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.

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.

Casting Based on Race or Talent? (Core Post #4)

Casting Based on Race or Talent?

Why does race have to be such a center point, both in conversation and in the context of film roles? Mary C. Beltran writes “In this film (Out of Sight), Jennifer Lopez’s ethnicity is but a sidenote” and “Lopez’s position in Hollywood […] was becoming […] less dependent on playing sexualized or stereotypical Latino roles” (71). These statements have several implications. First, the fact that there is a remark on her ethnicity being considered a sidenote, implies that most of the time, it is not. Previously, Jennifer Lopez’s ethnicity was a noticeable element in her characters. As the second quote explains, as a Latina actress, she was specifically cast in Latina roles. With most movie characters, they are described by their attributes and emotional arcs. In those cases, one could theoretically cast anyone as long as they can “act” the part with their emotions and physicality. Most often, Hollywood casts white actors. However, the roles that Latinos or African Americans often get cast in, are roles that specifically evolve around their race within the story. For example, Hollywood often casts African American or Latino actors in service or labor positions or in films that are set in a foreign country. Latinos unfortunately do not often get cast as the lead role, if the role does not specifically require a Latino.

What Mary C. Beltran notes however, is the breakthrough of this Hollywood trend. Jennifer Lopez seems to have been the first Latina actress to get cast in leading roles that didn’t evolve around race in any manner. In essence, Hollywood was learning to diversify and accept all races in all roles and positions.

Although the movement towards diversity in casting is happening slowly, Jennifer Lopez did start the trend. Latina actresses like Penelope Cruz, America Ferrera and Vanessa Hudgens are now huge film celebrities, and they are cast in leading female roles, that are unassociated with ethnicity. They are purely cast for their talent, beauty and fit with the role, just as white actresses are cast.

Fake Celebrity Friendships (Supplemental Post #2)

Fake Celebrity Friendships

Having grown up in Los Angeles, I’ve had my fair share of celebrity encounters, as well as the fair share of encounters with celebrities’ kids.

After today’s documentary about Madonna, I was reminded of a somewhat shameful memory…

Madonna’s daughter, Lola, went to my small private school in Los Angeles for a few years. When I was in 6^th grade, Lola was is 2^nd grade. My friends and I decided it would be a good idea to befriend this little innocent celebrity child. So one day at “mommy-time”, the time when you wait to get picked-up by your parents after school, my friends and I walked up to her and started chatting as if we had no idea who she was. Because we were 6^th graders, we were confident. Little kids always thought it was cool to have “older” friends, so we had age on our sides. Lola thought she was the coolest kid for having these older middle-school friends. So each day at “mommy-time”, we hung out with her a little bit more.

I was so proud of this little friendship I made. I remember, I even got the privilege of signing her cast when she broke her arm. There was a phase when everyone was having their friends sign their backpacks, so I also got to leave a cute little note on roller-backpack, forever to be remembered. I felt so cool.

Looking back, I feel so guilty. I truly admit, that the only reason my friends and I befriended Lola was because she was the daughter of a huge celebrity and it was something cool to brag about. We told ourselves and others that we were friends with her because she was super nice and cute…which she was, but that obviously was just a cover for our star craze.

I genuinely feel bad for stars and stars’ family members. Its hard for them to make true friends because they never know whether people are actually their friends, or only friends with them for their stardom, their power and their privileges. At this age, I would never do such a thing. I would never want to befriend someone for ulterior reasons besides a genuine connection. It was a very immature and ingenuine thing for me to have done. So I may as well apologize now: “I’m sorry for having ulterior motives, Lola. You’re a great person and deserve true friends.”

This is exemplary of the negative side effects of stardom.

I Am Liz (Supplemental Post)

I Am Liz

Young girls look up to stars and dream of being just like them when they grow up. Any sort of resemblance makes them relate that much more. People find any excuse TO BE them!

My roommate’s name is Liz. Like every girl, she has her celebrity crushes and idols. In our room, Liz has hung two posters of Elizabeth Taylor. Liz Taylor is evidently one of my roommate’s favorite celebrities. When I asked her why she likes this star, she said with a grin: “Well, she’s a good actress…. And we have the same name….and in a way, we kinda look like eachother.” Both Liz’s have big curly brown hair, and resemble each other to an extent.

This shows that my roommate feels a stronger connection with this actress for the pure reason that they share similar physical traits. Because they look similar to eachother and share the same name, this subconsciously gives my roommate a sense of hope to be like her. She may be thinking, “If a girl like her can make it, so can I” or “I am Liz; she is Liz; so I must be like her.” The connection in name and physicality builds this automatic bond with the celebrity. She’s not just a fan. Liz Taylor is her celebrity soul sister!

(The first photo is a portrait of my roommate, Liz! The second photo is a picture of the wall above Liz's desk; there are two posters of her idol, Elizabeth Taylor. You can see their resemblance!)

The “Crossover” Effect (Core Post #3)

CORE POST #3: BLACK MASCULINITIES & POPULAR CULTURE

The “Crossover” Effect

Michael Jackson, one of the best selling music artists in history, was a pop icon and a sex symbol, but in an unusual sort of way. Michael Jackson is known for his androgyny. After years of surgery, Michael transformed from a seemingly normal looking African American man to a slightly atypical androgynous looking Caucasian. Not only did he change his race from black to white, but he also changed the appearance of his gender from masculine to feminine. It is the crossover between genders or the crossover between races which makes Michael stand-out.

Kobena Mercer, author of Monster Metaphors, mentions that this crossover, ambiguity and androgyny have its own sexual appeal. Mercer analyzes Michael’s music videos and claims that there is a “sense of neutral eroticism in Jackson’s style.’ Many other stars have had an ambiguous sexual image, which has added to their appeal and become a signature of their star image.

Fred Astaire was compared to Michael Jackson in Monster Metaphors because of similar sexual ambiguity. Was he heterosexual, homosexual, asexual?... Fred Astaire rarely played strong male leads, yet he sometimes did play romantic interests. Some may suggest however that he projects an air of femininity through his dance. In any regards, his dancing made women swoon all over the world. He presumably also made men’s jaw drop and stare. His dancing was incredible, and it was for this reason that he had sex appeal. Fred Astaire resembles Michael Jackson in this sense, because they were both desired for their talent. Despite being neither the typical masculine figure nor a total feminine figure, it didn’t matter; these stars were praised, admired and sexually desired for their incredible dance moves and charming appeal.

Crossovers have since become more common. And despite what one would expect, some of these “crossover” stars have the biggest sex appeal. Adam Lambart is a current star who embraces his androgynous look. He wears heavy eye make-up, glitter and nailpolish, yet is considered unbelievably sexy. It is his music which has a killer beat, great lyrics, and gets the room up on their feet. If the talent is good, the audience wants to like them. When a star’s music is high quality, people’s admiration can quickly turn into obsession, which can turn into sexual desire.

I think that these case studies reflects positively on our culture. It says that we don’t stereotype masculinity and femininity as much anymore. Or at least there are other reasons why we obsess over a star, namely their talent. For many of the above-mentioned stars, it is questionable whether there would be as much sexual appeal without their outstanding talent.

The Method Men (CORE RESPONSE)

The Method Men - ACTING

How does one bring a character to life on the silver screen? Do filmmakers film the stars just as themselves? Or do the stars transform? Richard Dyer explores the various styles of performance and techniques actors and stars use to get into character. There are two main schools of thought when it comes to expressing emotions for the screen. Diderot and Coquelin advised against losing oneself in a role. They suggested using an objective method, that requires observing how people feel and behave in real life, and then trying to mimic those physical facial expressions in their performances. Actors using this method learned the conventions of what different emotions looked like and then would apply them when needed.

(This facial expression board is something actors working with the Diderot and Coquelin method could use to memorize what typical facial expressions and emotions should look like.)

The opposing method was that of Stanislavsky. Instead of acting from the “outside in”, they were to act from the “inside out”. Stanislavsky’s actors needed to find the source of the emotion from inside themselves. If they needed to be sad in a scene, instead of putting on what looked like a sad face, as Diderot would suggest, the actor could think about something sad that occurred to them in the past, and try to bring back that memory and relive the feeling, so that they are actually feeling sad during the scene.

Nonetheless, context is very important for the audience to understand what the character is feeling or conveying. For example, people from different countries and cultures may interpret the above facial expressions differently. The second face in the first row, the one of the man smiling, may be interpreted as happiness in the United States. However, in China, smiling and laughing can actually be a sign of embarrassment and discomfort. So displaying these facial expressions on their own will not always be interpreted the same way. That is why the context of the scene in the bigger story of the film plays a huge part in determining what the character is feeling. Also, knowing who made the film, for what audience the film was made for, or what culture the actor grew up in are all helpful cues for understanding the meaning of the performance.

The Kuleshov effect demonstrates how much of an effect context has on the interpretation of a facial expression. Depending on the context around the man’s facial expression, we interpret the performance as having a different meaning. For example, if a man makes a certain face, and then we cut to a dead woman, we interpret the face as conveying sadness. On the other hand, if we cut to a beautiful women lying seductively on a bed, the audience interprets the actor’s face as conveying lust.

“Masculinity Crisis” – More Like Gender Breakthrough! (CORE POST #2)

“Masculinity Crisis” – More Like Gender Breakthrough!

I have a serious issue with the way Steven Cohan, writer of Masked Men: Masculinity and the Movies in the Fifties,  has analyzed the male condition in American society. Cohan uses the 1959 Hitchcock feature film, North by Northwest, to compare and contrast the male and female characters and how they mirror the gender statuses in American society at that time.

Cohen argues that World War II has fostered a decline in men’s emotional maturity. Men have lost their sense of responsibility and “instead of protecting, they want to be protected.” For example, the film’s lead, Roger O. Thornhill shows dependency when he calls his mother like a whimpering baby while he is being held at the police station. Roger also shows a lack of trust in women, through his weariness of Eve and his two unsuccessful marriages.

Cohen backs up his theory about Roger O. Thornhill by referencing several articles. “The Decline of the American Male” article states: “Scientists worry that in the years since the end of World War II, the American male has changed radically and dangerously; that he is no longer the masculine, strong-minded man who pioneered the continent and built America’s greatness.” This is the point where my feminist side started to cringe a little. The words “decline”, “worry” and “dangerously” all have terribly negative connotations. The fact that people worry and fear change is what’s concerning and worrisome, not the fact that there is change. Change is a good thing most of the time. Yet these so-called scientists are “worried” about such a “dangerous” change. Then he goes on to define “masculine” as “strong-minded”. Since feminine is the opposite of masculine, if they are saying that men are becoming less masculine and strong-minded, does that mean that they are becoming more “feminine and weak-minded”? This association is purely sexist. Cohen goes on to call this a masculinity crisis. “Nation’s masculinity crisis: that men let themselves be dominated by women.” The fact that the male status is in flux scares men to death. Suddenly, women are becoming stronger, they’re standing up for their rights, and they’re rising as equals or superiors. Domination isn’t a crisis. If it is, then women would have been in crisis for the last 200,000 years!

“The danger, of course, is that we will become too soft, too complacent and too home-oriented to meet the challenge of other dynamic nations like China and the Soviet Union.” First of all, the writer has revealed himself here, by saying “we”. He is a man and he is worried about the “condition” of his own gender. I believe this article would have been very different had a woman written it. A female writer would have seen the same traits and behaviors of Roger O. Thornhill in North By Northwest, but she probably wouldn’t have labeled them as “weak” and “immature” or called it a “crisis” or “danger.” This is a clear sign of gender insecurity. Furthermore, there is no reason to compare ourselves to China and the Soviet Union. The United States is socially advanced in comparison. Communism is still present today in China. Russia is against homosexuality entirely. The US should be proud of its more liberal views. Gender fluidity and the breakdown of stereotypes is something advanced nations, like the US, should be proud of. Soft men and strong women are common and completely normal. There will always be strong men and soft women; but there will also be strong women and soft men. We’re simply balancing out. This is not a crisis; this is an achievement! A breakthrough in gender norms!

Idols of Production to Idols of Consumption – Where Are We Headed?

CORE RESPONSE #1: Consuming Stars

            To state the obvious, stars have become America’s greatest obsession. They are incessantly idealized and placed on a pedestal. But what is the main reason we hold them in such high regard? Their talent? Their beauty? Dyer describes stars as a combination of images. A star’s brand is composed of his or her fashion, her house, her hobbies, her body, her sexuality and her films. (Note how film is listed last.) Stars represent a lifestyle; the lifestyle of the so-called “American Dream.” Their films aren’t even the most notable thing about them anymore.

            Dyer points out that there has been an evolution of idealization over the last century. In the early 1900’s, we had “idols of production – people who were interesting because they had achieved something in the world, made their own way […] we’re useful to society: bankers, politicians, artists, inventors” Fans rightfully honored people with great achievements; people who were making a positive impact in the world. For example, a quick google search of the 1910’s decade, exposed the level of fame Pablo Picasso had reached during this era. He is listed as one of the most popular and influential artists of his time. Paintings are a form of entertainment and artistic expression just like films and music are. Yet his paintings spoke for themselves. He revolutionized art and majorly critiqued society at the time. People idealized him, but never in the way we idealize stars now. Most people probably didn’t even know what he looked like, or what kind of house he lived in, because the focus was on his artistic accomplishments, not the image of his lifestyle.

The shift that we see today is towards “Idols of Consumption.” The majority of our stars are in the entertainment or sports fields. And the focus is not even on their accomplishments. What has Paris Hilton ever accomplished? (Sorry). Our generation knows everything about today’s stars (where they live, how many pets they have, when they get married, when they have relationship issues, when and where they go to the gym, etc.). We whole-heartedly consume the personal lives of today’s stars. Yet, we fail to think about what they are actually contributing to society. I often doubt whether they even deserve our recognition. Maybe our generation is simply idealizing the wrong kind of people. Imagine a world in which founders of philanthropies and CEOs of non-profit organizations were our stars? If everyone consumed and copied the lifestyles of philanthropists, rather than the lifestyles of actors and models, we’d maybe head in a different direction...

Character Traits (Q4)

Question 4:

Dyer offers a list of traits that viewers depend upon in coming to understand the characters in a film. Discuss each of these ten 'signs' and come up with examples of each from films.

1. audience for knowledge: Audiences have a preconceived notion of what the character is like. They are are familiar with the character and therefore have expectations. -->  ex: Spider Man, Dracula
2. name: The name says a lot about the character.--> ex: Cruella De Vil sounds like the words "cruel" and "devil".
3. appearance: What they look like is one of their main defining characteristics. --> ex: Seth Rogen, or Jonah Hill
4. objective correlatives: Certain settings or objects that become attached to the character's brand or represent a certain aspect of the character --> ex: Indiana Jones' whip and map; In Jaws, the water represents Brody's fear
5. speech of character: The tone, pace, pitch and texture of the character's voice add an incredible amount of character. --> ex: In Showboat, the black characters talk really slowly to indicate their lack of education
6. speech of others: Other characters speaking about eachother to add description of the character. --> ex: Devil Wears Prada: characters talk about Meryl's bitchiness
7. gesture: Physicality and movement --> In My Fair Lady, Eliza's body language seemingly gives away her socio-economic status / Joker licking lips alludes to his evilness
8. action: Crazy Stupid Love: winking at others
9. structure:
10. mise en scene: composition --> ex: There Will be Blood: shadows on face