Supplemental Post #7: Lena Dunham

A huge focus of this class has been on celebrities that have had impacts on society throughout the different decades, Madonna, J-lo, Beyonce to name a few.  All are classically beautiful and appealing to almost everyone who looks on to them.  As iconic as they were for their generations, I think as we progress into the 2000's we will have a much different look when it comes to a female icon.  One woman that I have in mind is Lena Dunham.  She is a writer, producer, and actress in the HBO series girls and has a completely unique voice.  She is someone who struggled with insecurities all her life and has made a point to bring them up in her show.  Her show also brings up the struggles of young adulthood which include relationships, jobs, money.  I believe her work is going to have a more meaningful impact on our generation when compared to how someone like Madonna has impacted her own generations.

The Human Attachment to Entertainers

Supplemental Post #7

Why do actors and singers get to be the famous ones? Why do people obsess over the personal lives of these people? So many gossip magazines, bloggers and media sites evolve completely around stocking celebrities and relaying their every day moves and activities to the public. And the public completely absorbs it. We are all fascinated by them!

But what I am curious about is why we are fascinated with actors and singers and models specifically. Why don't we worship successful leaders in different fields, like famous scientists, or engineers, or business leaders? Why don't we take photos of them and follow the ups and downs of their love lives? We only tend to worship and stock the personal lives of people in entertainment.

What does this say about the human condition? At first, I was going to suggest the human need for story-telling and emotion. People like movies because they get to relate to characters and follow a story. We then fall in love with the actors associated with those roles. It would make sense then that we want to continue their narrative and find out "what happens next" to their characters. Thus, we start following their personal lives to continue their narrative and fulfill that inherent human need for story.

However, we follow all people in entertainment, not just the ones in films. That includes models, singers and even sports stars, who don't tell us stories. What is it about entertainment that creates that sense of attachment? Is following their lives off the camera or stage a means for us to continue to be entertained? Does the human condition just require an endless stream of entertainment and we grow attached to the ones who begin that train of entertainment?

As a cognitive science/psychology major, I am genuinely interested in answering these questions. What about the human condition makes us grow attached to entertainers? Please comment below if you think you have an answer!

Supplemental Post #6 - The Comedian Look

The Comedian Look

What is it about comedian's appearances? Each and every comedian has a very specific physical appearance. Usually, comedians do not embody the typical most average looking face or body type. What most share in common is the fact that they are different than the norm. Their uniqueness arguably helps make them funny. Their faces are often described as funny-looking. Does that mean that "different" is considered funny? In many cases, one can say yes. It is indeed rare to see average looking comedians. Even drawing on the photos of famous comedian celebrities below, they either have big eyes, glasses, lots of hair, chubbiness, etc. Can you think of a famous comedian that looks like an injenue or a leading man? Can you think of a stunningly gorgeous or incredibly handsome comedian? It's rare. Does this mean that pretty people can't be funny? If a beautiful person and a "funny-looking" person told the same joke, would the "funny-looking" person necessarily get more laughs? This reinforces the notion that humor has a lot to do with physicality, and may be almost necessary to make people laugh.

Jessie J, Lady Gaga, and the faux-bisexuals of Pop (last supplemental post)

So, I have some beef.

I really love Jessie J as a songwriter and an artist, and I think that she has a very strong sense of self that always comes through in her performances. I remember finding her on YouTube back before "Party in the USA", when she had a full-on shaved head and wore hoop earrings all the time. And I also distinctly remember watching her music video for "Do It Like A Dude" and feeling so excited when I did some research and found out that she was openly bisexual. I was so excited to see someone living their truth and putting a face out their for bisexuals (who are so often made invisible in this day and age).

Anyway, recently my girlfriend linked me to an article in the Guardian entitled "Jessie J Says Her Bisexuality Was a Phase. What a Shame." What a shame, indeed! I found myself feeling a lot of real anger towards Jessie, like she had personally betrayed me. After spending some time reflecting, I was able to articulate why. 

I mean like...c'mon now. This is queer af.

I feel like there are so many artists out there who want to exploit the LGBT community to build their fan base, and that is to be expected. But it's even more offensive and harmful to claim membership to the LGBT community and then renounce it whenever you find it convenient. Bisexuals are often told that the way they are is in fact "just a phase", that they are "really just gay but scared" or "really just straight but want attention". For Jessie J to come out as bisexual and later say it was just a phase only adds to the cannon of misunderstanding. 

I wanted to bring this up because I feel that it isn't just a one-time thing, but more of a cultural phenomenon. In 2013, Lady Gaga spoke out and said that her bisexuality was "not a lie", but at the Pride Parade in 2014, she posted this picture on Instagram with this caption: 

First of all, straights "unleashing" their "gayness" doesn't even make any damn sense. Second of all, to retract your queer identity in such a cavalier way is beyond disrespectful to those who are authentically queer. 

Both of these experiences have taught me to be wary of celebrities who claim bisexuality, which honestly saddens me. I want to trust and believe in people's identities, but I've definitely become jaded due to multiple instances of feeling betrayed and exploited. 

Supplementary Post #7

For my final supplementary post, I would like to discuss an artist who can also be in the category of celebrity. Although definition of celebrity has changed throughout history, fine artists also had enormous spotlights on them by not only the people in the art world and art industry, but also the public. One of the biggest example of an artist who is known for his stardom is Andy Warhol. His famous quote,

"                                                                                                                                                        "

is a sensational quote during the time, being very true in modern society. The development of social media has heightened the the possibility of normal people to achieve attention.

Andy Warhol is an interesting artist since he has led the movement called Pop Art, which shattered the barrier of what was considered high art (oil painting and sculpture) by integrating pop culture (e.g. Campbell soup cans, cartoons, Coca-Cola, etc.). He was notorious for having a persona of innocence and light-headedness, even though some of his artworks have critical interpretations to them. The public, thus, had a hard time deciphering him from his persona or image and his true self. 

His background as an illustrator for fashion advertisements might have affected him to realize the impact of stars or name values to the culture and society. He would not only create works of art dedicated to celebrities and major figures of his times but also hang out with stars of the 60s to the early 80s. Furthermore, he played a role of finding new stars in the art scene. Warhol was a great friend and mentor for the artist Jean-Michel Basquiat. Although Basquiat was a terrific artist who was emerging in the art scene of New York even before he met Warhol, their friendship had an effect of furthering his star-artist status. 

I think in modern society, artists are not exactly considered as celebrities or stars like the actors and actresses of Hollywood--but in the art world, rookies do emerge. Nowadays for artists, it is hard to be popular throughout the general public because they may be considered as a sell-out. Visual art is often has harsh requirements to be considered as pure or fine art. For instance, one should not be creating commercial art, and paintings should not be for decorating a living room. I think this heightened standard pressure for artists to be "true artists" distances them from being loved across different audiences. Warhol was successful at managing the commercial but the fine art side. Additionally, his persona of "seeming-clueless-but-actually-not-so-much" helped him to draw people's attentions, which is quite similar to modern day stars and celebrities.

Celebrity as a Driving Audience for Vogue (Supplemental post #6)

Vogue is one of the most influential magazines in the fashion world. Their covers are the epitome of beauty and chic, and when they show something strange, it is often to endorse a designer’s or other “beauty professionals’” inventions that will soon become a trend. But in April 2014’s edition, the magazine adopted another strategy and stamped on its cover the power couple Kim Kardashian and Kanye West – members of the B side of Hollywood – he’s a rapper and she’s a socialite often despised when it comes to style. 

Singled out as the most talked about couple in the world - and also the most tacky - Kim and Kanye surprised many people by appearing so glamorized on the cover of Vogue. The issue caused a furor on the Internet and even became a meme, with various other celebrities in place of the couple. Many people also lost their respect for the magazine. The actress Sarah Michelle Geller, for example, threatened to cancel her subscription of the magazine and declared her indignation on Twitter. 

In the letter from the editor, Wintour explained her decision. She said that Vogue also represents who defines culture at any given time, which is why Kim and Kanye as a representation of our society’c culture should be in the cover of the magazine. However, there is no doubt that putting them on the cover was a schemed move – entirely Wintour’s idea – with the exact goal of shocking; one of the oldest strategies in the fashion world. The controversial cover got what Wintour expected; the publication sold 500,000 copies, plus the ones received by subscribers – totaling to around 1.2 million copies sold. Therefore, Wintour risked the magazine’s integrity and name to cause shock and perhaps put out there the importance of celebrities in our society nowadays. 

Given that Vogue is a fashion and lifestyle magazine, Kim Kardashian in the cover does not celebrate fashion as art, but rather the mainstream and popular type of fashion. It is already not normal to feature celebrities in the cover of Vogue, only when that celebrity has prestige in the fashion world, but featuring Kim Kardashian is even worse since she is not an inspiration or notable in this industry – AT ALL. Many people might say that she is very influential in the fashion world, however, I think that her fame bought herself into the fashion world making many people confuse her wealth and celebrity status with style.

Kim Kardashian being tacky, per usual

There is a huge disconnect between Vogue’s brand and Kim Kardashian’s brand, the first is chic, prestige, sophisticated and high end while the latter is a representation of mass media, reality television and money badly spent when it comes to fashion. By putting them on the cover, the magazine creates the message that they are fashionable because they are popular, mainstream and everything else that they represent. In a way, it is celebrating their surreal-ness and dysfunction that is seen on Keeping Up With the Kardashians as fashion.

This portrays how celebrities are becoming a driving audience even for platforms that used to avoid it as much as possible. Wintour put them in the cover because they are the #WorldsMostTalkedAboutCouple, which kind of strands away from the whole purpose of her magazine. Before, Wintour’s disgust was such that she banned Kim several times from Met’s gala, considered the Oscars of the fashion world. Only when Kanye went that Kim was given a free pass – as his escort. Why the sudden change of heart then? 

Kimye on the cover of Vogue represent a new era for celebrities. Vogue’s acceptance of celebrities as a driving audience shows that even the purest forms of art cannot be kept intact for the sake of business. Vogue realized that even their audience now has changed, and is very much tuned to the popular and mainstream world, especially the Kardashians’ world. Even though fashion critics may not consider Kim fashionable, and even tacky, the audience sees her and Kanye as trendsetters. Long gone is the time that what was seen in Vogue was solely the most artistic, and unconventional, form of fashion – popularity is clearly becoming the driving force. 

Clearly not anymore...

Furthermore, Hollywood uses stars and celebrities as tools to shape and drive our desires. Celebrities embody the image that we are supposed to chase.Their role in our culture is beyond doubt nowadays. Kim Kardashian has an immense impact in our society, shaping trends and creating new ones. She is a product that is sold to us by reality television creating an interesting relationship between fashion and product. 

Therefore, by putting celebrities in the cover, Vogue allowed them to have the halo effect of image authority and to be the people who authorizes the value of fashion by wearing it. It proves that the rules have changed and Vogue is evolving and adapting to this new reality. 

Olivia Pope's Intersectionality -- Fruitful or Futile? (Supplemental Post for Jonathan Stoller-Schoff)

At the GLAAD awards this year, Kerry Washington (most known as Olivia Pope on Shonaland’s Scandal) delivered a powerful speech while accepting the vanguard award for being an ally to the LGBT community. Instead of simply accepting the award, however, she chose to take a moment to speak about not just the LGBT community, but the fight for equality for all groups of people who, in her words, “can fall into the category of ‘other.’”

As a black woman herself, Washington is no stranger to intersectionality, and as a celebrity, she chose to use her star status to influence people. Particularly, she says, that she hopes that people will “look up what that one woman from Scandal said at that awards show on Saturday.”

In the video below, she also comments that she may be preaching to the choir – and I would expand on that by saying that she isn’t only preaching to the choir at the GLAAD awards, but that her whole audience may be the choir. Those who watch Scandal or other Shondaland shows, those who look up to Kerry Washington as not only a female role model or a black role model – these groups of people are already aware of these struggles. The cynical part of me wonders if speeches like this make a difference.

Of course, I hope – and choose to believe – that they do. I think she adds herself to the tide of people turning history, that she becomes a part of the good of equality, and she takes her fan base with her to become (at the very least) newly inspired, if not more educated, more empowered, and more eager to engage with the challenging issues around them. I certainly was moved by her speech. But I wonder what others think. What do you think?

Plastic Surgery - Supplemental Post

Celebrities undergoing plastic surgery is nothing new. Stars have been going under the knife to manipulate their bodies into a socially-constructed form of perfection. But what does this mean? What are the implications? 

In A Star Is Born, we see Esther consider plastic surgery to correct what she perceives to be visually unappealing facial features. This willingness to undergo such procedures for fame and success is troubling. In the end, it is only when a man recognizes her inner beauty that Esther chooses to show herself as she naturally is. 

A character in A Chorus Line chooses to get plastic surgery to enhance her physical appearance for the sake of success. What does this say about femininity or masculinity? If we can go under the knife to create it, is it just a social construction? Is there such a thing as true femininity and masculinity? Is plastic surgery ok, so long as it is for the person doing it (and not society)?

Check out this clip from A Chorus Line.

Leading Ladies - Supplemental Post

The evolution of leading ladies in the films we have watched is incredible. 

Charlotte Vale shows a women troubled by her self-image and how others see her, and reclaims herself with a maternal bond between herself and Tina. 

Dorothy Shaw and Lorelei Lee show women claiming their bodies and their sexuality, while at the same time making themselves less intimidating to the male characters. 

The transition to Sarah Connor in Terminator shows a strong and independent women, one that requires a hyper-masculine male to play opposite her. Her lack of surface maternal feeling forces John to seek affection elsewhere, while Sarah still cares deeply for her son. 

Probably the most fascinating (and dynamic) leading lady is Esther in A Star Is Born. Her character is thrusted into stardom, only after her male counterpart notices her. In this way, she is dependent on a man to truly realize her success - and is thus defined by her interaction with men. Esther knew this for herself, she just needed someone (a man) to reassure her. 

Meanwhile, Norman places a tremendous amount of importance on how she performs (her voice and her looks) and ignores the unconditional love she has for him. Esther continues to be contained and controlled by men, only truly being set free by Norman's death. We see her as a smart and successful women, yet is manipulated by misogynistic undertones. 

Eye-Candy Distracts from Plot

Supplemental Post #5 - The Classic Tale Undermined by Her Objectification

Everyone is excited to see the new live-action Beauty in the Beast. It's a well-loved fairy-tale classic. Everyone holds the story dear to their heart. Its one of those films, where its hard to go wrong. Everyone loves the classic fairytales so its pretty much guaranteed to make its return plus more at the box office.

Emma Watson has cleverly been cast to play the lead, Belle. This was an extremely smart marketing move because of Emma Watson's enormous fan-base. If we thought Beauty and the Beast would be a hit, simply because of its reputable story, then with the addition of Emma Watson, this film has the potential to be massive. Emma Watson is not only liked by women of all ages, but she also is popular among the boys because of the Harry Potter craze. Emma Watson is the idol of every boy and girl that grew up reading or watching the Harry Potters. Now the Harry Potter generation is in their 20s. So while fairytales usually successfully attract the children age group, Emma Watson will bring in the slightly older teens and young adults. Thus, Emma Watson will effectively stretch and expand the target audience from the fairytales' usual female kid audience to an audience including girls, boys, young and slightly older. For marketing and business purposes, Emma Watson was a genius casting choice.

However, my one complaint about her casting is that her beauty will become the predominant element of the film. Emma Watson is so stunning, that it may be hard to lose oneself in the story. We may just be so distracted by her looks, that we spend the whole time drooling at her face rather than following the story and feeling for her character. We won't be watching Belle and her troubles. We will be watching Emma Watson's picture-perfect porcelaine face and the various movements that face makes to act in a scene. We'll all be watching her "acting". She will be our eye-candy for a short period of 2-hours. We will leave the theatre talking about how beautiful Emma Watson is rather than discussing the adaptation to the famous classic fairytale.

Core Post #5

The ‘Feminine Fascination’ chapter in Stardom: Industry of Desire paints an interesting picture into the role of the female star. It was interesting to see how the portrayal of women and their role in films has stayed the same or changed over the years. The idea of “images of women” and “woman as image” and the common breakdown of females in classical Hollywood as the “superfemale” or “superwoman” are still relevant in today’s spectatorship. But it is the reception that has changed and with it, the role of the female star.

While there are still stars that follow this limited perception of females like ­­­­Heather Graham. The difference is that there are now other opportunities for female stars, and those who chose to stay within this depiction are aware of their role and the sense of objectification. But unlike before, many of these conventionally ditsy stars are given a more realistic personality – unless they are there simply to be objectified.

However, with the growth of social and economic power that females possess, it is the era of the strong woman. Films now have powerful female protagonists and women are not expected to be at the beck and call of their male counterparts. Actresses like Jennifer Lawrence or Emma Watson are just two of the female stars whose personas rest on the idea that they are strong women.

But as the article mentions, these ideas of women are all based off how fans identify with them. Many fans fantasize about their favorite stars based off their film roles and aided by the stars real persona. This is not a new sense of fascination. But unlike before where female stars were confined in limited portrayals, there are now a range of female stars that represent different personas.

In some cases though, the fascination can go beyond a fans intrigue and morph into practice. Where fans go beyond identifying with a star to wanting to become them. This often is met with skepticism by the public and questions the role of the star. But boiled down, this is how some fans show their devotion to their favorite star. Some fans might purchase products endorsed by their favorite star. While in some cases of practice it can come down to plastic surgery.

Overall, the portrayal of women in film has finally come to a stage where the tables are beginning to turn. No longer are women only allowed to shine if they are sexualized or made masculine. Instead with a change in society, there is now room for a spectrum of female stars for fans to idolize.

Bruce Jenner (Supplemental post #5)

Television star and former Olympian Bruce Jenner confirmed on Friday in an interview rumors that have been circulating for a long time in the press: he affirmed that he feels like a woman and that, from now on, he will live as such. Since the beginning of the year, there were rumours that Jenner was having hormone treatments to undergo a complete sex change and become a woman.

Here's a clip of the top 10 highlights of his interview with Diane Sawyer:

The transformation may be surprising, but the decision to make it public isn’t. Long before being swallowed by the Kardashian vortex, Jenner has lived for the cameras. That's how the world saw him win the Olympics. That was also how he made a living after: through the cereal ads, movies, sitcoms, commercials, documentaries, sports programs, etc. So, of course the cameras have to be on him in this new journey of his life.

Bruce Jenner in an ad for Wheaties in 1976

 Jenner always felt very confused with his gender identity; he said in the interview it is a problem he’s been dealing with since he was five years old. I find this particularly interesting because to deal with this confusion, Jenner, maybe unconsciously, chose to position himself in a career that very much breeds masculinity, especially at that time period. As an Olympian, he became a sport icon that was nationally viewed as a representation of the ideal man for the time. By being an athlete, Jenner was perhaps trying to escape from the confusing thoughts in an attempt to identify with the far end of the spectrum and fit society's ideals. Words like strength, robustness and muscular were often connected to the idea of masculinity - and that was exactly what Jenner was trying to accomplish with his career; to fit within that frame of masculinity and conform to the time's ideals. Furthermore, he won the Olympics at a very delicate moment for the United States with the Cold War. He represented a victory of Americans over Soviets; which made him an even stronger representation of a role model (he was put in the cover of many magazines that connoted masculinity, such as Sports Illustrated below).

Bruce Jenner, 1976

Now, Jenner is again in the spotlight in a way that few fans would be able to imagine in 1976. The first clues to his transformation were during fall when he was seen with long hair with blond highlights, colorful nails, earrings and shaved legs. In December, he confirmed to TMZ that he was going to do a surgery to diminish his Adam's apple. This aspect is also particularly interesting for me because this physical aspect is such a minimal detail but that can mean so much in terms of masculinity and femininity. This detail was so important for Bruce to establish his feminine inner feelings that it was necessary to get surgery to change physical features for him to be able to get closer to  identifying himself as a woman.

Bruce Jenner before and after all the plastic surgeries.

The issue of transgenders is very hard to tackle, especially in Bruce Jenner’s world. His complicated relationship with stardom and the exuberant nature of the Kardashians, and the series have made the defenders of transgenderism a little nervous. The fact that E! is a channel known for sordid celebrities intrigues and other audience baits does not help. But in an era when scripted television programs showing transgender characters (Orange is the New Black) gained mainstream acclaim, this may be a rare opportunity to depict a real person undergoing this transformation. If the series manages to document the physical and emotional impact of Jenner’s transition and show it in an sensitive manner that is more educational than sensational, it can have a tremendous impact on the transgender community and their representation to the world. Furthermore, how do we frame transgenders within masculinity / femininity debates? Hopefully, Bruce will be the golden key to start this much needed debate. YOU GO BRUCE!! <3

Is it just me or does it seem like they Photoshopped lipstick on his mouth in this picture?