody to critique their political viewpoints. This past Saturday, Tina Fey once again impersonated Sarah Palin, the former Governor of Alaska, and running partner with John McCain in the 2008 Presidential elections, in her appearance on Saturday Night Live. This is not the first time this impersonation has happened. (You can watch the first impersonation at this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXVIwo5fLYs).

This has not only been the only time an actor has done this. There are various times when Will Ferrell parodied former President George Bush. Many of these impersonations are to make fun of politicians, since they do not have a strong public support, and people accept them. For example, in this impersonation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkqrI3IibYI), Ferrell makes fun of Bush's Texan background.

All throughtout the web, there are various viral videos in which actors do these types of impersonations. These performances allow for promotional purposes; for instance, Tina Fey is asked everywhere she is interviewed about her Sarah Palin impersonation. Sure, she is a huge success on 30 Rock, but people also know her as the actress that made fun of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live.

Reading #3: Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Hard, Technological, Anti-Feminine Body

I took a class Freshman year about gender and sexuality. When it came to masculinity and bodies, Arnold Schwarzenegger was not only the first person brought up and discussed, but was he main focus for that section of the class. Discussing Schwarzenegger's body as the true embodiment of masculinity was extremely obvious to me (and the rest of the class) primarily because we have all, as a generation, internalized the fact that Schwarzenneger IS masculine: his hard, machine-like body is the epitome of masculinity and manliness. I remember a video we watched during Schwarzenegger's body building days, where he compared sculpting his body to creating or sculpting art. His body was something he could create and mold into perfect and peak physical shape in order to make himself (or rather, his body) into something that represented perfect masculinity. In this regard, Schwarzenegger created the fact that the body can represent masculinity, and his body was the standard to which all masculine bodies would have to live up to.

I never thought about why Schwarzenegger's perfectly sculpted body was definitively masculine, I just knew that it was. Viewing Terminator 2 and the reading of "Terminal Resistance" explained a lot to me, and make me think about why Schwarzenegger and his body are what our culture immediately conjures up in our minds when we think about what is definitively masculine.

First of all, Schwarzenegger is a cyborg in the film, which combines his ultra-manliness with technology. The reading explains that Schwarzenegger "fuses the natural ability of the athlete with a symbiotic relation to technology." Hardness, technology, and the human body are all fused together within Schwarzenegger's cyborg character to create a killing machine, an "armored body." Killing, hardness, and armor are all definitively masculine in our culture, and fusing them all together makes Schwarzenegger the most masculine of any thing-- human or otherwise-- that we have ever seen. Technology and its ubiquity in our culture has resulted in many new inventions and a reexamination of the future. Technology is not necessarily associated with masculinity, but when technology and computers are used to kill or in combat, technology is definitively associated with masculinity (since war and aggression are characteristics that are extremely masculine).

The other aspect that I find incredibly interesting that makes Schwarzenegger's character definitively masculine is that he is the opposite of what is definitively feminine. The reading explains that "the characteristic masculine aversion to the soft, the liquid, and the gooey-- elements associated with the monstrous feminine". Schwarzenegger's character is distinctly hard, and is now in conflict with the "liquid metal" T-1000, which has been compared to the "feared flow of the feminine." By being compared to the distinctively femininity of the "flowing" and softness of the T-1000, Schwarzenegger can show off his masculinity even more, by being the complete opposite of it and showing off his hardness. Schwarzenneger exaggerates the "anachronistic industrial-age metaphor of externally forceful masculine machinery." By being the exact opposite of the feminine, he literally is able to embody what is definitively the super-masculine.

Questions:

1. Even though the film portrays Schwarzenegger as the opposite of feminine, the reading discusses that the film (and Aliens as well) can be viewed as "feminist" movies. How can T2 be read in a feminist text?

2. Schwarzenegger obviously has a very different star text now. What is it and how is his uber-masculinity a part of it?

3. Since Schwarzenegger is no longer the embodiment of the extreme masculine body, who represents what is definitively "masculine" and how is it different from Schwarzenegger's embodiment?