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?

Supplemental post 1--Hollywood Chinese

Last summer I visited the Arthur Dong collection entitled “Hollywood Chinese” at the Chinese American Museum in downtown LA. Being Chinese American and very interested in the film industry I thought it would be the perfect way to see how people from my own heritage have evolved in Hollywood, especially since we are under represented.
During my visit I felt a mixture of pride and shock. We display so proudly posters from the films where Chinese Americans actually appeared in Hollywood, and Asians were not just portrayed by White actors. But for the first several decades that Chinese Americans were in film, they usually played stereotypical “dragon lady” type roles, or servants. While I recognize the big step it was to have actual Asians in films at all, the roles were painfully stereotypical and even seemed offensive to me. The men were portrayed as crafty and untrustworthy, and the women were so subservient. And yet, there was almost an entire floor celebrating the clichéd view of Asian Americans.
The other major part of the exhibit celebrated one of the most famous Asian American female actresses, Nancy Kwan. As one of the major sex icons of the 1960s, she is best known for her performances in The World of Suzie Wong and Flower Drum Song. She was actually at the event I attended at the museum and looked great. My mom told me that growing up she always wanted to be as beautiful and talented as Nancy Kwan, and that she was a huge cultural role model for young Asian American women who didn’t have anyone else to look up to in the media. But, interestingly, Kwan is not even one hundred percent Asian. I think that Kwan was able to reach such mainstream popularity is because, although clearly she is of Asian decent, she does not have the same look as other Asian women. The fact that she is half white really made her accessible to wider, white audiences. It was very interesting to me that one of the major icons of Chinese film culture is not actually full Chinese, and yet only she was able to bridge the huge gap between offensive and tolerable depictions of Asian Americans in film.

Jennifer Lopez and Racial Ambiguity (Core Post)

Over the semester we have analyzed race from both a white and black perspective. However the readings this week make us examine star image in a multicultural context as opposed to a biracial one. As we saw, Out of Sight stars Jennifer Lopez, a Puerto Rican star. However, according to the readings her racial ambiguity and fair skin allow Lopez to play a variety of racial ethnicities and often leave her race open for a viewer’s interpretation. For example, in Out of Sight, she plays an Italian character.

Racial ambiguity allows for a larger audience to identify with Jennifer Lopez’s character. While watching the movie you’re not really sure what race she is, but depending on a viewer’s own racial identity, they can project and interpret their own meaning.

In the Aubry reading, she discusses how black audiences could identify with Lopez because of her “big butt” something often associated as African American. White audiences are also able to sexualize Lopez because of her fairer skin. Aubry describes this ability for white audiences to identify with Lopez, “…[It] is more palatable to white audiences, a safe vehicle with which to indulge a café au lait fantasy. A pale face with a black butt is intriguing, titillating, as any reflection of a racial mélange has always been in this country; a black face with a black butt has always been worse than ordinary.”

The Negron-Muntaner reading takes a similar stance on Lopez’s racial ambiguity and her ability to identify with larger audiences. Lopez doesn’t try to negate the fact that she is Latina. In fact her ability to speak Spanish as seen through the marketing campaign for her movie Selena proved to be a big draw for Latino audiences who found her very relatable.

The fact of the matter is, racial ambiguity is a highly effective tool in making audiences feel more comfortable. This isn’t just seen in film, advertisers use it all the time to sell more products. Many if not most try to use racially ambiguous actors to appeal to a larger audience. I came across this commercial the other day, which makes fun of this very fact.



1. Does Mariah Carrey have a similar racial ambiguity to Jennifer Lopez? Does she idenity across races the same way?

2. Has Jennifer Lopez completely escaped her “Jenny from the Block” Latina roots?

3. Is racial ambiguity still necessary for white audiences to identify with a black star (ie Obama or does his half white heritage make him more accessible for white audiences?)

J LO'S BUTT!!!

I was quite fascinated with this week’s articles from both Negron and Aubry dealing with the ethnic ambiguity of Jennifer Lopez. They argue that it is this ambiguity that makes her appealing to white mainstream audiences and not just to a Latino fanbase. Her lighter skin tone helps her with this success as she looks closer to a white woman, and she also has the spunk and “butt” that us white folk just don’t see in our women. However, Latino audiences can still identify with her race which expands Lopez’s reach even more. It’s upsetting to think of how different races can become successful in Hollywood but when you think about it, it is nothing but the truth. When I look at very talented actors like Dijmon Hounsou, who has been nominated for 2 Academy Awards, but basically plays the same roles of the barbarian African in all his movies because of his extremely dark skin tone. To most Americans, as these articles suggest, Dijmon just seems too exotic for the mainstream audience, whereas J Lo is “just ethnic enough” to excite American audiences but doesn’t go over the top where she’s a Latino hero but not popular in mainstream. Also, J Lo can play many different roles, like the role that was meant for an Italian woman in the film we viewed in class, “Out of Sight” and this also makes her easily utilized by American film studios. However, with Dijmon who looks and speaks very foreign, there really isn’t much versatility to what he can play, as evidenced by a few of his most popular films like “Gladiator” or “Amistad”, where he plays a slave. Although there is no doubt in my mind that this American attitude towards race is wrong, Americans like being comfortable. The most popular films in terms of box office are franchises, such as Harry Potter and Star Wars, easily consumable films that the audience is already familiar with and knows what they will get when they pay for the ticket to see the movie. I do not think we will ever get out of this need for comfort and this will definitely hurt the actors and actresses who don’t have the light skin and “booty” that J Lo has been blessed with.

Core Post #4: Jennifer Lopez- Making It Acceptable to be Non-White in Hollywood?

It's no secret that Hollywood is dominated by whiteness. White people, white culture, white actors, white directors, white executives. However, there have been numerous occasions in which other races and ethnicities penetrate the dominantly white Hollywood, and some have done so with tremendous success.

No one in the Latino community has broken into Hollywood or American culture quite so well as Jennifer Lopez. Negron-Muntaner's article Jennifer's Butt seems to argue that through Jennifer's embracing of her curves-- most notably of her well-above-average derriere, she has broken through Hollywood's beauty standards a prominately nd made it "cool" to have a Latina (or African American) body. Negron-Muntaner even claims that Lopez is figuratively "Kicking ass"--as a "form of revenge against a hostile cultural gaze" and " 'showing ass' as a sign of identity and pride." The article makes a stronger argument, however, by explaining that because she (and Hollywood) have recognized the potential to make money off of Lopez's physical assets (or really just her one asset), so this is why her body is so featured and promoted.

I don't know if I can agree with Negron-Muntaner's sentiment that Lopez is a force of "kicking ass" against Hollywood's typical standards of beauty. I am much more in agreement with Aubry's Back is Beautiful article for Salon.com. Aubry explains that yes, Lopez may be a step in the right direction for the promotion of multiculturalism, Lopez is marketable and highly successful because "like Halle Berry and many other women who date back to Lena Horne and long before, she appears racially ambiguous and therefore is more palatable to white audiences... A pale face with a black butt is intriguing... [but] a black face with a black butt has always been worse than ordinary."

Lopez celebrates her Latina heritage in Selena, yes, but she has rarely taken movie roles that portray her as Latina. In Out of Sight, she is racially ambiguous (she might be Italian?). In Maid in Manhattan, she's also Italian. She also claims to "love her curves," but has been in the media talking about her weight loss strategies, her extreme diet (she never drinks alcohol, doesn't eat after 6 pm), and her dedicated workout regimen. Lopez, and other "multicultural" (AKA non-white) actresses are successful because of their ability to blend their distinct non-whiteness with white culture.

The argument that Aubry makes that resinates the most with me is that when people of other races are shown in movies, they are often portrayed in highly negative ways. In Out of Sight, the most vicious criminals are black or "otherwise colored" (Don Cheadle, Luis Guzman), while "the most virtuous outlaws were white (George Clooney, Stephen Zahn, Albert Brooks)." This still seems true today. One of the greatest movies of last year, Precious, was a very multicultural movie with a phenomenal and arguable uplifting message. However, it still showed terrible aspects of black culture. And on top of that, the movie was not very commercially successful.

I think more and more, other races have been able to intigrate into Hollywood, and American culture is more accepting of other races' (especially in terms of their beauty). Lopez is marketable because she is racially ambiguous, but she really is a step in the right direction towards making the standard of beauty not just tall, super-thin, blonde white girls.

Questions:

1. Lopez has changed her looks and persona so often. What is her star context today?

2. What star context made Lopez the most famous? When did she have the greatest public appeal?

3. Has any other Latino/Latina star been so commercially successful as Lopez? Why/why not?

4. Has American culture become more accepting of other standards of beauty because of Lopez? Or is the standard really just the same as it always has been?

Jenny from the block