Interesting article on New Technology and Stardom

I just got back from seeing Avatar, which I think posits a lot of interesting questions about stardom...If people will no longer appear as themselves on screen, will the star system as we know it cease to exist? And can this sort of technology replace our need for identification with an actual human being on the screen?

Much of these questions and issues of performance are thoughtfully addressed in an fascinating article by Mark Harris, an Entertainment Weekly columnist....It is not currently available online, but is in the January 29, 2010 issue and is entitled "An Avatar for Best Actress." I will bring it to class on Monday.

Valentino-Star/Man in Transition-Reading Response #1

Throughout The Sheik, I found myself continually wondering why women would find Valentino so appealing when he is more threatening throughout the film than romantic? With his leering gaze and his kidnapping of Lady Diana, he seems more of a frightening brute than an ideal partner. But upon reading Miriam Hansen’s article “Pleasure, Ambivalence, Identification: Valentino and Female Spectatorship,” I began to gain an understanding of Valentino’s desirability and the reasoning behind the construction of his star persona of a lustful brute, idealized by Hollywood in the term “Latin Lover.”Rising to prominence in the years following World War II, Valentino fulfilled the need for an “omnipotent,” masculine male – the he-man that the shell-shocked members of the “Lost Generation” could not hope to emulate.
However, Hansen also describes Valentino in terms of objectification and the use of his body as an object of desire, contradicting his status as he-man. Hansen labels Valentino’s body as “the site of contradictions that had erupted with the First World War” (259). Discussing the tension between his onscreen effeminacy and masochism, she points out that Valentino presented “a powerful challenge to myths of masculinity in American culture between the wars (275)” Furthermore, Hansen also discusses how Valentino’s cult-like status and his position as both gazer and gazee demonstrated a response to a need to define traditional notions of femininity as a result of the increase of female freedom that accompanied female suffrage and the bobbed hair/short skirts of the Jazz Age. Valentino, in a sense, was the new man, embodying the psyche of the post-World War I male, while fulfilling the needs of the newly liberated woman. Thus, while Valentino must be shown as the uber-masculine figure of exoticism, he must also, ultimately, be rendered “safe” for white American women to desire him – as exemplified in the revelation at the end of The Sheik that he is actually not Arab, but of British descent.
Fulfilling a need for the reworking of both masculinity and femininity, Valentino initiated a trend that still continues to help define stars today. While stars and the beginnings of the star system have been discussed as being motivated by self-identification and the fulfillment of “type,” Valentino illustrates the necessity of a star who can reflect a society in transition -- the contradictions of a society undergoing a shift in cultural values and mores. Valentino’s inherent contradictions posited in both his on and off-screen image reveal the difficulty of reconciling the newly sensitized male with the liberated female’s need for a strong man to reassure her of her femininity in the face of such radical change. This suggests that Valentino’s stardom came not essentially from his fitting a “type” or embodying a figure created by the studio for many to identify with, but rather from his representation of a society in contradictory chaos – a society in transition where many were unable to find their bearings or make sense of their lives and thus turned to stars to hope to find a reconciling of these paradoxes. Though Valentino is the first real figure of this contradictory nature, other stars of this mold will arise in similar periods of societal transition/conflict throughout history – as exemplified by the rise of the newly sensitized, emotional post-war male in the personas of Montgomery Clift, Marlon Brando, and Paul Newman.

Questions for Class:
1)DeCordova highlights that the private life of the star must not contradict their screen image as a component of the early star system. How has this changed with evolving notions of acting(particularly that of the method actor? i.e. Should Al Pacino or even Jimmy Cagney be boorish gangsters offscreen as well?) Additionally how has this shifted today as star's have gained more control over their own images and seek to change them?
2) With our country in recession and many social/cultural issues regularly confronting us many could say our country is in a similar period of upheaval/chaos. What stars do we look to now to reconcile these contradictions and what are the contradictions we most identify with within the star?
3) Can someone that plays against type or continually transforms themselves (for example Meryl Streep) be considered a star in the traditional sense of the word? Or must a "star" or "celebrity" still only adhere to type in the same way that Mary Pickford and Valentino did in the early days of stardom? If an actor is not defined by their same personality in each role, can they be a star or only a consummate actor?

talent or celebrity? (Entry 1)

Is it really talent that matters? Or can a star’s fame carry them through their career? This ideology can be seen in many of today’s celebrities, one example would be, Tom Cruise, he brings huge audiences to films but arguably has very little talent. Staiger’s article “Seeing Stars,” discusses the importance of the star systems history. There are contradicting opinions as to the history of the star system. We see it most prominently coming to the forefront of film in the early 1900’s. There were many things that played significant roles in the growth of this system. In this article Hampton is cited for recognizing that the star system existed first in theater, but the shock that came when it made its move to the cinemas. Motion Picture Magazine was a major part of the rise of the star system; it was the first magazine focusing strictly on following stars. Mary Pickford is recognized as one of the first stars to draw an audience based on her name. The short film featuring her viewed in class makes it clear why she was so vital to this system: she was a pretty young girl and she was talented. deCordova claims that the rise of the star system took place in three major steps: "the discourse of acting, the picture personality, and the star." These three did not in all cases disappear as the other came to the forefront, but at times this is the case. The Shiek starring Rudolph Valentino and Agnes Ayres utilized Valentino’s star quality as promotion. He appealed heavily to women and in this romantic role the film was a guaranteed sell. Hansen discusses the “masculinizatoin” theory that Mulvey supports and Valentino embodies. The male is pleasurable to gaze upon and this is what brings the audiences to these types of “female films.” This theory of Mulvey plays perfectly into the design of the star system in film history and today; and explains why “actors” like Tom Curise have been able to make a name for themselves.

Ian Farwell (Misc Post #2) - "Victor Fresco"

Our guest this week in my television symposium class was the Executive Producer for the televisions series "Better off Ted". He also produced other shows like "My Name is Earl" and was nominated for an Emmy for "Mad about You".

Again, we got to do a 2-hour Q & A session with him, and although not as funny as the previous week's Ray Ramano, Fresco was incredibly knowledgeable about the Industry itself.

He spoke about the stars he has worked with, and said that many of them are quite professional. However, he did have a reoccurring disdain for Burt Reynolds (Don't ask me why). The most interesting thing that I got from the experience was that there is an entire world that goes into making our famous stars who they are. It is interesting how we love our stars for making us laugh when it is usually the writers and producers that are the real creative masterminds. I am a perpetrator of this phenomenon as well. I will watch a show and think to myself "man that actor is funny", but it is not even the actors creative words most the time and it is often been remolded by the vision of the director and others. In other words, and to close this post, I will try to remember the next time I see something funny on TV to say to myself "Man, that was funny, I am gonna go see what funny writer who wrote that." And, then go follow the funny writer instead of the automaton star.

I'd Like to Thank...(Supplemental Post 1)

Recently I have been caught up in the whirlwind of award season. The dresses, the speeches, the celebrity sightings, all of it. But I can't also help notice the abundance of self-indulgence these award shows portray. I understand the Oscars, Emmys and Grammys but the Golden Globes? The SAG awards? Are they all really necessary? How many award shows and awards do celebrities need in order to solidify themselves as successful? It just all seems a bit much. Not only are people from that certain category on the red carpet but singers, songwriters and directors all show up to SAG awards which is only supposed to celebrate actors. This shows that award season is not only designed to let movie makers and stars alike bask in the glow of their own light but it is also designed to publicize the stars.

Every red carpet is a who's who of Hollywood and in order to keep your name in the paper you must show up, look good and if at all possible cause some controversy. Kanye West is a perfect example of this. His outburst at the MTV Video Music Awards not only got his name in the paper but the names of Taylor Swift and Beyonce. Also, the fact that fashion is so incorporated into award season shows the importance of appearance in Hollywood. Not only are celebrities expected to attend these award shows but they are supposed to be nominated and dress superbly. Entire networks and television shows are devoted to analyzing and criticizing each outfit. Not only are the devoted to fashion, but other stars are the ones who analyze the celebrities on the red carpet. Khloe Kardashian for example is part of a panel of celebrities including Joan Rivers who host a show on E! discussing celebrity fashion for each award show. I never knew she was an expert on fashion.

I find this over abundance of award shows to be self-indulgent and unnecessary. They are concerned only with appearance and are for the sake of publicity. Acting and working in the entertainment business is a very difficult job and I agree there should be some degree of recognition for a job well done, but the extent these award shows have gone to is far beyond a humble pat on the back.

Todd Haynes Superstar

SAG Awards

This past Saturday, I participated in my annual bout of celebrity stalking at the SAG Awards at the Shrine Auditorium across from campus. It was a fairly successful day. I saw some of my favorite stars, most notably, Colin Firth (I adore Mr. Darcy!), Meryl Streep, much of the cast of "Glee," all of the cast of "Modern Family", and Tony Shaloub among many others. Though my brief glimpse of Colin Firth was quite rewarding, I was quite disappointed that Matthew Morrison (Will Shuester on "Glee") did not make an appearance as I have followed him every since he originated the role of Link Larkin in "Hairspray" on Broadway (before he became enormously popular on a TV show).

However, I have to give credit to both Cuba Gooding Jr. and Benjamin Bratt for taking the time to cross the street and shake our hands/say hello. However this presents an interesting query....None of the newcomers, who largely appeared overwhelmed by everything, or the A-list stars took the time to do this (in fact, many failed to even turn around and wave at us as we called their names). In my estimation, Benjamin Bratt and Cuba Gooding Jr. fall safely on some middle ground, which makes me wonder what about their level of stardom caused them to come over and say hello? Were they trying to increase their fandom or are they just really nice people?

Now while I have done this every year in the hopes of catching a glimpse of (or even getting to shake the hand of) my favorite stars, I noticed things I had never considered before entering this course. Many of the stars, particularly those new to the awards show circuit and famous for one particular television role rather than a variety of movie roles, were known to the supposedly adoring fans across the street only by their character name (this was most marked with the members of the cast of "Modern Family," all, excluding Ed O'Neill, relatively new to his level of exposure/popularity), which contradicts with Dyer's comments on "name" in relation to the construction of a star. Additionally, the stars had an interesting and varied reaction to this recognition by character name...while some would respond, most when called by their character name continued to head towards the entrance to the red carpet. For example, Phil from "Modern Family," played by Ty Burrell, did not respond to several people calling Phil, but when Ty was yelled from the crowd, he turned and waved. This observation led me to two questions...are celebrities offended when only known by their character names? Or do they feel this means they are successfully accomplishing what they set out to do...creating a memorable, unique character? Additionally, what is the tipping point for someone being known for their own star persona/name rather than merely associated with a particular character? Is it length and level of exposure or perhaps the medium they appear on and the number of roles they've played? Just some things I've been mulling over since Saturday...

Additionally, for your viewing pleasure, I have attached some photos I took of Helen Mirren, Patricia Arquette, Edie Falco, and Benjamin Bratt. *** So for some reason, it won't allow me to upload the pics...I'll try to add them later, but enjoy the one of Benjamin Bratt
-Maureen

The Sheik (1921)

Here's the last part of the film.  Be sure to watch before the next class.