Core Post Number One, Week 2 Readings ("To-Be-Looked-At-Ness and What Not")

The series of essays in this weeks readings by Staiger, deCordova, and Hansen were all challenging and interesting in their own ways. As a music student, I find myself with hardly any working knowledge of the film industry and film history, so it was helpful to read both Staiger and deCordova's revisionist histories of the formation of the star industry. In my opinion, Staiger's was a little more difficult to comprehend because it assumed more prior knowledge on the reader's behalf. I found that deCordova's language suited itself much better to  my way of learning and understanding, and I was left with some very interesting concepts to chew on in relation to the formation of the "star system" (which, by the way, sounds a little too similar to the "solar system", in my humble opinion).

deCordova referred to the emergence of this system as the emergence of a particular type of "knowledge", with the site of this knowledge being the actor. It is very relevant and important that this knowledge was "produced" and propagated through different mediums such as magazines, posters, and picture reels, as today these changing mediums alter the forms of knowledge that we may hold, and therefore may change the upper structure of our star system.

I really appreciated deCordova's laying out of the three forms of knowledge that emerged to produce the picture personality. First, the circulation of a name. And what's in a name? Well, apparently, the concealment or revelation of a name could tell you a whole lot about a person. It was fascinating to me that a major reason for concealment of an actor's name was that they were a "legitimate" stage actor who feared being "discovered" in the cinema world, the irony being that not knowing an actors name might in fact mean that they were well known. The second form of knowledge is intertextuality, which necessitates a regular audience who can see one actor in multiple films and grasp the essence of that actor's personality through their performance in these films. The last form of knowledge is "discourse on acting" or discussion of previous stage experience, which for me really stressed the fact that picture personalities were people whose professional lives were up for discussion. Beyond this, deCordova made evident that the main mark of transition between a picture personality and a star was whether or not their private lives were also on the table in terms of public discourse. I find the "reel hero/real hero" wordplay very interesting because of this concept that a star's private life needed to resonate on a moral level with the actions of their characters. I wonder if people think this belief is upheld today or has been turned on its head.

I was very surprised by the Hansen reading because I wasn't expecting to see a discussion that involved Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" so deeply. I personally love that essay because it (quite literally) opened my eyes and taught me a lot about being a critical spectator, but I appreciated Hansen's critique of some of Mulvey's points, as well as her willingness to explore Valentino as a possible contradiction to Mulvey's thesis. I have to say that I can't help but think of Valentino as more of a tool for exploitation of female moviegoers than as a result of the recognition of women as a "socially" significant group. As a music student, this situation reminds me of record companies development of race records after realizing that they could take Black people's money if they simply recorded a couple of Black musicians on vinyl. However, I am definitely interested in learning more about female desire and how it has played out in cinema and in the star system.

The SAGs and the Sluggish Stars (Sheridan Pierce - Supplemental Post #2)

While watching the red carpet coverage of the SAG awards, I was shocked when Jennifer Aniston and Julianne Moore refused to participate in the infamous “mani cam,” which is basically a small red carpet where actresses flaunt their manicures.  My first thought was “How dare they?!”  I felt that I as an audience member should be able to see their manicure when the opportunity presented itself.  This is a red carpet after all, and since actresses are flaunting their designer gowns and jewelry anyway, why not participate in something as fun as the “mani cam.”

For me, this point ties into audience perception.  Although the situation was ridiculous, it changed my perception of these actresses.  It made them appear to be stand-offish, as if they were “above” the rest of the people who had participated in the “mani cam” bit.  And if they really thought it was that absurd, well isn’t the act of standing on a red carpet telling an audience what you’re wearing just as ridiculous?  This made me come to the conclusion that the things that stars say or do often affect their image.  And in many cases, that persona can overshadow any talent that the star might have.  In the case of Lindsay Lohan, (who was actually a very capable actress before her life became derailed) her image has been so tarnished by her “party lifestyle” that audiences do not associate her with acting anymore.

The same weekend as the SAG Awards, there was an event by LAX where television stars from the 80s gathered for a “fan event.”  Among them were Joan Collins, Angie Dickinson, and Penny Marshall, who were very big celebrities in their heyday.  What was surprising about the event was that fans were lined up outside and had to pay to get an autograph or picture with their favorite celebrity.  The fact that stars that were at the peak of fame in the 80s were now selling their autographs for $25 is astounding.  However, one has to also consider that when these stars were at the height of their careers, they didn’t make nearly as much money as TV stars do now.  This event shows the other side of stardom, when the star does not shine as bright and relies on fans to keep them feeling relevant. 

Deja Oliver-Core Post #1, Week 2 Reading

I appreciated that Staiger called out the rhetorical fallacies in historians Jacobs, Hampton and Bernheim’s historical accounts, like withholding dates to strengthen their argument, but still realized their value in a comparative chronology.  While her reading was really economics heavy (and I just don’t get economics that well) it did provide a very solid basis to understand the following readings.  The one thing that struck me in the Janet Staiger reading was her explanation of title cards.  “By 1913, Edison had expanded this [title card] strategy by showing an image of a player and an intertitle with both the character’s and actor’s names…” (11); which I recalled were present in “The Sheik” (1921).  This stood out to me because I had never seen that done in a film before and I didn’t understand why it was necessary. I realize now that I was viewing the title cards through a modern lens, where the star system has been in place for almost a century and audiences know who is in the films they are watching.  It made more sense to me when I viewed the parenthetical statement that followed “clearly this was a carry-over from theater programmes” (11).  The influence and importance of theatre to film in the early stages, an important clarification, was explored even further in the deCordova reading.

I like the differentiation deCordova makes in the stages of the star system, ie the “picture personality” predating the “star system” as we know it today. I think this way of thinking will be helpful for anthropologists and future historians will categorize the cult of celebrity in the 21^st century and how it pertains to technology.  It was interesting to see how the authenticity of the actors in film developed.  The legitimacy film actors had was through their association to the stage which reminds me of how in modern times many people are criticized as being “famous for being famous”; there has to be another avenue, it seems, for celebrities to authenticate themselves in order to deserve their star power.  It is not exactly the same thing but I think it would be interesting to discuss why we as an audience demand authenticity from entertainers and celebrites.

De Cordova's "Emergence of the Star System" Application Today

I found the reading on how the “star” in film came about very interesting because even though the authors were discussing this transformation in early cinema, it made me think about the way we perceive stars today.

Richard de Cordova wrote that the emergence of the star in America correlated with the type of knowledge the public knew about an actor. De Cordova describes three transformations: the discourse on acting, the picture personality, and the star (17). The relationship between what he describes as the picture personality and the star is intriguing in regards to today’s perception of stars. De Cordova writes that the circulation of the name, intertextuality that restricted knowledge about the actor, and the actor’s previous film experience all create the “picture personality” (24-26). Even though these were steps of knowledge in the early 1900s that led to the emergence of the “star,” the same steps of knowledge can be applied to a budding star today. When an up and coming actor or actress is beginning to book many roles, they might appear in Teen Vogue or Nylon magazines on a “talent to watch” type article. With their many roles, even if only supporting ones, people will start to recognize their face. This, paired with the actors appearing in magazines or on websites leads to name circulation. Then, people may start to associate them with certain roles, and finally, the public will determine the actor’s level of stardom based on their professional experience.

Richard de Cordova writes that the last transformation, into the “star,” occurs when their private life emerges and can be compared to their professional life. Jennifer Lawrence is a good example of de Cordova’s definition of the emergence of the star in America. Lawrence was in a few movies that peaked interest in her and encouraged distant familiarity with her face before her Oscar-nominated performance in Winter’s Bone. After her appearance at the Academy Awards for Winter’s Bone, Jennifer Lawrence’s name was officially in circulation and people were comparing her previous film experience--officially making her a picture personality. When she booked the leading role in the franchise of The Hunger Games, Lawrence emerged as a star. Fans obsess over her private life, especially seen with her leaked nude photos and relationships, and they desperately attempt to understand her as a person separate from the version of her they love on screen. Even though de Cordova was describing the emergence of the star in early cinema, I think it is clear that his stages of emergence still hold true in star culture.

Working on Set- Supp Blog #1 Shelby Adair

A few summers ago, I had the opportunity to work on set of a GLAAD PSA with director/producer Brett Ratner. The concept was to "Come Out of the Closet for Equality," followed by various celebrities walking out of a literal closet and speaking directly into the camera. I had no idea that when I was offered a PA job that I would get to meet all sorts of celebrities like Jackie Chan, Jason Alexander, Charlie Sheen, Pauley Perrette and DeRay Davis. All of the crew and talent were there as volunteers, so I was surprised that so many showed up in their own free time, but it turns out that a lot of these people knew Ratner from working with him in the past and were volunteering as a favor to him-- and as an advocate to the cause. I was assigned the  job of greeting each celebrity when they pulled into the parking lot and then walking them inside to speak to the producer. Although there are a lot of people coming in and out of a busy studio parking lot, it was pretty easy to spot our guests because they usually arrived in g the shiniest, newest Mercedes Benz or Jaguar. But not all. Shawn Ashmore arrived in a light blue Prius, and I didn't even recognize him at first because he looked and acted so causal. Since I had walked a ways down to meet him at the gate entrance, he offered to drive me up the road to the set! Although he was clearly just a normal, really cool guy, I still geeked out for a moment that I was sitting shotgun to "Iceman" from X-men! I also specifically remember meeting Charlie Sheen because it was around the time that he used the word "winning" a lot and gained more fame for his abnormal interviews. I was unsure of what to expect, but he and his bodyguard/driver were so fun and friendly! While Charlie did his bit for the camera, me and his bodyguard hung out in the back of the studio chatting--mostly about their elaborate shortened limo that had a huge TV and several mini bars in the back seat. My job instructions were to interact with the guests and help them feel welcome, so I was simply doing my job!
I made a strong point to act completely normal the whole time and treat all the celebrities like I would any normal person, which really wasn't  hard since each person was so laid back. It was a cool experience, especially to interact with so many interesting people in one day. I have never been star-struck, but there is a certain level of shock and surrealism when interacting with the people seen on TV;  although it was the first time meeting them, I had a (one-way) level of familiarity towards them that I had to ignore and pretend like I had never google searched them or watched them each week on TV in my living room. It is amazing how meeting just a few people can be such a life highlight.


 The PSA series that were to be shown on HBO are now available on the GLAAD webpage (http://www.glaad.org/blog/glaad-launches-psa-campaign-created-brett-ratner-asking-allies-come-out-equality)

The reel hero vs. the real hero - Sandhya Nadadur Blog Post #2

deCordova’s reading grapples with the issue of a player or actor’s role outside of his or her work in films by asking the question: is your reel hero ever a real hero? While his essay and this question refers to the beginnings of the “star” system in the early 1900s, in my opinion, the separation – or lack thereof – between character roles and the individual who is regarded as the “star” remains relevant to our contemporary understanding of stars as well. deCorva’s response to this question in light of the early 1900 star system was that the real hero behaves just like a reel hero because the “the private life of the star was not to be in contradiction with his/ her film image” (27).  In other words, it is out of necessity that the actor have a persona outside that is just as much a performance in order to promote his or her actual performance, harkening back to the way theater actors were consumed by their roles both on and off stage. 

But, in the literal sense, the idea that reel and real hero’s are the same no longer holds; the fact that prominent film stars have political and social clout suggests that their prominence on screen translates into power off-screen. Indeed, that few days after the earthquake in Haiti Angelina Jolie was seen working beside the UNHCR in the country as a US ambassador, or Ben Affleck is consistently invited to the White House Correspondent’s dinner, supports this sentiment.

This brings to the surface a subtlety in the relationship between the star’s role on screen and his or her persona off screen. Unlike when the star system first surfaced, it seems that in the modern star system, there is more of a symbiotic relationship between the character and the persona. That is, a star may gain prominence for a role they played on screen, but in turn, the social recognition they receive as a result of this performance translates into social prominence off screen – a mutually beneficial relationship.

That the relationship between on and off screen persona is more circular, conflates the original separation film sought between character and persona. deCordova mentions how film actors felt that at the end of the day they could return home and become “normal” people again. However, the idea that Angelina Jolie or Matt Damon is still performing their role as “stars” off of the screen, be that in Haiti or at the White House Correspondent’s dinner, conflates these two roles. As a result, we cannot help but ask if our modern star system isn’t too different from the theatrical stardom it once separated itself from. At the end of the day, do Angelina Jolie and Matt Damon return home and cease to be stars? Probably not.

Peggy Song - Core Response #1

“Lean, hot-eyed and Latin, Valentino was every woman’s dream…” No doubt, Rudolph Valentino was very popular among the female spectators. As sparked by the emancipation and their integration into the consumer culture after WWI, women spectators were classified as “socially and economically significant group” (Gledhill, 262). The cinema was explicitly addressing to the female spectators because they drove the industry. With the changing course of femininity and sexuality, Valentino was one of those stars that closed the gap between traditional patriarchal ideology and the awareness of the “female experience, needs, and fantasies of the other” (263).

Before the 1909, the players’ names were not known to the public, but by 1912, most of them had been discovered which was probably due to the credit system. The credit system in films was started by The Edison Company, which was one of the earliest and most aggressive companies to promote their players. This strategy was seen in the silent film we watched last week, The Sheik, where the characters were introduced with the actors’ names. With people began to recognized these actors (and attaching the characters’ names to the actors’ names), fan magazines became useful in exploiting both the films and their players—and they became a profit-making machines. By 1912, the “star system” was truly born. The audiences were certainly “seeing them” and knowing that they were seeing them.

The most definite form of identification in Valentino films was that of recognition. Valentino films were driven by his “charisma” since the films he did were essentially adapted from costume dramas, which were notoriously known to have weak narratives. So to engage his viewers, Valentino had to live up to his “Latin Lover” status through the succession of masks, disguises, and scenarios.  His characters combined two sides of a “melodramatic dualism” (271). In The Sheik, Ahmed was known as the barbaric son of the desert until it was revealed at the end of the film that he was of British descent. As a woman spectator, she recognized him in all of his disguises and she essentially knew who he was; while the female protagonist, Lady Diana in this case, who found out who he truly was and only to fall deeper love with him in the end.

But it was not only his charisma or his disguises that drive his female spectatorship. His unruliness and barbarian characteristics emphasized on the sadistic aspect of the Valentino persona. The act of force and keeping Lady Diana captive could be seem as an interesting instance of sadomasochistic role-playing. Plus, his representation as the “he-man” or the “the menace” was widely advertised to the audiences—and the women “were to find in The Sheik a symbol of omnipotent male who could dominant them as the men in their own lives could not” (272). A scene that demonstrated this idea was when Ahmed told Diana to lie still on his horse—displaying his virility and dominance. In a sense, it represented his masculinity as the “Latin Lover.” He was different and the female spectators found pleasure at the prospect of being humiliated by the British-bred Barbarian (273). In a better example (or lack thereof) of the current culture, Valentino’s character was like Christian Grey of Fifty Shades of Grey. Their domineering personas made the female spectators “swoon” even in the most sadistic way.

And also a familiar pattern of this type of characterization was staging the exchange of looks between Valentino’s character and his female lover. As Hansen suggested in her article, “whenever Valentino laid eyes on a woman first, we can be sure that she would turn out to be the woman of his dreams, the legitimate partner in the romantic relationship” (265). This is quite apparent in The Sheik when Ahmed first laid his eyes on Lady Diana and when the camera singled out her in the shot within his point of view. As the camera panned to his face, we can see that “awakening desire.” Moreover, the scene when he stopped and stared at Diana while she was sleeping clearly demonstrated that effect where the female presence “freeze the flow of action in the moments of erotic contemplation” (266).

All in all, Valentino was marketed as a blend of sexual vitality and romantic courtship and his foreign status or his “exoticism” allowed the female spectators to indulge in a fantasy. Therefore, it is unsurprising that Valentino’s body became their fetish; Valentino received intimate garments from his fans in the male with the request to kiss and return them (281). This type of fan service is still present today (and even in the teenage culture). Young fans of the British boy band One Direction also threw their undergarments onstage in hopes that the boys would “keep it.”

Supplemental Post: Mila Kunis Caused Me To Lose Weight

Mila Kunis Caused Me To Lose Weight. No, not in the way you’re all thinking. I didn’t see photos of her and think that my body had to be a certain way. That had nothing to do with it. It all started in June of 2012 when my best friend Lindsey convinced me to take a spinning class with her. She had been trying to get me to go for a while but I was petrified. I played sports in high school but having been in college for a year, I kind of fell out of shape. She told me that Mila Kunis was in her class the other day and apparently goes all the time, so I decided to give it a try. It would be cool to see her; she’s a big star! This was a year or so after Black Swan came out and she was still a pretty big deal, as she typically is. We went to class that night and she wasn’t there, but we spun anyways and worked our butts off. Somehow Lindsey convinced me to go again the next morning.

We walked in the class and guess who was there; Mila Kunis, in all her Lululemon glory. She was there alone, making small talk with some of the other students. Lindsey wanted to say something to her but we didn’t know what to say. We made sure to think of something that could generate a conversation but not come off like big fans. In hindsight it’s so silly, but at the time we were very excited. Lindsey ended up asking Mila where she got her spinning shoes since Lindsey and I had regular tennis shoes on. We were expecting a short answer, but she ended up telling us about a few places and the different kinds of shoes they had. We felt special that she gave us that much of her time.

The class began and I quickly realized that me being there was a big mistake. I couldn’t feel my legs and my butt was sore. I didn’t eat breakfast either and as we began to spin, a part of me knew that I wasn’t going to finish the class. Fifteen minutes in, I started to feel light headed and told Lindsey that I felt like I was going to faint. She assured me that I was fine. I then assured her that I wasn’t. I got off the bike and it happened. I fainted in the middle of class. A few people helped me up and dragged me to the lobby, where they gave me crackers and water. I was mortified. I tried to laugh it off but I don’t know if anyone thought I was cool enough to brush it off. After class, Lindsey came out to me and made sure I was okay. Mila then came out and mockingly told me that Lindsey is a bad friend because she continued to spin after I fainted without making sure I was fine. She asked if I was okay and then told us a story about her friend who fainted and cracked her chin open. The three of us then walked over to Starbucks and chatted some more. We never talked about her being in the industry or who she was. She was just a girl in our class and these fifteen minutes were more than we ever expected.

The next day, we walked into class and she was there again. We could get used to this, we thought. Everyone got on his or her bike and Mila sat in front of us. Right before we began, she turned around to me and teased, “don’t faint.” We laughed and then had a great class. For the rest of the summer, Lindsey and I went spinning every single day hoping to run into Mila. Out of the 60 or so days we went there, Mila was in 40 or so of our classes. We chatted and had laughs, never once mentioning who she was or what she did for a living. I think it was refreshing for her especially on the days where she would walk in pissed off because of the paparazzi outside. She even told me that Lindsey and I reminded her of her and her friend. We often wondered how this experience was real. It wasn’t even anything life changing, but it was cool enough for us.

After we went back to school, we never saw her again. She had a baby and we’ve both been busy. Looking back on it, it’s crazy that one person and the idea of getting to know her could cause us to exercise everyday and spend so much money on spin classes. I wonder what we really thought could happen if we kept seeing her everyday. Would she take us to set? Would she take us to an event? No way. We knew none of that was going to happen. We also knew that we were crazy for caring so much. She’s a person just like anyone, but her celebrity status put her on a pedestal for us. We made fun of ourselves everyday like one would make fun of themselves for loving The Real Housewives. Even though we felt a little silly about it, our summer with Mila was fun and exciting and it gave us a memory we will never forget. Plus, it gave me a great ‘most embarrassing moment’.  

Annika's blog post 1

One of the required articles, Janet Staiger’s Seeing Stars was an interesting read regarding the metaphorical birth of the star system and made me think about something that seems integrated to our present day society. Understanding the slow growth of the system, and how it was not initially perceived as advantageous for the industry reveals how differently the industry could have developed without the selling attraction of stars. Although today people’s obsession with is almost understandable due to the easy access to information online, as well as what is openly publicized. Understanding that stars like Rudolph Valentino carved out his own stardom reveals how he was at the forefront of the star system phenomenon which has allowed his stardom to still be recognized today. 

Staiger’s analysis regarding the star system shows the initial skepticism that came with the idea of promoting a film beyond its narrative and advertising the players. This shift in interest by the audience allowed stars like Valentino to flourish beyond his talent and attracted an audience simply do the persona he created for his characters. Though Valentino might not have attracted movie goers due to his off-screen persona, his on-screen persona combined with his looks practically guaranteed that there would be a good turnout. Valentino’s overwhelming success showed a change in the tide where an actor did not have to be the best performer, as long as they offered something else. Albeit an interesting off-screen persona or an attractive physique. But it makes me question if Valentino still would have been a star even if he was devoid of talent simply because he was exotic looking and he attracted a large, primarily female audience. 

With the star system continuing to grow due to stars like Valentino who was able to bring an audience simply by advertising his name provided reveals that as an audience we have always been hungry for more information regarding those who graced the big screen. And it is through this obsession that stars are created and made. This makes me question if the film industry would have been able to become so successful without the promotion and intrigue that came with the star system. Especially since this trend is the reason many films are still successful regardless of if their narrative is strong or not.