One thing we briefly touched on is the issue of objectification in relation to stardom -- this is evidenced throughout film history, from the nude photos and skimpy dresses of Marilyn Monroe to the shirtless photos of Rock Hudson and Arnold. However, one thing that has always struck me is the lengths the studio would go to to objectify their stars so as to further make them an object solely for the viewing pleasure of the public. Today, many stars, such as Megan Fox, purposely choose to objectify themselves, cashing in on their sex appeal as a valuable asset. It seems that modern stars understand that objectification, though inherently wrong, makes stars more accessible and attractive to the public.
However, for me, one instance really sums up the objectification of women by the studio system as an attempt to try to build their contractees into stars. Jayne Mansfield, as blonde bombshell of the 1950s, who was set up to be and strove to emulate Marilyn Monroe. She was Warner Bros. answer to Fox's Monroe -- a platinum blonde sex kitten with heaps of cleavage and curves. Though Mansfield never obtained the icon status of Monroe, one can clearly see WB's attempt to situate her as such. Marilyn is well remembered for being objectified -- from her teasing, nearly see-through dresses of "Some Like It Hot" to her constant reiteration of the role of object of pursuit for the male. Warner Bros. in their attempt to push Mansfield to a similar level of stardom objectified Mansfield in an even more blatant and extreme manner. While re-housing photos at my job at the Warner Bros. Archives, I was working on a file of photos from the Mansfield film "Illegal." Many of the candid and publicity stills show the actors sitting around set in their specific chairs with their names across the back. Though Edward G. Robinson, Nina Foch, and the rest of the cast had their normal names printed on the back of their chairs, Mansfield's had no name. Instead her chair merely said "40-21-35 1/2". Thus, the studio had objectified Mansfield to the point where she required no name -- she was reduced to her measurements -- a number giving us the particulars of her body parts. The fact that the studio decided Mansfield required no name, but rather could be identified the number of her measurements fully highlights the extent to which studios would objectify their actors to try to make them into stars. Indeed, photos of a glamorous Mansfield posing in the chair were distributed as publicity material.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Core Post #4
Dyer describes Rock Hudson as “physically the largest male star of his day.” He explains how publicity shots were framed and angled to accentuate the size of his physique and make him look “pumped up.” The way that Dyer describes Hudson’s image and the way that the public perceived him seems very similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1980’s. Both were larger-than-life representations of American masculinity, the paragon of the American male.
However, compared with the physique and the images of Arnold Schwarzenegger from the period around the making of the Terminator, Rock Hudson seems tame.
The difference between these two stars is striking. Of course, their personas were very different. Dyer says the Hudson represented a “wholesome” and “sanitized” 1950’s vision of masculinity. Schwarzenegger, in his defining role in the Terminator movies, represented a cyberpunk, militaristic, and more violent vision of masculinity.
Still, the difference in their physiques and in the way they were perceived in their eras is incredible. It seems strange that two men with such different appearances could both embody the physical ideal of masculinity. Body building existed in the 1950’s, yet that sort of exaggerated body style did not become part of the Hollywood mainstream. Perhaps it was due in part to the better athletic training methods that existed in the 1980’s. In the late 80’s, the public became familiar with images of Jose Canseco and Mark McGuire, two extremely large and muscular baseball players. These two men, and many others, were eventually found to have been using steroids to artificially increase their size and strength. Both of these men dwarf Rock Hudson.
So, real-life men like these, using performance-enhancing drugs, were filling the eyes and minds of the public.
So, if Hollywood wanted to create characters that are larger than life, that outdo reality, it had to embrace someone like Arnold – someone who is so huge and muscular he appears to be, and can portray, a character that is not human.
1. How do the changes in the standards of male beauty compare or contrast with the changes in the standards of female beauty between the 1950's and now?
2. What role has the use of steroids, plastic surgery, and other artificial enhancements had on our perception of the human body?
3. Does Arnold Schwarzenegger represent a modern masculine ideal? If so, what kind of ideal?
Famous for Fame post #10
It is well-known that there is a class of celebrities who are really only known for being famous. Some, like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, skyrocket to fame after a sex tape "leaks" to the public. Others, like Nicole Richie or Brody Jenner, are the children of semi-famous celebrities. Whatever the case, it is important to ask why these people manage to maintain their celebrity status. Because they typically are not talented performers, one could assume that they have that indescribable star quality, simply without an outlet for it. However, this doesn't seem to typically be the case. Most of these celebrities thrive off of constructing a very specific and somewhat eccentric persona, like Paris Hilton did. She crafted everything from her voice, to her dress, to her pet, and from that, she created an empire.
While most would agree that this class of celebrity is largely disappointing, I think it is important to recognize that these people, perhaps more than other stars, put a great deal of effort into how their image is constructed, and they seem to be some of the greatest scholars of celebrity culture.
While most would agree that this class of celebrity is largely disappointing, I think it is important to recognize that these people, perhaps more than other stars, put a great deal of effort into how their image is constructed, and they seem to be some of the greatest scholars of celebrity culture.
Christina Aguilera
After watching Christina Aguilera’s new music video for Not Myself Tonight I started to realize what is fundamentally holding Christina back from competing amongst the most elite women in music; there is something evidently missing from the genuineness of Christina’s image as a performer. Even though she has been performing publicly for twenty years, since being released from Disney, Aguilera’s image and personality have never quite coincided. It’s as if she’s created a public persona, a double consciousness, even a split personality, that she renews every few years. The way I see it, Christina’s image has drastically changed three different times: from “Genie in a Bottle” innocent and naïve Christina à “Xtina” à innocent, a little boring, a little older Christina à renewed “Xtina” but a little less ghetto and a little more cliché “bondage is edgy” type feel. Now, as Madonna has proved for ages, there is nothing wrong with a little artistic renewal. But when it becomes as calculated and predictable as it has in Christina’s case, it becomes only confusing and monotonous. The problem is that when Christina first came on the scene as a teenage solo artist, people questioned why she was so falsely innocent, when she tried to be more sexy people questioned why she took it so far (I mean, naming the song “Diiirty” was a little over the top), and now her return to that raunchier version of Christina has people shaking their heads once again, wondering why a wife and mother is wearing bondage and having sex with another man for the whole world to see. It feels “diiirty” but not in a good way—it feels just… wrong. Christina seems to have two parts that she cannot reconcile, and she is simply “not herself tonight”—onstage or off. And if she’s ever going to survive in an industry that relies so heavily on that very same image, she’s going to need to reconcile these two sides, and fast.
If you want to see what I’m talking about, watch the new video here:
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Supplemental Post 4 -- Lady Gaga "Telephone"
We were discussing the Lady Gaga “Telephone” video in one of my classes today, and I thought that it was interesting and very relevant to our class. The video deals with female sexuality and, I think, female empowerment through its depiction of strong female characters within its narrative.
The video opens with Gaga entering an all female prison, where everyone is scantily clad and in very sexualized poses. This is interesting because instead of men having the power to put the women in prison, it is all females that work there. While their outfits and dancing would probably be considered almost pornographic, since the target audience is girls, it seems like the women are not being objectified.
When Gaga is allowed out of the prison, she meets up with Beyonce. Their adventure together is very reminiscent of Thelma and Louise, bringing a sense of girl power and bonding. Together they murder a group of people in a diner. In addition to having the ultimate power to commit mass homicide, they are able to over power all of the men that are seen, especially Tyrese who seems to have wronged Beyonce in some way. This part of the video seems to parody the Kill Bill movies, which also feature all female assassins and shows their power and dominance.
Although the video is very sexual, I do not think that Gaga is objectifying herself in any way. She dresses and dances sexually because she chooses to act that way, and by doing this on her own terms she shows the power of the female form. She attempts to subvert the male gaze throughout the video and shows all the males in the video as much weaker characters.
Some people in my class, however, argue that she objectifies herself in the same way that any other pop star in today’s culture would do. Singers like Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and even Madonna (who consistently reinvents her image much like Gaga does) wear skimpy outfits and dance provocatively. Their images, paired with their music, help them reach such wide stream popularity. Some claim that by acting and dressing as these celebrities do, Gaga is just contributing the objectification of women in mass culture. However, I believe that because she goes above and beyond in her outfits and performances, she is doing more of a parody or commentary on what our culture consumes. She sees that this is what profits in the current music industry and makes the conscious choice to follow their lead, while adding her own critique to it.
Here is a link to the video:
Why Such Sad Stars?
The two Dyer chapters for this week explore Judy Garland as a gay/camp icon, focusing specifically on the issue of her authenticity, and how it plays into this icon status. The Meyer article cites the obvious issues of authenticity that Rock Hudson's roles bring up, and discusses what he represents now that both his public and private life are up for scrutiny. Both Garland and Hudson, it seems, are gay/camp icons. My question is, why?
The surface answers are obvious. Both went through hardships, and dealt with having to hide their true selves to work in the industry they loved. However, my issue is that the two stars most associated with gay identification onscreen had such tragic ends. Surely, this is a part of their icon status -- their tragedies make them and their hardships even more famous. But why pick -- as your best point of identification and representation -- two stars who both died so tragically?
This seems to speak to a cynicism, a nihilism ... a "something bad" on the part of the gay perspective. Either the community is settling for something -- Garland and Hudson are the only stars that easily readable as icons for the movement -- or another thing entirely is going on. I am not ready to buy the former explanation. Cary Grant, for instance, is just as effeminate as Hudson onscreen, and his relationship with Rudolph Valentino was more public than any Hudson had with a lover. Why not him? As for Garland's replacements, other musical stars such as Liza Minnelli come to mind. While I believe that Minnelli too is a touchstone for gay culture, she is not nearly as ubiquitously associated with the community as is Garland.
I think the selection of Garland and Hudson that Deyer and Meyer speak to acknowledges the deepest pessimism the gay community has. Compare Garland and Hudson to Jennifer Lopez -- who we were talking about last week as the icon for Latinos. Although she's surely gone through hardships (dating P. Diddy must have been one in itself), she is not a tragic figure. Latinos have faced oppression, ostracization, etc. -- as has the gay community. However, the Latino one chooses a success story as its point of identification, where the gay community goes with cautionary tales.
Perhaps the fear that they will never fit in, never be understood, is more pervasive in the gay community. I can't see any other reason why stars with such tragic ends are the touchstones of gay/camp icons, when this really isn't the case with the other minority groups we've covered.
The surface answers are obvious. Both went through hardships, and dealt with having to hide their true selves to work in the industry they loved. However, my issue is that the two stars most associated with gay identification onscreen had such tragic ends. Surely, this is a part of their icon status -- their tragedies make them and their hardships even more famous. But why pick -- as your best point of identification and representation -- two stars who both died so tragically?
This seems to speak to a cynicism, a nihilism ... a "something bad" on the part of the gay perspective. Either the community is settling for something -- Garland and Hudson are the only stars that easily readable as icons for the movement -- or another thing entirely is going on. I am not ready to buy the former explanation. Cary Grant, for instance, is just as effeminate as Hudson onscreen, and his relationship with Rudolph Valentino was more public than any Hudson had with a lover. Why not him? As for Garland's replacements, other musical stars such as Liza Minnelli come to mind. While I believe that Minnelli too is a touchstone for gay culture, she is not nearly as ubiquitously associated with the community as is Garland.
I think the selection of Garland and Hudson that Deyer and Meyer speak to acknowledges the deepest pessimism the gay community has. Compare Garland and Hudson to Jennifer Lopez -- who we were talking about last week as the icon for Latinos. Although she's surely gone through hardships (dating P. Diddy must have been one in itself), she is not a tragic figure. Latinos have faced oppression, ostracization, etc. -- as has the gay community. However, the Latino one chooses a success story as its point of identification, where the gay community goes with cautionary tales.
Perhaps the fear that they will never fit in, never be understood, is more pervasive in the gay community. I can't see any other reason why stars with such tragic ends are the touchstones of gay/camp icons, when this really isn't the case with the other minority groups we've covered.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Gossip Girl Trendsetting (Supplemental Post 5)
My little sister was telling me about a Gossip Girl episode that she saw the other day and how much she liked Serena’s dress that she was wearing. She said she looked all over the internet trying to find it but couldn’t until she went to the CW website, where it allows you to view and purchase clothes that the cast wore on different episodes. I checked out the website myself, and saw that the site has developed a link to view the infamous clothes that are worn through out the different episodes. Keep in mind that the choices are limited, and are on the expensive side for most of the young audience that the show attracts.
Nearly four hundred dollars for a pair of sandals that Serena wore in an episode is the price to pay to live the exclusive life of a Manhattan elite. Since the show’s demographics cater to young girls the CW gains a sense of power over them. These young girls are much more impressionable and easily influenced to think that they need this pricy wardrobe available on the Gossip Girl website. I then started thinking about all of the other product placement items on the show and Verizon Wireless cell phones came to mind, since they are constantly showing the characters receiving messages on their phone the phone begins to play as large of a part as the characters do. The ability to dress like the prestigious characters and use the same cell phone, convinces the consumer that they too can be queen of the playground, and develop that connection with the characters to allow them to feel like are just like them.
Even though they are just characters on a show they have created such an impression on their audience that not only do their fans want to be just like the celebrities but they want to be like their characters as well.
Tweeting (Supplemental Post #4)
Following our discussion in class yesterday on tweeting and our discussion on John Mayer I came across an article from Access Hollywood on John Mayer and his thoughts on Twitter. He was saying that he thinks that “its over, to be honest with you”. I feel the same way about Twitter, its amazing how enthralled people become with celebrities and their need to know what they are doing or thinking every second. When if you think about it their publicist is most likely telling them what to say or even writing it for them, so the authenticity of the celebrity is not necessarily true. It’s a constructed image of the celebrity that is usually created in order to promote a film they are coming out with or to keep them connected with their fans.
I have a friend who plays for a major league baseball team and he told me that his publicist made him get a Twitter in order to stay in contact with his fans and develop a connection with them. He would regularly tweet a few times a day about random things that had popped in his head like song lyrics, what he had for breakfast, and what he did the previous night. He was suppose to show his fans he was a “real” person just like them and had a life outside of baseball. After about 6 months of tweeting he deleted his account because he said he was tired of constantly posting tweets everyday, and that it ruined his focus during the season.
I have a Twitter but I can’t remember the last time I tweeted on it, I couldn’t imagine having to make sure I posted a few times a day about my thoughts of the day or what I was going to do. But this maybe because I know that I don’t really have any followers that care to constantly know when I’m in class or going to the gym. This fastinitation that people have come to develop about celebrities has grown to an obsession that constantly makes them check what club Broody Jenner went to that night.
Fox vs. Jolie Post #9
After yesterday's heated debate over Megan Fox, I was interested in delving a little deeper into her relationship with Angelina Jolie. It turns out that not only has Fox been compared to Jolie on numerous occasions, but both stars seem to have very strong feelings about each other. When asked about Fox's similarity to her, Jolie reportedly answered, “Is she aiding in Africa or sitting in on U.N. conferences? Donating herself to something bigger than Hollywood? I’m not familiar with her work, is she an Oscar contender?” Fox, on the other hand, has had only good things to say about Jolie, though she once again seems slightly confused, as she denies the charges that she might be following in the star's footsteps.
While on the surface this may seem like a somewhat sophomoric battle, I think it relates back to key ideas of authenticity. Jolie seems somewhat hostile toward Fox, and one can only assume the reason is that Fox is infringing on Jolie's star persona, what is projected to be the authentic character of herself. This begs the question of if two people who seem so similar can still be seen as authentic in the eyes of the public? Apparently neither star seems to think this is the case.
The Authentic Judy Garland (Core Post)
It was difficult to see the true and authentic side of many actors in the days when the movie studios micromanaged a star’s career. It was easy to manipulate the media and thus the audiences into believing any type of star persona the studio was anxious to develop. Garland started her career with MGM and they were responsible for crafting the Judy that they wanted audiences to see. As Dyer states, the private life of a star is the most telling about the true nature of a star. This fact was so true for Garland. Hidden away from the public were her demons of personal appearance, public and personal relationships, and her addiction to drugs and alcohol.
Never was there a more accurate depiction of Judy Garland’s life than that portrayed in the movie A Star Is Born. Garland’s successful interpretation of the character was an extension of her own life. The authenticity she projected into playing Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester was a direct extension of her own life from Frances Gumm to Judy Garland. The audience of A Star Is Born isn’t privy to Blodgett’s entertainment history prior to her becoming an aspiring singer/dancer for a small time orchestra. However, it is known that Garland began her career as a small child. Garland was forced into a life of scrutiny before she could develop as a person and gain confidence and build some self-esteem. Both Garland and Blodgett symbolize the insecurity that wanting to become a star and maintaining stardom often bring with it. Both women are approached by men who see their potential and love them for it. Garland marries five times and Blodgett marries once. Both women marry men that are involved in the entertainment industry.
Garland’s reign as an accomplished star is authenticated by the comparison to Blodgett and her ability to become a star. Similarities prevail between Blodgett’s husband, Norman Maine and Garland. Garland fell from grace because of a history of substance abuse. She had to be institutionalized and removed from several films. Maine’s character also falls from grace as an alcoholic film star. He is not able to hold down film opportunities. Eventually he commits suicide. Therefore, he frees his wife from his fate as an unemployable, drunken embarrassment. Although classified as an accidental overdose, Garland life ended abruptly as well. It is possible that she saw herself as having surpassed her ability to continue performing. In the case of Judy Garland, life definitely imitated art and the authenticity in which she did it can be measured in A Star is Born.
1. Do you see any similarities in star image between Judy Garland and Brittany Murphy?
2. With the quantity of media in today’s society, is it harder for stars to keep their true persona separate from their star image?
3. Does today’s entertainment industry cultivate a star culture where A-List talent essentially play themselves on screen? Is this how authenticity is seen on screen today?
Never was there a more accurate depiction of Judy Garland’s life than that portrayed in the movie A Star Is Born. Garland’s successful interpretation of the character was an extension of her own life. The authenticity she projected into playing Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester was a direct extension of her own life from Frances Gumm to Judy Garland. The audience of A Star Is Born isn’t privy to Blodgett’s entertainment history prior to her becoming an aspiring singer/dancer for a small time orchestra. However, it is known that Garland began her career as a small child. Garland was forced into a life of scrutiny before she could develop as a person and gain confidence and build some self-esteem. Both Garland and Blodgett symbolize the insecurity that wanting to become a star and maintaining stardom often bring with it. Both women are approached by men who see their potential and love them for it. Garland marries five times and Blodgett marries once. Both women marry men that are involved in the entertainment industry.
Garland’s reign as an accomplished star is authenticated by the comparison to Blodgett and her ability to become a star. Similarities prevail between Blodgett’s husband, Norman Maine and Garland. Garland fell from grace because of a history of substance abuse. She had to be institutionalized and removed from several films. Maine’s character also falls from grace as an alcoholic film star. He is not able to hold down film opportunities. Eventually he commits suicide. Therefore, he frees his wife from his fate as an unemployable, drunken embarrassment. Although classified as an accidental overdose, Garland life ended abruptly as well. It is possible that she saw herself as having surpassed her ability to continue performing. In the case of Judy Garland, life definitely imitated art and the authenticity in which she did it can be measured in A Star is Born.
1. Do you see any similarities in star image between Judy Garland and Brittany Murphy?
2. With the quantity of media in today’s society, is it harder for stars to keep their true persona separate from their star image?
3. Does today’s entertainment industry cultivate a star culture where A-List talent essentially play themselves on screen? Is this how authenticity is seen on screen today?
supplemental post 3 - NPH and RockHudson
I thought our comparison of Neil Patrick Harris to Rock Hudson was particularly interesting today, and although his character Barney on How I Met Your Mother is straight there are a lot of similarities between Barney and a typical homosexual man. Although Harris does not have the same manly physique as Hudson (Hudson seems to be more of the American masculine standard, standing tall, dark, and handsome), he still is a very attractive man with a good physique. He dresses very well, always wearing suits, which may also be attributed to a homosexual male’s stereotypical interest in fashionable clothing.
His womanizer attitude, as strange as it seems, can also be linked to the image of Hudson and homosexuality. Hudson, specifically in Pillow Talk, plays characters who seem to be very popular with women, but who do not actually commit to any particular woman. Harris is the same way; although he has a different woman falling for him every night, he refuses to make any sort of commitment to them. He doesn’t just refuse to commit—he is completely against any time of commitment. For both Hudson and Harris, this can be seen as a look into their actual personas because clearly neither of them would be interested in starting a relationship with women. The fact that they lack an interest in commitment alludes to the fact that they are homosexual, while the women that flock to them distract from that fact.
Another interesting element of Barney’s persona is his obsession with suits. Homosexual men are often stereotyped to have a strong interest in fashion and dressing well. In the 100th episode of How I Met Your Mother, Barney becomes determined to conquer a woman who hates his suits, leaving him to decide if sleeping with this girl is worth giving up his suit collection. After thinking about it momentarily, he sings that “nothing suits me like a suit” and decides that being dressed well is more important than this girl. Barney sings, “to score a ten would be just fine, but I’d rather be dressed to the nine,” meaning that he is putting his own self image as a fashion conscious man in front of sleeping with a beautiful woman. As he sings and dances in a very theatrical manner, the spectators are reminded again that Harris is a homosexual man and his character plays along with that.
His womanizer attitude, as strange as it seems, can also be linked to the image of Hudson and homosexuality. Hudson, specifically in Pillow Talk, plays characters who seem to be very popular with women, but who do not actually commit to any particular woman. Harris is the same way; although he has a different woman falling for him every night, he refuses to make any sort of commitment to them. He doesn’t just refuse to commit—he is completely against any time of commitment. For both Hudson and Harris, this can be seen as a look into their actual personas because clearly neither of them would be interested in starting a relationship with women. The fact that they lack an interest in commitment alludes to the fact that they are homosexual, while the women that flock to them distract from that fact.
Another interesting element of Barney’s persona is his obsession with suits. Homosexual men are often stereotyped to have a strong interest in fashion and dressing well. In the 100th episode of How I Met Your Mother, Barney becomes determined to conquer a woman who hates his suits, leaving him to decide if sleeping with this girl is worth giving up his suit collection. After thinking about it momentarily, he sings that “nothing suits me like a suit” and decides that being dressed well is more important than this girl. Barney sings, “to score a ten would be just fine, but I’d rather be dressed to the nine,” meaning that he is putting his own self image as a fashion conscious man in front of sleeping with a beautiful woman. As he sings and dances in a very theatrical manner, the spectators are reminded again that Harris is a homosexual man and his character plays along with that.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Core Post#5: A Star Is Born
One of the key points I have derived from this class and the readings is the importance of the authenticity of stars. The reading on Rock Hudson only further pushed this point. Rock spent most of his life projecting an image of a man that women desired and men wanted to be just like. Obviously, this is more of a heterosexual image, and clearly it wasn't authentic. This cannot be blamed on Rock, but instead the people managing his career as well as the conservative American people of the 1950's who would never allow an openly gay man to become a household name. If you think about it, the same is basically true today, it is hard to come up with many HUGE stars that are openly gay. Tom Cruise actually gets quite offended when asked about his rumored homosexuality. The film we watched last week “A Star Is Born” deal with the same issues of image we are talking about now. Judy Garland’s character is brought to the public eye by James Mason’s character. She becomes popular through her rise from a nobody to America’s sweetheart, even changing her name to Vicki Lester. Her image is only strengthened with the more movies she takes on and the public even begins to sympathize with her after her husband drunkenly makes a fool out of himself at the Oscars, where she wins the award for Best Actress. There is a role reversal in the film, with Mason bringing himself down due to alcoholism and eventually dying, quite a departure from Mason turning Lester into a star. This did nothing but remind me of Rock Hudson falling from America’s graces as Meyer talks about from his diagnosis with HIV. Garland’s character in the film is also inauthentic as in her personal life she was a very depressed and troubled soul and ended up dying from a tranquilizer addiction. It is amazing how contradictory a star image can be from the real actor/actress.
1) What actors/actresses today would you say are authentic? Not authetic?
2) What household names can you name that are gay?
3) Is there a modern day Rock Hudson?
Supplemental Post 3: The Rebooting of Spider-Man
Although I work for Sony Pictures and technically I should not be disclosing this information, it's all over Wikipedia, so what the hell? The tremendously successful Spider-man film franchise as we know it is over and is being rebooted, similar to what happened with Batman Begins. Some may be quite surprised by this, being that audiences flocked to the theater to the tune of nearly $3 billion for the saga. However, the most recent film Spider-man 3 was critically panned and there's very few people I've met who will admit to liking this film. But now director Sam Raimi, Tobey McGuire and Kirsten Dunst are out and a new cast are on the way, including Marc Webb, director of "500 Days of Summer". I must say I really respect Sony's decision to re-boot this franchise. They could just rest on their laurels and continue to churn out mediocre films and make a billion dollars per picture. However, they have decided that quality is also important to them and will lose their bankable stars along the way. Perhaps this could be the start of a new trend, with studios not solely focused on the buck, but also the quality of film. Similar to Batman Begins, where the bankable Val Kilmer and George Clooney were dropped in favor of Christian Bale, who at the time was not a star, but now definitely is. As long as success stories like Batman Begins continue to happen I think this likeable trend will linger on.
Exhibit on Fan Magazines
The David L. Wolper Center, located directly across from the cinema library in Doheny, is hosting an exhibit on fan magazines, beginning this Thursday. This exhibit is fairly relevant to all we've been discussing this semester and it is examining the relationship between stars and fan culture. Here is the link on the event for all who are interested:
http://dotsx.usc.edu/newsblog/index.php/main/comments/hollywood_fan_magazine_exhibition_opening_april_29
http://dotsx.usc.edu/newsblog/index.php/main/comments/hollywood_fan_magazine_exhibition_opening_april_29
Sunday, April 25, 2010
saMANtha Denies Spitting On Lindsanity! -- S.P. #5
“saMANtha Denies Spitting On Lindsanity” is the headline for this disturbing rumored event. What is not a rumor, is that the two lesbians have indeed split up, and ongoing feuds continue to be headlined nearly every single day on Perez Hilton’s celebrity blog. While so many stories seem either too far-fetched to be true, it is difficult to determine fact from fiction when both sides offer consistently differing sides that are equally peculiar in nature.
This particular blog covers a response from Ronson to a previous Perez blog that speculated on Ronson’s involvement with spitting on Lohan’s face at a birthday party, after Lohan tweeted about it on her twitter page. Ronson came back with, “Guess what didn’t happen tonight…” which ultimately takes a sarcastic approach towards implying that the occurrence never took place. The two clearly need help as the flow of constant feed on their actions arise to depict a very deranged and sad reality that they are forced to face on a regular basis. Still, Samantha Ronson should automatically be given more credibility since her insanity is not being questioned and disputed upon every day by friends, family, and strangers, unlike Lohan. What makes their circumstance evermore difficult is that they are forced to share their private lives via Perez Hilton’s big mouth, and I’m sure that this offers them no sense of margin to rise above their adversity in light of the scrutinizing public.
Judy Garland as Icon-Reading Response # 5
Having previously read the Dyer chapter on "Judy Garland and Gay Men" for a class on icons (examining icons from their start in religious iconography to celebrity icons to advertising icons), it was intriguing to revisit the article in this context. Because for me what has always stood out about Judy's career is the dichotomy between her image as icon and her image as star....As a star, most notably in the MGM years, Judy was the girl next door, as best illustrated by her roles in the Andy Hardy films with Mickey Rooney and in her immortal turn as Dorothy Gale. However, as an icon, Judy represents something entirely different, which Dyer's article elucidates. For modern audiences and for gay men, Judy is an icon of the dark side of Hollywood and the continual resiliency of the human spirit even in the face of being told that who/what you are and what you look like isn't good enough. Sure, Judy crumbled in the end with her untimely and tragic death, but no one ever had more comebacks than Judy Garland. Losing her contract after her antics on the set of "Summer Stock," "A Star is Born" was a triumphant return to the screen for Judy (as she had spent some time in rehab attempting to unsuccessfully kick her drug habit and repair her shattered self-image). Though this was Judy's first major comeback, she would repeat such successes with her concert career -- selling out at the Palace and Radio City. Thus, Judy came to represent both the dark side of Hollywood and the comeback -- the attempt to fight one's self-loathing and triumph over those who had set you up to fail.
If one examines the character of Esther Blodgett (or Vicki Lester), it is quite clear that she is just a darker iteration of the girl-next-door. Esther is what happens to the girl-next-door when she grows up to become the woman-next-door. Esther starts as an innocent, naive girl from the Midwest, pursuing her dreams of a successful singing career, and though she maintains her same inherently likable qualities, her life is plagued by the vagaries of Hollywood favor and "the man that got away."
Thus, it is as if Judy is merging the two sides of her career -- Judy the star and Judy the icon-- into one film. We already know Judy the star, but with this film "Judy the icon" is "born." In the first half of the film, we see the young Judy -- full of idealism, a vigorous talent, and young romance. This starts to fall apart when the studio signs her, and she is given a horrible make-over to fit what the studio deems to be beautiful. In the latter half, we see the Judy that most know her as today-- one on the constant verge of tears and collapse, torn apart by the system that built her (and we see Judy's own career reflected in Norman Maine -- in his addiction problems and how he is virtually thrown away and forgotten by Hollywood). Thus, Judy allows us to see both sides of herself in one role and thereby, illustrates just how drastically one's image can shift in the course of one's career. Many of the stars we have discussed up until this point can be read in multiple discourses, but their star images do not undergo an exceeding amount of change. Judy is a rare exception because she allowed us to truly see her vulnerability and the way she was crumbling on-screen...I think, though Dyer wonderfully probes her cultural significance, Judy is easily defined as an icon -- both for gay and straight-- as a woman who allowed us to see the vulnerability within herself and how this vulnerability unbearably manifested itself when overwrought by the Hollywood star system. Allowing us to see her weakness and how she constantly strove to overcome this weakness and self-loathing is inspiring for all, but particularly gay men (of an earlier time more over-whelmingly) because it suggests that yes, one can be weak and dislike oneself, but if you put it all out there on the stage and try to overcome that, you can become not just a star, but an icon.
Questions:
1)How would Judy fare in the modern Hollywood system? Would she crack more quickly under such constant media attention as TMZ and the tabloids? Or being more able to control her own image (and not dominated by one studio who owned her) would she be more comfortable in her own skin and thus able to work within the system more effectively?
2) As homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted within society, do you think Judy will become any less of a gay icon? If gay men no longer need the reassurance of someone who fought on through self-loathing because they are more acceptable to themselves and society, is she still as relevant to this discourse?
3)Liza Minnelli, Judy's daughter, shares many traits with her mother and is also somewhat of a gay icon. In what ways do you think her role as icon differ from that of Judy's? Additionally, both Liza and Judy had a bad habit of marrying gay men. How does this tie in to their iconicity?
If one examines the character of Esther Blodgett (or Vicki Lester), it is quite clear that she is just a darker iteration of the girl-next-door. Esther is what happens to the girl-next-door when she grows up to become the woman-next-door. Esther starts as an innocent, naive girl from the Midwest, pursuing her dreams of a successful singing career, and though she maintains her same inherently likable qualities, her life is plagued by the vagaries of Hollywood favor and "the man that got away."
Thus, it is as if Judy is merging the two sides of her career -- Judy the star and Judy the icon-- into one film. We already know Judy the star, but with this film "Judy the icon" is "born." In the first half of the film, we see the young Judy -- full of idealism, a vigorous talent, and young romance. This starts to fall apart when the studio signs her, and she is given a horrible make-over to fit what the studio deems to be beautiful. In the latter half, we see the Judy that most know her as today-- one on the constant verge of tears and collapse, torn apart by the system that built her (and we see Judy's own career reflected in Norman Maine -- in his addiction problems and how he is virtually thrown away and forgotten by Hollywood). Thus, Judy allows us to see both sides of herself in one role and thereby, illustrates just how drastically one's image can shift in the course of one's career. Many of the stars we have discussed up until this point can be read in multiple discourses, but their star images do not undergo an exceeding amount of change. Judy is a rare exception because she allowed us to truly see her vulnerability and the way she was crumbling on-screen...I think, though Dyer wonderfully probes her cultural significance, Judy is easily defined as an icon -- both for gay and straight-- as a woman who allowed us to see the vulnerability within herself and how this vulnerability unbearably manifested itself when overwrought by the Hollywood star system. Allowing us to see her weakness and how she constantly strove to overcome this weakness and self-loathing is inspiring for all, but particularly gay men (of an earlier time more over-whelmingly) because it suggests that yes, one can be weak and dislike oneself, but if you put it all out there on the stage and try to overcome that, you can become not just a star, but an icon.
Questions:
1)How would Judy fare in the modern Hollywood system? Would she crack more quickly under such constant media attention as TMZ and the tabloids? Or being more able to control her own image (and not dominated by one studio who owned her) would she be more comfortable in her own skin and thus able to work within the system more effectively?
2) As homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted within society, do you think Judy will become any less of a gay icon? If gay men no longer need the reassurance of someone who fought on through self-loathing because they are more acceptable to themselves and society, is she still as relevant to this discourse?
3)Liza Minnelli, Judy's daughter, shares many traits with her mother and is also somewhat of a gay icon. In what ways do you think her role as icon differ from that of Judy's? Additionally, both Liza and Judy had a bad habit of marrying gay men. How does this tie in to their iconicity?
Tiger's Ho Gets Denied! -- S.P. #4
“Ouch” is correct! Perez Hilton recently blogged about former Tiger Woods mistress, Jaimee Grubbs, and unsurprisingly had the lowdown on yet another sleazy move that she pursued on her prowl to gain notorious recognition. The blog entitled, “Tiger’s Ho Gets Denied” describes Grubb as being spotted at the Beverly Hills’ Bar 210 where she was roaming alone until she made her way to a table full of Anaheim Ducks and L.A Kings hockey players. After being welcomed with the cold shoulder, she insisted that she was a model and tried to introduce herself before helping herself to their alcohol. Ultimately, she gets asked to leave since the professional hockey players want nothing to do with her, nor do they want to be associated with her in any way. She complies and continues to make her way around the club to other men.
Despite being known for giving borderline pathetic D-list celebrities massive amounts of unnecessary exposure, Perez’s depiction of Grubbs makes his work that of a halfway noble human being for placing the spotlight on this scarlet lettered nobody. It is rather refreshing when bad moves are met with bad publicity, and Grubbs deserves nothing short of public humiliation and mockery. It is also nice to hear that some professional athletes are still mindful of their images, and likewise, it is especially satisfying to hear that undeserving home wreckers like Grubb are shunned from the endeavors of their choosing.
Social Media and Celebrities (Supplemental Post #5)
As technology keeps evolving and society keeps diving into new trends, celebrities have to keep up for publicity purposes. In terms of social media (Twitter, Facebook, Blogs), celebrities have begun to use these tools to stay connected with their fans. Contrastingly, fans use this medium to keep informed or inform other about their favorite celebrities as well. There is the famous blog by (in)famous Perez Hilton, where he brings out all the dirt on celebrities. Many celebrities really dislike Perez Hilton because he publishes personal stories about them. There was a recent article where Lindsay Lohan lashed out at Perez Hilton through Twitter because he made fun of her sister. I think that this shows how much fans and celebrities rely on social media and technology that they began a little face-off via Twitter, rather than an interview or written statements. Now issues are not even solved via email, but rather over Twitter, where millions can see what is going on.
Furthermore, there are thousands and thousands of public figures that have accounts for their fans to follow them. Twitter has become the faster and innovative way for celebrities to reach their fans. Using their mobile phone, they can reach millions instantaneously with any message they want. For example, during the Academy Awards red carpet show, Ryan Seacrest kept updating his Twitter account to keep the audience updated with what was going on off screen.
It is evident how much social media has come along in the past few years. Not long ago, people had no idea what Twitter was, and now everyone seems to have one, which is great for celebrities to stay connected with their fans.
Supplemental post -- Zoe Saldana
While I was watching a trailer for Death at a Funeral, I realized that Zoe Saldana seems to be in EVERYTHING. Ever since she appeared in Star Trek, then received a great deal of recognition for her role in Avatar, she seems to be the face in every new film. Interestingly, my roommate mentioned to me that Zoe Saldana seems to be the hip new black actress, which is similar to what we were discussing in class in regards to Jennifer Lopez.
Now that Zoe Saldana has risen in popularity, she is becoming the go-to girl for African American female roles, like how actresses like Halle Berry or Gabrielle Union. It seems like there is normally one or two very popular actresses who fill every role whenever a black actress is needed. In fact, I could only think of Halle Berry when I went to write that sentence so I asked my roommate for another example—she couldn’t think of anyone either. We googled top black actresses and the only other examples listed were Raven Symone and Queen Latifah, who do not fill the same types of roles that someone like Zoe Saldana or Halle Berry would. Now, Zoe Saldana has taken the position as the major prominent black actress whenever there is any role that requires a black actress.
What is most interesting about all this is that she isn’t even black, and yet she always seems to be playing characters who can be assumed to be black. Zoe Saldana is actually Puerto Rican and Dominican, living mush of her life in the Dominican Republic. And yet, because she is ethnic, she can adapt to the ethnicity that is required for the role she is playing. Like how we were discussing Jake Gyllenhal in the Prince of Persia, I feel like there has to be qualified black actresses who could fill the roles that she is now playing.
Now that Zoe Saldana has risen in popularity, she is becoming the go-to girl for African American female roles, like how actresses like Halle Berry or Gabrielle Union. It seems like there is normally one or two very popular actresses who fill every role whenever a black actress is needed. In fact, I could only think of Halle Berry when I went to write that sentence so I asked my roommate for another example—she couldn’t think of anyone either. We googled top black actresses and the only other examples listed were Raven Symone and Queen Latifah, who do not fill the same types of roles that someone like Zoe Saldana or Halle Berry would. Now, Zoe Saldana has taken the position as the major prominent black actress whenever there is any role that requires a black actress.
What is most interesting about all this is that she isn’t even black, and yet she always seems to be playing characters who can be assumed to be black. Zoe Saldana is actually Puerto Rican and Dominican, living mush of her life in the Dominican Republic. And yet, because she is ethnic, she can adapt to the ethnicity that is required for the role she is playing. Like how we were discussing Jake Gyllenhal in the Prince of Persia, I feel like there has to be qualified black actresses who could fill the roles that she is now playing.
Ciara's Desperate 'Ride' {Supplmental Post 5]
So, virtually irrelevant pop star Ciara released a brand new video recently and the results are disastrous. What tried to come across as sexy, only reads desperate. Ciara has had a hard time obtaining a hit record recently, and she has been reduced to making a near pornographic video to drum up publicity that she hopes to translate to a Hot 100 hit and more importantly record sales. I find when artists to this to be completely deplorable, it tells me that it is absolutely not about the art, but just trying to sell a product. The video is provocative without even being good. Many artists have been able to be provocative or controversial yet have the music or talent to back it up. Artists like Michael Jackson have used the art form of the music video to send a message that transcends the music. MJ's videos (two versions exist) for his single "They Don't Care About Us" managed to foreground racism that exists in the world, made viewers think, and the music still had something to it that made them want to go out and buy it while learning the message. This new Ciara video just gives 13 year old males something to YouTube when their parents aren't in the room. The music industry has been reduced to sad displays like scantily clad Ciara who bounces up and down and rides bulls seductively for attention. This saddens me to realize that music will never get out of its creative slump, and if record labels keep allowing artists to put out substandard material then they will never be able to rebound from the current financial slump they are in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)