Supplemental Post: Saturday Night Live - Mother's Day Edition

Last night, the highly anticipated Mother's Day episode of Saturday Night Live with host Betty White and a whole ensemble of previous female cast members aired on NBC. The show was extremely entertaining, but for me, this was not the most interesting aspect of this episode. According to ratings, SNL "scored its highest metered-market household rating in a year and a half, since the pre-election telecast of 2008." This all coming from a grassroots internet campaign where fans expressed their desire to see Betty White host SNL.

In a recent interview, Betty White stated that she had been asked to host SNL several times in the past and had always denied it. However, amid all the online demand from fans, her agent had jokingly told her that she had to do it or he couldn't represent her anymore.

It's fascinating how the public can have a significant direct impact on the portrayal and image of stars today. We have seen this online fan-based movements in the past: see Samuel L. Jackson's performance in "Snakes on a Plane." And now, with celebrities constantly sending daily messages about themselves or internet-fighting with each other on Twitter, fans have an even greater channel into the lives of celebrities and how they are portrayed. It will be extremely fascinating to see how the internet continues to influence and shape the concept of a star image.

Supplemental Post 5: Iron-Man 2

I went to see Iron Man 2 at LA Live last night and the line was around the corner for the film. This is clearly an established franchise behind the star-power of Robert Downey Jr. and is expected to gross 140-150 million dollars in it's first weekend domestically. It has already broken even overseas. It is amazing how easy it is to profit on a film once it has name recognition. However, I was quite disappointed with the film and I was a big fan of the first. For those who still haven't seen it, there are some spoiler alerts ahead. I feel in the movie they packed it with far too many stars to try to drag in different types of audiences. Although Scarlet Johanson is a sex symbol she might be there to attract more females, and Samuel L Jackson could help attract a more diverse audience as well. It is disappointing to see Johanson reduced to a few promiscuous comments, she has shown she is a good actress but is now just shown as a sex doll in films such as "Ironman" and "He's Just Not That Into You". She really has no function in the film besides shaking her butt and making sexy faces at Downey Jr. Samuel L Jackson also has no real function besides doing his normal yelling. Mickey Rourke was another star they used to glitz up the production and he is one of the worst villains in recent memory. He speaks in a Russian accent which at times is barely understandable and quite hard to believe after seeing him as tough New Jersey man in "The Wrestler". For most of the film Rourke just sits in a lab building drones to take down Ironman and when he finally comes out and faces Ironman, he is defeated in about 30 seconds in one of the more lame villain fights in recent memory. Although I wouldn't call this a bad movie, I just think they loaded it with stars to cash in more in the box office rather than these characters actually having a purpose.

Supplemental Post 4: Conan O'Brien

In case you missed the 60 Minutes piece on Conan O'Brien, it made me feel quite uncomfortable. Conan would continuously cackle about the predicament he was put in and you could tell he is VERY pissed off about the situation he's been put in. He is now on a comedy tour, the only thing he's really allowed to do, considering the contract he signed with NBC saying he can't start another show until September. The show seems to mainly consist of him singing songs and telling jokes about how he got screwed by NBC. Although uncomfortable, it was another great piece by the journalists of 60 Minutes to get behind the mind of a famous scorned man. It is easy to see he is very upset about what happened. He will be starting his new late night talk show on TBS, which is an interesting move. He obviously won't get nearly as many viewers as he did on NBC, but he should get a loyal following. I wish him the best of luck.

Super 8: Supplemental post 5

Steven Spielberg and JJ Abrams have joined together to create what was supposed to be a highly secretive new film Super 8. The film is not scheduled to release until summer 2011, and it was scarcely spoken about. Unfortunately, yesterday, an illegal recording of the trailer for the film was released online. The film looks action packed and the trailer leaves the audience wanting more, as any good trailer will do. But the question is, why the secrecy? The trailer will be airing soon enough, so what is the purpose of this tactic that PR executives were attempting to utilize. It seems to be a similar tactic to that which many stars use when they refuse to talk about their personal lives. What is it about the secretive that intrigues us so much? Will Smith’s recent film, Seven Pounds, utilized the same sort of marketing campaign where very little was known about the films content and story line. There is something about the unknown that draws us in; we have this itch to know all the details about basically everything, that won’t be scratched until the secrets are revealed. We clearly do it with movies, celebrities, and various other areas of life. Marketing agencies, PR firms, and publicists have all tapped into this need for knowledge we seem to have and have capitalized on their ability to utilize it in their favor; that is, until someone with a camera phone illegally pirates a trailer, in which case your entire marketing campaign is out the window. It looks like Spielberg an Abrams’ people are going to have to come up with something new to get audiences to the theaters next summer.

Reality TV turns to Movie? Supplemental Post 4

With the advent of reality television over the last several years, the way we watch tv has completely changed. We’ve seen couples find their “soul mates,” people make it through hell and back for money, and singing stars find their claim to fame. An interesting phenomenon has been the MTV reality series. Starting with hits like Nick and Jessica’s Newlyweds, Laguna Beach, and taking that into a spin-off of The Hills. Lauren Conrad has been living her life on television over the last five years. She has taken her fame as a true reality tv star and used it to start a clothing line and start a career as an author. In her book LA Candy she describes a young woman who finds fame through a reality tv show, essentially it is her life in a novel. A new phenomenon in cinema seems to be coming from this book; the producers of Twilight have taken on the novel to be adapted into a film. While we have watched many different “art” mediums influence film before, this idea of having a reality television show inspire a film. What does this say about young American audiences? Why are we so intrigued by the lives of others? It will be interesting to see how this film does and where the project goes. Conrad has reported that she doesn’t want to act in the film, but if she had, wouldn’t it have just been The Hills: The Movie?

Sex and the City 2: Supplemental Post 3

It seems that you cannot turn around without seeing another advertisements for the new Sex and the City movie. Whether you are turning on the TV and seeing ANOTHER trailer, driving around Hollywood on a billboard, or even riding your bike to and from campus and passing a Metro bus, Sex and the City 2 is there. The ads are everywhere, so what does this say about the quality of the film? While there are many who buy into the idea that it’s just so good that it’s being over-advertised to get more people to enjoy this sequel to the fabulousness of the original. It seems that when films are advertised to death, they are compensating for something. The first Sex and the City film took the top spot at the box office replacing the long-standing Indiana Jones success. So what’s to expect from this new film? The most raved about aspect of the first film was it’s incredible wardrobe. Women were coming out just raving about the incredible outfits, purses, and of course, shoes. But can a sequel stand on just it’s wardrobe? There was a lot of questioning when they decided to make the hit sitcom into a movie in the first place, but when it did so well, it seems that producers thought they would be able to strike gold twice. With two weeks left until the film hits theaters it seems that we will continue to be bombarded with advertisement, but on May 27th we will see how audiences respond to another attempt to keep the Sex and the City spirit alive.

And The Winner Is…Sandra Bullock For Best Kept Secret in the New Baby Category

The adoption of babies by celebrities is not a new phenomenon for Hollywood. In recent years many celebrities have chosen to adopt babies from foreign countries. There is usually a media frenzy associated with every phase of the process. Angelina Jolie made news when she adopted her son, Maddox, in 2002 from an orphanage in Cambodia. Later Jolie and Brad Pitt would adopt another two children, Zahara from Addis Abada and Pax from Vietnam. In total they have six children. Each time the press jockeyed for the publishing rights to the baby photos. Jolie and Pitt played the media for all that the pictures were worth and wound up donating the money from their sales to charity. Other celebrities such as Madonna also went abroad to expand her family. Madonna went to Malawi to fund six orphanages and one of her own. While there, she met and later adopted a boy, David, and most recently a girl. The most current adoption is that of a baby boy, Louis Bardo, by actress Sandra Bullock. Bullock’s son had been with her three months before the news was released and the story was plastered on the front of People Magazine. Maybe Bullock was able to keep her secret better than other stars because the media was capitalizing on her recent separation from husband and television personality Jesse James.

The public has mixed reviews on adoptions by celebrities. Critics accuse Jolie, Pitt, Madonna, and Bullock of using their celebrity status to shorten the amount of time required to adopt. Others feel these are publicity stunts to bolster music and movie sales. But maybe the public could shift their focus. Just for a moment the public could turn a blind eye toward any ulterior motive and focus on this thought: maybe children adopted by a celebrity are just lucky. They are getting a loving family anxious to have their child leave behind a desperate life and join in on their joy.

Rock Hudson (Core Post)

Shh... Don’t ask, don’t tell could have been the tag line for many of Hollywood’s most successful actors in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Homosexuality was a concept that movie studios tried to keep hidden from the public through the use of lawyers and skeptical marriages. Rock Hudson was just one of many actors to have lived this life of secrecy. His good looks, charm, and masculinity launched Hudson’s career. However, gossip surrounded Hudson and when his homosexuality was going to be exposed he hastily married. The industry kept it quiet and the public didn’t care to confront this screen icon’s life off the big screen. Within a few years this marriage ended. Although his early movies didn’t prove to be blockbuster hits, his star persona kept him in front of the camera. Hudson was best known for his roles in romantic comedies. It was here where he felt most comfortable. He presented his studio-manufactured image, that of the handsome, ladies’ man while also showing his somewhat whimsical side. An excellent example is the movie Pillow Talk, starring Hudson and Doris Day. Hudson’s character, Brad Allen, has a fascination with interior decorating and is seen raising his pinkie finger while sipping tea. Although these traits do not mean one is homosexual; society has often assigned these activities as extremely effeminate characteristics. Is it possible that Hudson used these subtle ways to show his homosexual leanings without opening admitting them? Eventually, Hudson opened up to the public about his homosexuality and his diagnosis of being HIV positive.

Supplemental Post: Re-crafting of a Star Image

Two weekends ago, I helped out with the Iron Man 2 junket as part of my internship. During the international press conference, one journalist asked Robert Downey, Jr. a simple questions, "Did you used to dress up as superheroes when you where a child?" Instead of giving a typical answer, RDJ wittily answered, "Well, in my childhood, no. But in my thirties and right before I was about to get arrested...absolutely." A large wave of good-natured laughter filled the audience.

The intense transformations of star identities - RDJ's image from being perceived as a drugged-out has-been to a suave A-list actor, for example - occur all the time, and the public seems to pass over and accept the almost instantaneously. How is it that these stars manage to do this? Do they just have really good PR people? Or do that completely disregard their past?

I think that the answer is a complex one, and one that many don't think too deeply about. Robert Downey, Jr.'s answer to the reporter is especially telling. He relates back to his "old self," thereby acknowledging a not so bright past, but also simultaneously separating his current image from what it used to be. This mention of his past actions also bring a sense of authenticity to his personality - he admits who he used to be, but he also affirms that he is no longer that person. Therefore, in bringing his dark past to the forefront, he both shows that he is a real person and distances himself from what his older star persona - more so, even, than if he were to not mention it at all.

Supplemental Post

I am responding to Michael Gores' question: Does Arnold Schwarzenegger represent a modern masculine ideal? If so, what kind of ideal?

I do not think it would be incorrect to say Arnold Schwarzenegger represents a modern masculine ideal. As we learned in this class, there can simultaneously be many ideals of masculinity during a particular period of time. But while not everyone looks to size and strength as the necessary requirements to be considered “masculine,” muscle definitely plays a part in the views of many.

Perhaps the steroid look may no longer be as revered as it once was, society does see size and athleticism as a significant aspect of masculinity. Without a doubt, popular athletes of generation (from football to basketball and even tennis) are getting bigger and bigger, both in terms of body size and strength as well as in terms of popularity. And if a woman is unusually muscular, she is called “manly.” Clearly, society sees muscle as an important aspect of masculinity.

When analyzing the masculinity of stars, it is important to consider all aspects of a star’s persona. In Schwarzenegger’s case, the brawn and physique is what made him a star, but it is not all he is known for, particularly now. He is no longer at his physical peak, yet I would definitely still consider him an ideal figure of masculinity.

The ideal that I think Schwarzenegger fulfills is one that has built upon his action star, playboy ideal of a few decades ago. Now I think the ideal he fulfills is one that consists of more aspects of his life, including qualities I think society has found to be important in categorizing masculinity. Just like I think I am not alone in considering President Obama and other politicians a new kind of masculinity, I think Schwarzenegger remains an ideal figure of masculinity because he is a husband, a father, and a politician, among many other things. I think especially today, masculinity consists of a variety of things, and that Schwarzenegger, despite being past his hey-day of 80s action films, continues to be recognized as a masculine figure.

Supplemental Post -Objectification in the Studio Era

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.

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.

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:

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ95z6ywcBY

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Rock Hudson

Interesting video about Rock with an interview with Dyer...

A star's authenticity (Core Post #5)

It is interesting to begin reading about a star's authenticity at this point in the semester, because I see it as such a crucial, yet overlooked part of our readings of a star. We've talked throughout the semester about the roles that actors play and whether or not they "fit". For example, Sandra Bullock in the The Blind Side or Lady Gaga's entire persona. Are they "real"?

In "A Star Is Born and the Construction of Authenticity" Dyer explains, "Showing that the star is not really like she/he appears to be may itself be taken up into the image, its further construction and rereading, but it could shatter the illusion altogether." (137). A star's authenticity is reenforced if they act the exact same way on and off of the screen. Stars are often exposing contradictory images (...see Tiger Woods scandal), but sometimes can work in the stars favor. In "Heavenly Bodies" Dyer explains his philosophy as to why gays like Judy Garland post-1950s. He explains that it is the breaking down of her false persona that actually exposed a more authentic individual. The emotion that came across post-1950s was relatable. A Star is Born is a compelling example because it was "revealing" and real... a lot more real then her earlier ordinary characters.

What is interesting about this is that the gay audience actually liked her performance as ordinary characters because she "was the image of heterosexual family normality... The ordinariness is a starting point because, like Judy Garland, gay men are brought up to be ordinary." (153). This was only respected, however, after the 1950s because they could relate to growing up in heterosexual family normality, but feeling like an outsider. She was the outsider. What would have happened if her authenticity wasn't exposed? Would she not be respected by the gay community? If her authenticity is never exposed, then would she have been considered authentic?

I know that this is a bit of a tangent, but I did a post a couple of weeks back on celebrities use of Twitter and social media. I've often wondered how this affects authenticity. Is it harder to hide things? Think of an active Tweeter (?) like John Mayer. The way he comes across on Twitter is completely different than his music and videos. If his music was the only thing creating his persona and we didn't see the vulgar content that he posts daily, what would we think about his authenticity as an artist? I had dinner with a Lady Gaga fan and we began talking about artists and Twitter. She expressed that she is frightened by the thought that Lady Gaga may not be updating her own Twitter, thus making her less authentic.

The reading in "Stardom: Industry of Desire" expresses that stars may create their authenticity. Thus, creating their behind the scenes image. Is this/will this be present on Twitter and other social media outlets. Are John Mayer's contradictory personas on purpose? Because it really makes me question his authenticity.

Hollywood: Authentic...NOT, Core post #4

While Dyer has discussed the importance of authenticity regarding stars, it has always been virtually impossible to achieve that due to the marketing machine that is Hollywood. After reading the article on Rock Hudson, one realized the extent to which team Hollywood will go to preserve and assure their power in the world. Rock Hudson spent three decades putting forth an image of a man that women desired and men emulated. The image was a pure heterosexuality, however, it was only an image, and it was inauthentic. But, in my opinion, it was not the fault of the actor. The team of agents and publicists had a hand, but also the American provincial mindset of the 1950a wouldn’t have allowed a homosexual actor to become such a huge celebrity. In actually, we see this same mindset even today. Rumors of Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Will Smith, Hugh Jackman, and Hayden Christian, whether they are true or not, require that these celebrities marry and bear children to assure their audiences of their heterosexuality.

In a Star Is Born, Judy Garland’s character Esther Blodgett becomes a celebrity (changing her name to Vicki Lester) after she meets her soon to be husband, Norman Maine, played by James Mason. The story shows the path of Esther/Vicki becoming a star, while Norman falls from celebrity due to alcoholism. She builds her image in Hollywood, and he destroys his by his public drunkenness. Much like Rock Hudson fell from Hollywood’s good graces when reporters wrote about “The Hunk Who Lived a Lie” and “The Master of Illusion,” (Meyer 279) in regard to Hudson’s diagnosis with HIV, Norman Maine fell from Hollywood’s good graces due to his addition.

Interesetingly, as life sometimes imitates art, Judy Garland was not the gal that we knew from films, but rather a sad and depressed soul who eventually died from a drug overdose. America lost two of it’s favorite celebrities this past year to drug addiction (Heath Ledger and Britany Murphy). Who would have known that the young knight from A Knight’s Tale and the guy who portrayed the confident Casanova would be, in actuality, so full of despair as to take his own life. In the end, we really never do know the character from the real life persona.

1) We only hear about the tragic cases of Hollywood actors when their addictions or lifestyles overcome them. How prevalent do you think publicity and market teams cover up the real people?

2) In a Star Is Born, do you think that Judy Garland’s character (either Ethel or Vicki) was authentic?

3) What would Rock Hudson’s career path have looked like had his homosexuality been verified in the 1950s?

A Star's Demise (Core Post 5)

Judy Garland, truly a star. But as Dyer lays out, Garland fits three key opposing stereotypes: “the all-American small town girl-next-door; the personification of showbix good humour and bezazz; [and] the neurotic woman.” (132) Any basic biography of Garland includes the story of her addiction to prescription drugs that her studio put her on to keep her energy up and assist with keeping her figure in shape. This led to her need for sleeping pills, which was what she eventually overdosed on. Dyer goes on to discuss how the media destroys individuals. (135) As is the case with any business, there is a product being sold; Hollywood is no different, except that, in Hollywood the star is constantly selling themselves. They are promoting themselves as a brand not just when working, but 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Often times a star is promoted to match their typical on-screen persona, but at times they will be promoted against their typical characters; both are strategic business choices. As we discussed Garland embodied many stereotypes all opposing one another and all differently related to the characters she played. With this incredible pressure it is not shocking that stars are led to the extreme measures they are. As we examine modern day Hollywood we see that sadly this tragic pattern of addiction leading to death has not dissipated. We look at stars like Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger, and Brittany Murphy and have to wonder what about this system is leading to these tragedies. These issues are represented so well in “A Star Is Born.” We watch not Garland’s character Vicki Lester, but her husband, Norman Maine that falls prey to the Hollywood star system. His career crumbles in front of him because of borderline addiction and inappropriate behavior, which led to His demise and ultimately, suicide. These characters and films, and real life stars in Hollywood raises many questions that we may never have real answers to as outsiders looking in.

Does Leonard Maine’s character accurately portray the cause and affect system of Hollywood? (As much as we can tell from the outside looking in)
Is it the star system that is destroying stars lives or is it the stars destroying themselves like any other individual practicing the same behaviors?
Do we excuse the self-destruction of stars because of the pressures put on them?

Core Post 5 - Judy Garland as a Gay Icon: A Star is Born as a case study

Richard Dyer states again and again that the gay community has, whether consciously or not, always identified with Judy Garland – as her characters on screen, as an actress, as a personality. He highlighted three key qualities she embodies that resonate within gay culture: ordinariness, androgyny and camp. Dyer makes many references to Garland’s performances throughout her life and details how her own transformations in star image have all reflected these qualities. What I found interesting when comparing this article to A Star is Born is that her character, Ethel Blodgett/Vicki Lester, also encompasses all three of these characteristics.

When it comes to ordinariness, Garland’s character seems to fit right in – at least on the surface. Firstly, the name “Esther Blodgett” is hardly glamorous in any way: the very first tie Norman Maine learns of her full name, he can’t help but comment that it couldn’t have been a star moniker. Interestingly, her name is so average that it is surprising. Before Esther meets Norman, she is (what she believes to be) an ordinary looking girl with ordinary dreams – she is a “plain” looking girl (as confirmed by the fussing of make-up and hair artists when she is brought in for her screen test) who had worked years to get to be part of a mildly successful band. It takes a very unordinary person – the famous, volatile Norman Maine, to point out that despite her outward ordinariness, she has extraordinary talent inside.

Garland’s androgyny in the film is extremely pronounced. This is most notable in the characters that Esther plays on screen. In “Lost that Long Face,” she dresses in an asexual ragamuffin costume (her body is hidden underneath baggy clothes, her wig is a short and messy crop) gesturing in exaggeratedly unfeminine ways. In the “Born in a Trunk” medley, she sings passionately to the audience in a tuxedo. She even assumes the male role in the relationship, both professionally and emotionally. For example, when Norman proposes to her, she playfully, but pointedly, rejects him because he needs to “change his ways” – a distinctly masculine thing to say. Furthermore, the fact that she becomes the breadwinner for the family, a traditional male role, leads to the main conflict: her androgyny is almost too male-skewed, and this makes those around her – and to some extent, the audience – uncomfortable.

Finally, Esther Blodgett is camp. Dyer says, “It is the fact of being able to pass for straight that has given gays the characteristically camp awareness of surfaces, of the social constructedness of sex roles.” Esther’s on-screen persona, Vicki Lester, embodies this exact assembled sexual identity. As stated previously, Esther has essential “male” qualities about her, but all of this is covered up when she performs as the ultra-female image of Vicki Lester. Just as gay men are able to pass as heterosexual, Esther is able to pass as completely feminine. Camp is also self-referential, even self-deprecating. When play-acting “Someone At Last,” Esther almost mocks the hopelessly romantic feminine dance moves she displays, even stating, “You know, I get pretty girlish in this number.” Thus, true to camp, she unmasks the social construction of gender.

All of this, and additionally the fact that this story is about Esther’s struggle, and then comeback (an extremely important facet of Garland’s attractiveness for the gay community), make A Star is Born a film that reads into the “gay sensibility.”

Questions:

1) Garland’s daughter, Liza Minelli, has also become a figure that the gay community relates to. How is she the same/different from her mother? Is she a distinct

star on her own, or is she an extension of her mother’s stardom?

2) Which stars today hold similar positions in relation to the gay community? Do they encompass all three of Dyer’s key qualities, and if so, how are they the same/different from Garland?

3) How do “ordinariness, androgyny and camp” as Garland’s star qualities read in heterosexual culture? Or, does mainstream heterosexual culture relate to her star persona in a completely different way?

America Ferrera: A true Hispanic Star?

After our class discussion on Monday about Jennifer Lopez, I started thinking more about the Latina stars in the media. Whereas Lopez has largely downplayed her ethnicity in her films, opting to pass as white, another star, though notably less famous, has chosen to use her ethnicity in order to play roles that try and break stereotypes. In most everything she has done, America Ferrera has played a Latina character. Though for the most part every role also draws attention to that fact, it typically does so in a more positive way. Or in a way that shows her struggle to fit in, something that young Latina girls can most likely look up to. On Ugly Betty, Ferrera created a character who was a strong, independent female who happened to be Hispanic. She was proud of her roots, but her ethnicity did not define her. This is incredibly important because in doing so, she was able to make herself and Betty a role model for girls of all races. In playing characters outside of her own ethnicity, Jennifer Lopez may be trying to make the statement that it doesn't matter, but that can also be seen as her trying to hide her true self.

Acting may be about playing a part, but it also has a lot to do with incorporating some of yourself into your character. In doing so, the character is given more authenticity because audiences can really believe that the actor is putting his/her own experiences into the role.Lopez's method has clearly worked out for her so far but in terms of making progress with diversity in the media, Ferrera seems to be doing a far better job. With her past film roles and most notably with Betty, she has established herself as an authentic actress who can carry a wide range of roles while still being proud and open about her ethnicity. While little is known of her personal life (other than the fact that she attended USC!) she has proven herself as a star to look up to and who is genuinely trying to create more diversity and awareness of minority cultures through the roles that she plays.

Garland's Star is Reborn (Reading Post 5)

The Dyer reading for this week discusses the importance of authenticity in looking at a star text. In the days of the studio system when star images were completely constructed, authenticity was more difficult to find as even when audiences were given a glimpse into a star's 'private' life, there was never any guarantee that the image was truthful. What was true was that it was in fact the star in the picture, thus guaranteeing at least some form of authenticity. Today, we probably get closer to seeing a star's authentic self because of the amount of paparazzi and the intense use of social media. However, just because a star is doing something a in picture does not guarantee that they are really acting their true self.

Perhaps the best asset of the film A Star is Born is in the casting of Judy Garland. Far enough removed from her heyday as an MGM princess, Garland was perhaps one of the most talked about stars of her era and thus the perfect star to be in a film commenting on the construction of stars in the industry. Garland's presence in the film guarantees a sense of authenticity because audiences know that she essentially had already lived the part. They thus feel like they are seeing a certain part of her life never before known. Dyer focuses on the scene in which Garland sings with her band with Norman Maine watching without their knowledge. The scene is pivotal as it must convince the audience of Esther's authenticity as a singer. Here, she is not being played by Garland as just a representation of herself, but as a separate character who needs to justify her place in the film. However, as Dyer points out, the fact that Garland is consistently in the center of the frame throughout the sequence drives the point that Garland does know what she is doing and she is talented, that she is only playing a character.

It is nearly impossible to ever determine the true authenticity of a star or their role. However in casting Garland as Esther, it gives the film, and thus the character, authenticity and justification of depicting a star essentially being created. Garland herself went through it and her later problems later on in life are also in a way portrayed through the downfall of the Norman Maine character. This role is in a sense Garland's comeback to show the world how far she has come and to prove her authentic self as a true star. While it may have worked for the time being, the fact that Garland's early and tragic death happened a few years after this film was released proves how constructed her image was and always remained to the end.

Unrecognized Success post #8

The funny thing about celebrity is that when we actually examine it, it seems quite arbitrary. A friend of mine stumbled upon a site that listed "that guy" in films, meaning all the actors that we know, that we see in more films than many stars, but are largely unknown and unrecognized. Luis Guzman is a stellar example of this. His IMBD credits read like an encyclopedia of popular film and movies since the 1990's, but typically he plays character roles or bit parts. At this point, we have to ask the question of how and why stars are chosen.

I think Dyer would argue that certain people are predisposed to stardom because of their physical characteristics, and because of how they fit into contemporary ideology. As we were discussing on Monday, race is a main factor in what options are available to actors and to the public. Because Guzman doesn't fit the physical type of a leading man, and because of his race, he is able to fit into a number of parts, but of limited scope. Simply by taking a look at the many projects he has worked on, it is easy to tell that we tend to overlook him, and others that lack star recognition.

Core post 5

I have seen bits and pieces of A Star is Born in other classes, and the parallels it draws from Garland’s own life are quite extraordinary. It directly relates to how her image was consistently constructed by the MGM studios and her own personal struggles with her appearance, her relationships, and her substance abuse problems—just portrayed between her character and her character’s husband. Garland’s own persona was consistently projected through the characters that she portrayed, and she allowed her personal history to be heard through the lyrics of her songs. But I think Garland was most appreciated for her authenticity—she had just a great emotional intensity and people were able to relate to the universality of her characters.
Garland’s authenticity can be most appreciated in the scene where she is singing late at night in a bar with her friends in the jazz band. As Dyer states, “She burns right through lyrics, delivering, instead, their pure emotional substance” (149). It is at this point that we realize the true “star quality” that she has, as she delivers a completely not manufactured performance. There is no audience (known to her) and she is able to completely give herself to her singing, truly conveying the emotions of both her and her character. Also, the fact that it is done in one take makes the entire scene seem so intimate and so personal—making it even easier to connect to Garland at this point. The entire scene is absolutely captivating as Garland seemingly loses herself in the music and the performance. Viewers can relate to the sincerity of her performance and its strong connection to her every day life.
On a completely different note, I just think it is such a strange commonality between Garland’s films that she is force to dress completely asexually. In her earlier films she was costumed as a young, innocent girl—like the plain gingham dress in The Wizard of Oz. Then, she is made to look almost boyish with her short hair style and pantsuit type outfits. Garland had major personal issues with her weight and appearance—and no wonder why. MGM made her look like the ugly, gender-ambiguous little sister to many of her beautiful co-stars, who she definitely out shined in talent. While this may be one of the reasons why she was so widely appreciate by members of the gay community, it very much desexualized her.
So my questions are: is part of our connection to Garland related to her de-sexualization? Would she have been as popular if she had had more of a sexual persona? Do you think that the insecurities that she had, which were conveyed in her performances, were self-imposed or ultimately created by the studio system?

A Star is Born (Core Post #4)

Authenticity seems to be a key judgment factor that is used when evaluating people that we necessarily don’t even know. People are always looking to see if a particular celebrity is being real or true, but how do we even know that what it is that they are doing to portray themselves as real is actually real? I feel that it is so hard for celebrities to distinguish what they think they should be doing to be real, to what is actually them.

The power of fame can change lives, which is seen in the film A Star is Born. Judy Garland’s rise to fame concerns her husband since he has seen what great power can do to people. Norman tells Judy at the height of her career “don’t let it take over your life” (Dyer). Like so many celebrities today they seem to constantly try to find that balance between their career and life. In Richard Dyer’s article “A Star is Born and the Construction of Authenticity” he says the “star chrisma works in Hollywood cinema shows a dialectic process of authentication by which existing star image is countered to reveal “true” star persona” (Dyer), he is saying that there is always some part of true in a star’s life but it is usually found privately where most people don’t see it. But our fastination with what they are like and celebrities know that we enjoy this so they give us and the media something to follow. This has led to the “growth of scandal magazines, unauthorized biographies, candid camera photo journalism and so on”. The star image that was portrayed in the film demonstrated all of the hardships with the media and personal life that Judy and Norman tried to control in order to keep a good image for the public to see.

I was completely oblivious to the type of fan base that Judy Garland had attracted during her time, but after looking back at her performances and reading about her life it makes sense as to why a gay audience admired her so much. This gay following of hers seemed to develop through out the years.

Her style of acting known as “camp” portrayed her appearance and gestures as being similar to a drag act. Judy experienced an inner conflict with her self that reflected in her acting and allowed her to also be relatable to the gay audience as they were struggling with inner conflicts as well. She constantly experienced instability and loneliness like gay men, which allowed them to find a connection with her and helped for many of them to eventually come out. Dyer states that “her MGM image made possible a reading of Garland as having a special relationship to suffering, ordinariness, normality, and it is the relationship that structures much of the gay reading of Garland”. This gave people hope that if she was experiencing this anguish and could get past it then they could too.

1. Do you think that there’s no such thing of bad publicity?

2. What celebrities today attract at gay fan base?

3. Why do you think Judy was unable to portray the kind of image that Marilyn Monroe did?