Jonathan Stoller-Schoff Response #1

I was particularly captivated by Dyer’s concept of how stars are constructed on screen versus on stage, both in regards to silent movies and the advent of sound. Throughout the reading, the concept of the close-up as an important tool in the creation of a star, particularly in recording “the player’s own personality” (15). I’ve always heard that theatre is a more intimate form of art than film because the actors are in the physical space with the audience. However, according to Richard Schickel, the proscenium creates enough distance that the screen is a more intimate medium. There’s a case to be made for both as a “more intimate” medium, but the more important issue I see here is the level of control the medium has over the audience. In a theater, the live performance aspect of the performance creates the feel (real or imagined) of an audience member having a more active role in the performance: at any point, they may applaud, laugh, cry, or any manner of things that would change the nature of the performance. Even if it as small a change as waiting for a laugh to subside, this at least partially rooted in reality. However, while watching a movie, the audience must surrender more control to the star: their performance will be consistent regardless of audience reaction. In this way, the close-up and the star depicted therein had a firm grip on the audience — even a reaction to the performance may cause the audience member to miss the next moment of the performance. A larger-than-life image of a star commands a great deal of attention from the audience in this way.

Dyer also talks about the shift that took place in the 1930s as stars changed from representing an ideal on screen to representing the status quo, which allowed audience members to more easily identify with — rather than worship — the star. In this way, stars made their way into people’s hearts more easily. Rather than a concept of perfection, the star became a figure much closer to a friend. By combining the mastery the close-up holds over the audience and the new place the star held in people’s hearts as cinema moved forward, it’s not a far leap to see how stars started to command more influence in people’s lives as cinema bloomed into the middle of the century. 

My main question about this is how this has changed since that time. I assume we moved through different iterations of this since the 1930s, but the influence that stars hold in different arenas – stage, cinema, television, etc. – has, I would wager, increased with the consumption of media and with the internet. I wonder if we’re even aware of these shifts and the extent of stars’ continued influence.