Before they were big in Hollywood, many stars went through their “Disney image”. I realized that many of these stars went through a wild phase between their Disney and Hollywood years. Some of them recovered, like Demi Lovato that went to rehab for a coke addiction but managed to get her life on track, however others are still trying to find their place in the industry.
Since from a very young age, these Disney stars were pressured to live a life not fit or ideal for children. They were pressured not only by the studio but also by society, consequently making them break out and go crazy. Many of these stars used to have a very concealed innocent image created by Disney. Disney reached audiences from all age groups often profiting in the form of products for children that were created from their celebrity image. For example, there were dolls, perfumes, games, clothes and everything related to Miley Cyrus’ Hannah Montana.
Therefore there is a discrepancy between the image that they put on TV for Disney as good cleaned up kids and how they are in real life. Getting a DUI, being arrested for drugs, going to rehab are some of the things that these stars went through and that consequently caused contradictions in their image and persona. Many of these stars were portrayed as good and innocent kids but in real life were doing drugs and getting arrested.
For example, Miley Cyrus is a great example of how there is a paradoxical relation between star and the roles they perform. When she was Hannah Montana, many people only saw her as that – she disappeared into a role in such a way that people would’t think of Miley. I was never really into Hannah Montana or Miley Cyrus so for some time actually I thought Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus were two different people and that Hannah Montana was an actual person. Therefore Miley Cyrus was strongly connected to her Hannah Montana character and the moment she decided to go wild, cut her hair, get tattoos, do drugs, etc, her fans were shocked and could not believe that the sweet girl that played Hannah Montana and that was idolized was the same crazy girl that was setting such a bad example for young kids. Furthermore, the moment that she detached herself from Hannah Montana, she became more connected to her own body and person as Miley Cyrus.
Britney Spears is another example; she started out as cute and innocent as a member of The New Mickey Mouse Club but soon started doing drugs and was sent to rehab.
Here's Britney on her Disney phase:
And here's Britney after:
Lindsay Lohan also went from being cute to a complete disaster. She is one of of the examples that never managed to recover from her wild phase.
Many of Disney stars perhaps go through these wild phases to break out
from their Disney image and create something new for themselves that is disconnected to that previous image. However, there are exceptions such as Ryan Gosling and Hillary Duff who did
not feel the need to go wild to mature from their Disney image to
something better.
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.
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?
After walking the catwalk for her farewell show for Colcci last week, Gisele Bundchen ended the era of supermodels. The generation of supermodels, of which she took part alongside Cindy Crawford and Naomi Campbell, has reached its end. Ever since Gisele’s debut, many beautiful girls have emerged, but none of them are a match for debunking the model that charmed the fashion world twenty years ago. Today there is no successor able to achieve the uber status occupied by this Brazilian.
But what is it that Cindy, Naomi and Gisele had that made them so special? Star quality, that extra detail that overrides beauty and makes the difference. Something that is getting harder and harder to find nowadays.
Gisele first appeared in 1994 and changed the fashion scene with her curves, her air of health, natural sensuality; always cheerful and carefree. She can be seen as a sun on the catwalk after a few seasons of lunar, pale, grim-faced and ill-looking models that characterized the fashion show and photos in the 90s, the “heroin chic” times. Gisele invented a way of walking a catwalk that became her trademark and that is copied by young models all over the world.
Gisele in 1994
Gisele is especially important because she was one of the first models to transition from the fashion world to all other entertainment platforms, becoming a star in every possible way. What is even more shocking about that was that she managed to do that being Brazilian – aka foreign. Giselle not only crossed ethnic stereotypes but also asserted her place in the industry by challenging femininity and body type and beauty ideals of the time. In the beginning of her career, she was even rejected by some people in the fashion industry for not having the ideal beauty of the time. Her peculiar aesthetics and “big nose” were obstacles that she overcame with her strong personality.
Furthermore, Gisele achieved star status by building her image’s branding as a powerful and strategic weapon. Celebrity branding plays a vital role in the success of a star’s career nowadays. Gisele knew how to play the cards in order to achieve the stardom that she now has. Even though many people claim that Gisele wouldn’t have become this iconic if she hadn’t dated Leonardo diCaprio, her stardom goes beyond good connections. Gisele became an icon for fashion and helped many people understand that this career choice can be much more than just superficiality.
Even though she is not stereotyped as the Latina woman like J Lo was during the beginning of her career, her success is still dependent on her body. Perhaps if she had roles in films, she would be stereotyped Latina and become famous because of her physical assets like J Lo. Nevertheless, Gisele represents a good representation of a Latina that managed to reach the top and become the most well paid model in the world.
In Jackie Stacey’s article, Feminine Fascinations: Forms of identification in star-audience relations, she underlines the different ways that women relate to their favorite actresses. She explains that this is a question of identification that can be separated to two different groups, fantasies and practices, even though they aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive and many times overlap.
In the first part of the article, Stacey explores the fantasies in which the audience fantasizes about their relationships with the star and that are most likely are related to the cinematic context instead of the star’s real persona.
Generally when the fantasy is based around devotion and worship, the spectators feel pleasure from “some kind of difference from the star” and “the distance produced by this difference” provides a “source of fascination” (Stacey, 149). Here, spectators often fantasize about the stars because it is seen as something unattainable and far away – which further perpetuates their image to perfection. In this case, quite often the spectator’s self is pushed to the side and never put in comparison to the star in an effort to diminish the gap between them.
In other cases, spectators feel the desire to become their idolized star – which is only made possible by the recognition of the self and the difference between spectator and star. This fantasy to become the star is many times knowingly unattainable, however still strongly felt by many fans. This perpetuates the “construction of the ideals of feminine attractiveness circulating in culture at any one time” since it mostly revolves around a star’s appearance (Stacey, 151). Female spectators also take pleasure in the star’s personalities and
behaviors within the cinematic context since it is something they lack
and desire in their own life. Many spectators also take pleasure in
escapism in order to be part of the star’s world.
I feel like fantasies used to be more common before the internet since stars used to be far more unreachable than nowadays. The internet offers new spaces and possibilities of contact; it serves as a bridge between the artist’s image and the spectators. Therefore, it is less common to see spectators that only live on fantasies and don’t contract from their idolized stars in some way.
The internet works for the humanization of the celebrity to the public. Fans can find out more about their idols online and may even feel like there is an intimate relationship. But is this a real relationship? Stars reveal only what is convenient for them. Moreover, it is not always the celebrity that updates their profile on social networks, feeding many fans a false “close relationship”. What fans meet is the representation of a celebrity, the true persona of a star is not revealed on the internet but rather a piece of their public figure. Their public exposition is chosen according to their interests and the entertainment industry’s, not the fans' curiosity.
In the second part, Stacey explores how these fantasies become practices as spectators take a step further and transform their identity in some way to diminish the gap between them and the idolized star. For that, they engage in pretending, resembling, imitating or copying in order to become closer to the star.
Pretending revolves around the imaginary factor since generally the spectator knows it is not true. For example, nowadays there are many online blogs where fans pretend to be part of a star’s world in a specific film or show, and generally many women in these websites rely on role-play to pretend to be their idolized star’s lover or best friend.
Other spectators rely on resemblance as a form of identification with their idolized stars. Even though it it isn’t a transformation, the spectator uses the association between the star and themselves centered on a physical feature that can make them alike. For example, a lot of magazines and blogs feature what stars are wearing and show where their look can be bought for you to look exactly like them. This is more pertinent to the female world because women generally tend to be more concerned with this aspect about their idolized star.
Many spectators take it a step further by imitating their stars in some way to fulfill their desire of becoming more like them and diminish the gap between them. For example, ever since Miley Cyrus posted a video on Facebook of her twerking routine to the song “Wop” by J. Dash, the act of twerking became a world-wide phenomenon for her fans. Especially after twerking during her tour, many fans started to post videos online trying to imitate her twerking.
Here's Miley Cyrus:
And here's a video of a fan trying to imitate and give a tutorial of Miley Cyrus' twerking:
Copying is different than imitating because it encompasses the transformation of physical appearance. Therefore, the “construction of women as cinema spectators overlaps here with their construction as consumers” (Stacey, 156). With the gap between stars and their spectators becoming increasingly smaller, the act of copying is increasing as fans see it as a way to be more sub-emerged in their idols world. Photoshop and the internet nowadays are working as props for young fans to insert themselves into a star’s life; making them increasingly more obsessed and more prone to going through some sort of physical transformation to be more similar to them. Before, we would see many people, unconsciously even, changing their hairstyle, to look like a specific big star of the time. But now, people are doing plastic surgery to look like their idols.
Donna 'Marie' Trego spent over $100k in plastic surgery to look like Lady Gaga
Myla Sinanaj spent $30k to look like Kim Kardashian
In the 1930s, Brazil witnessed a new phase in the construction of its national identity, in which various elements of the working classes were incorporated into it. It was an intense moment of renegotiation of national identity. In this context, a popular idol was of great importance to the reformation of the country's culture. Carmen Miranda, who, besides becoming the most famous Brazilian singer of those times abroad, brought to light a number of representations that were eventually incorporated into the country’s national identity. In this sense, while Carmen was trying to present herself as a synthesis of Brazil, she was identified as such by broad segments of her audience and even counted, to some extent, with state support for the representations that she promoted.
The period extending between the First World War and the end of World War II marked an extreme wave of nationalism around the world. In Brazil, national identities, as they were being built, had to be related to other previously existing identities such as African-Brazilian. Among the Brazilian population there was an ethnic identity with which national identities had to dialogue, in order to build a homogeneous representation of the population.
In this context, there were artists that emerged and became national idols, and their songs widespread in various geographical areas, between different ethnic groups, especially through the new mass media of the time: radio, cinema, etc. Some of these artists, precisely because they circulate between different cultural environments, participated as mediators in the process of construction of a new national identity synthesis for Brazil. Carmen brought, in her artistic career, representations of ethnic identities. Early in her career, the songs showed that the issue of ethnicity was extremely strong within the ideas circulating the groups for which she performed. This was manifested in a common ethnic distinction in her songs, like when she affirmed who was white and who was black and assigned adjectives to each of these different groups, as in “Por Amor a Este Branco” (which means For love for this White) recorded in 1933.
Carmen Miranda was an important influence in the “formation of Brazil’s multiracial self identity as it was conceptualized in the 1930s” since she marked the “acceptance of the music and dance traditions of samba” (Roberts, 1993, 12). However, Roberts explains that there was a disagreement in the reception of Miranda’s image for the country in Brazilian and American news report. After Miranda came to the US, Brazilians often viewed her negatively, claiming that America made her loose “her voice, change her style and her soul” and become “Americanized” (Roberts, 1993, 13). However, in the US, she was still viewed as a representation of the exotic Latin and Brazilian culture’ the ultimate “South American Bombshell”. Miranda was so appealing to many Americans because of her 'excessiveness' that made her so enjoyable and theatrical in a good way. This contradiction highlights how the star image can differ depending on the audience and their cultural background and knowledge. Therefore, even though Miranda played a role in shaping Brazil’s national identity, I believe she might have lost some of her roots as she climbed the ladder to success in America.
Carmen Miranda is often associated what was called Roosevelt’s Good-Neighbor policy, undertaken by the US in the 40s, in Latin America, to seek allies for the US in World War II. Even though Carmen obtained success in the US long before the implementation of the Good Neighbor policy, she turned out to be the most successful model of the project. Her exotic and lush style captivated the American public, who were delighted with a woman that came from a tropical country, had fruit on her head, wore lush costumes, sang a rousing rhythm and danced frantically.
Carmen Miranda became a hit in the US. She appeared in cartoons like Tom and Jerry (in the video below) and Popeye. She was imitated and caricatured by Lucille Ball, Bob Hope, Jerry Lewis, Dean Martin and Mickey Rooney.
In order to understand Miranda’s place in her historical time it is necessary to look at the stereotypes that she connoted of Latina women and culture. The Technicolor aspect of the movies strongly emphasized the vibrant colors of her outfits – which were often characterized as typical of Latina women. It was very stereotypical, but also very vital for her success among Americans, that she was categorized as Other, especially because of the way she talked and her songs in Portuguese. The fact that what she was saying (when she sang in portuguese) could not be understood was appealing because it made her that much more exotic and her body language that much more significant to her performance.
However, the image manufactured by the Fox films ended up creating an inconvenience for Carmen: she became trapped in the image of a "Latina girl" forever. Since she was hired by Fox, Carmen was a gold mine for the company, which means she had to force a caricature Latin accent, even already speaking English perfectly. In the movies, luxurious musicals in Technicolor, Carmen could interpret a Brazilian in That Night In Rio (1941), a Argentine in Down Argentine Way (1940), Cuban in Week-end in Havana (1941), Puerto Rican or even a gypsy. But she was always a Latina girl. She was always confined to a stereotypical role that depended on certain aspects of her background that weren’t even relevant anymore to her life in America.
As Roberts points out, Latina actresses in Hollywood films often correspond to one of two stereotypes of foreign Other “the exotic sex object or the ignorant comic actress” (Roberts, 1993, 11). What is interesting about Carmen Miranda is that she can fit within both of those stereotypes by presenting herself as sexual and sexy at the same time as comical. This contradiction embodied through her “hypersexualized visual presence” and “comic oral presence” point out to the challenges of the time for a Latina to find her place in this society that often tried to characterize outsiders to distinguish them from mainstream Hollywood people (Roberts, 1993, 11). This contradiction was taken further with her female sexuality that was frequently described as being excessive and explored beyond her film roles. The video below of her performance in That Night In Rio, shows this contradiction of her comic accent conveyed on her singing that is blended with her sexual visual appeal and body language.
Here's a photo of me younger dressed as her during carnival in Brazil:
Justin Bieber managed to be voted the most hated singer in the United States. The result of this research done by the American website Mic.com, is a reflection that Bieber’s immaturity and rebellion has crossed the line.
Part of an emergency strategy led by his mentors, the 2015 version of the singer puts his “good-boy” back on track. And to show that the rebellion is in the past, he accepted to be made fun of in the Roast Master, a program in Comedy Central that was aired last Monday. On stage, Bieber sees his reputation as a “troublemaker” to be a laughing stock for comedians and guests. Like Martha Stewart’s acid comment on how Bieber’s life would be like behind bars: “Sixty million Twitter followers? The only place that many people follow you in jail would be towards he shower!” Or when comedian Jeff Ross compared Bieber to the most hated character in the Game of Thrones series “You are the King Joffrey of pop music!”
Here's a quick video of the best and worst of the roast for whoever didn't see the whole thing:
The Canadian singer hit such a low that he even mobilized parents of teenage fans to start a petition to force the country to remove his resident visa because he was being a bad role model for children.
Here's a video of Bieber's Top 10 worst moments:
Introduced to the world as the new promise of pop, the boy of slit bowl cut hair, innocent smile and sweet voice rebelled. Once viewed as an example, he’s left Lindsay Lohan to shame with his antics. And he was dubbed by international media as the “pop brat”.
His shows, which before would sell out in no time, no longer were crowded. Fans were outraged with the artist’s neglect. In the meet and greet after the show – a ticket that can cost three times what a normal ticket costs – he would not even greet the teens.
Now that the red alert has been triggered, it’s time to bring back the 2009 Bieber that everyone loved. He began the cleaning process of his image. The first step was a visual change. His hair is back to a similar length to what it was in the beginning of hi career. Next will be to re-approach the people that supported him before he became a worldwide phenomenon. Ellen DeGeneres received him with open arms in her program and has given much support to the boy’s endeavor.
This transformation is a sign that Bieber finally realized that what made him a celebrity at such a young age was not going to hold his career forever and that being a “pop brat” could have significant impact in his lifelong career. Therefore, this shows how celebrity culture has an impact on the celebrity itself. It was because his fans demonstrated outrage that it impacted his image and made him change and become again the idol that once so many young girls worshipped.
Hopefully this cleaning process of his image will last long enough to get Bieber on track.
The Thriller video clip is considered a narrative script that overcomes the musical part of it through its narrative greatness. In this case, the context of the visual narrative semantically exceeds the meaning of the music itself. It is mounted as a film: the music functioning as a soundtrack, with special makeup effects (then only used in film), characteristics of horror movies (lighting and screenplay) and also musical elements (music gaining much importance in staging). The images created by John Landis to the script done in partnership with Michael Jackson himself, frighten and thrill, due to perfect camera movements, costumes, lighting, noise and choreography. The transformation of Michael Jackson himself into a werewolf in the short film, and later in zombie, also characterizes this junction between music and film.
Many songs use the narrative style of script, considered a more formal approach to the music, because this emphasizes the chorus of the song, giving it a musical archetype. Before Thriller, music clips were only a vehicle to show the song, it did not contain such action or narrative to do justice to the lyrics. It was just the band, situated somewhere; a garage, for example, playing their instruments, musically and verbalizing the lyrics. You could say, in a way, that no emotion was passed to the viewer. It lacked a compelling element that holds the viewer to want to watch the video several times; in this case the narrative, with characters, like the woman, the villain, children, animals, etc., so that the clip really makes sense. Michael Jackson captured this spirit and applied it to Thriller.
It engages in a playful parody of the stereotypes, codes and conventions of the ‘horror’ genre” (Mercer, 304). As the clip title suggests, Thriller refers to a filmic genre, characterized by terror and the presence of characters in the post-mortem in order to frighten humans, whose reality in relation to the genre is restricted to entertainment. This causes the effect of fiction and reality, by contrasting two real characters with the fictitious, not typical of their reality. The other element that proves this relationship is the artist’s transformation into a zombie, which, bringing to our reality, is something unreal, imaginary, fictitious. It can be said that there is a reality within a reality, and a reality within the fiction in the video clip.
Kobena Mercer approaches Michael Jackson’s masculinity in the article “Monster Metaphors” by refering to his androgynous look that does not fit in the typical masculine stereotype that we are used to. For example, when Jackson becomes the zombie in the clip, it represents asexuality, “suggesting the sense of neutral eroticism in Jackson’s style as a dancer” (Mercer, 311). However, in the beginning of the clip, when Michael Jackson becomes a werewolf, considered a monster, he seems more violent and aggressive. Especially when he jumps on top of the girl, looking almost like a rape scene, and binding the “sexual relation of romance with terror and violence” (Mercer, 311). This creates a paradigm as to Jackson’s sexuality in the clip – which points to his sexual vagueness.
Michael Jackson is portrayed not only sexually ambivalent but also racially ambiguous. The video clip is detrimental in the metamorphosis of Jackson from black to white. It popularized black music in the white market – transcending race boundaries and allowing him to reconstruct his image. Furthermore, Michael was the first black artist to break the racial segregation of American mass culture, where only white artists could show their work in videoclips.
In the article "Audrey Hepburn: The Film Star as Event", William Brown explains the circumstances that made Audrey Hepburn become the icon that she still is across many different industries. Her appearance, personality and film roles created a type of female individuality that worked as a catalyst across many different sectors such as fashion, tourism, and even women's independence.
The 1950s was a vital time to solidify the connection between fashion and cinema and make them “mutually supporting channels of exploitation”. Designers became increasingly important for Hollywood and stars. The "little black dress", created by Coco Chanel, was immortalized in Audrey Hepburn's body. The mixture of her youthful air with the classic haute couture clothes symbolizes the transformation that began to occur in that period. It also solidifies the relationship between cinema and fashion as catalysts for each other’s success. Hepburn was synonymous with class and beauty for many generations. Her importance for the fashion industry can be seen through the survival of her image as an icon even after her death, in commercials (such as the Galaxy chocolate commercial below).
Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)
Compared to the divas that preceded her, such as Rita Hayworth and Marilyn Monroe, that had lush bodies and seductive looks, Audrey meant a break for this pattern of beauty. Audrey not only presented a different look but also an ambiguous one that had never been portrayed in film before. At the same time that she had a fragile, delicate and feminine air, she was also the maturation of masculine features that undermined feminity itself. By challenging the typical mammary woman look, she represented hope, inspiration and freedom for many women of the time. This put her in another level than the other stars because it pushed forward an idea of an independent woman that refused to be molded by the studio. She represented the feminine space but with certain masculine aspects that gave her an individualistic appeal.
Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn
Audrey became an immortal icon because she represents the exact opposite of all that Hollywood used to symbolize: scandals, exaggeration and vulgarity. With a fragile, shy and delicate image, she fled from beauty stereotypes of the time. As she was very skinny, she did not display the curves or latent sexuality icons of the time. She contrasted with the model woman of curvilinear forms that prevailed in the 50's as sex symbols like Marilyn Monroe, Kim Novak and Jane Mansfield. There was something that replaced it all: class. With completely opposite physical premises to the fatal woman, Audrey imposed a standard of beauty in which elegance prevailed everything. Which is why she arrived as an event that lodged an alternative type of female star.
Her unidentifiable origin, which many times made her seem American, European, neither and both – all at the same time, is also what allows her to arrive as an event. She represented a type of ambiguous nationality that fit an important time in the American economy; the consumerist boom. She propagated the rise of transatlantic tourism and represented the europization of Hollywood. This period was a vital time to calcify the cinema’s role in promoting tourism.
The most interesting thing is that Audrey’s star persona and actual persona are very difficult to separate for many fans, including myself. Her off-screen independent personality many times matches the characters that she played in her movies. As Brown pointed out her”faults as a real person and limitations as an actress” are what gives her status as an event. In the movie, Roman Holiday (1953), Audrey Hepburn plays a princess, Ann, who flees in search of adventure and a different life from the predictable boring one that she lived. Hepburn appears with short hair, demonstrating a radical change in the feminine ideal of the 50s to the “modern” independent woman of the 60s. Unlike the majority of today's actresses who shed rivers of tears to show sadness, give hot kisses to demonstrate passion, or big smiles to show joy, Audrey needed a lot less to convey the same feelings, just a look.
Nowadays, it has become much more challenging and demanding to be famous and important. Before, having talent was enough – might that be in singing, acting or both. But today, actors and singers are required to have a differential in order to be recognized in long term. For that, many people go to the extremes to make a statement, either through their style or actions. Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga are prime examples of that. Miley Cyrus’ edginess and questionable attire on her shows made her famous and prominent in the media. Lady Gaga’s different sense of style is what made her popular and notable in the media as well.
Miley Cyrus wearing a transparent dress
The video below describes the extremes that Miley has gone to make sure her shows are unforgettable for her fans:
Lagy Gaga
Lady Gaga became renowned and notorious in the media because of her extremely intense wardrobe, sometimes lack of (such as that one time she left her house wearing a bra). Her perishable dresses in classy events like the Grammys made her news for days and days. She did not gain such importance in the entertainment industry because of her singing skills. This makes me question; is this what is needed for someone to become famous in our society nowadays?
Lady Gaga at the Grammys in 2010
Lady Gaga knew she had to play this game in order to stand out. Her different dresses, pale skin and almost white hair have always been style statements. Her sense of fashion and questionable choices has shown that she wants to be louder-than-life, provocative and extravagant. She clearly has no limits. The meat dresses, eggshell casings and shows with extravagant sets and pods have always been weird but yet very impactful.
Lady Gaga trying to be an octopus (or Christmas ornament?)
Lady Gaga in an eggshell casing for Grammys
Lady Gaga in a meat dress
Here's a video of her weird but yet powerful performance in the 2013 MTV VMAs:
I believe that Gaga did this on purpose. She purposefully uses her style as a vehicle to fame and stardom. And not that she’s got it, she is going to change her image to become what she has always wanted to be; a singer that is appreciated for her voice. And the Oscars last night proved that. Her performance did not need any of the extravagant sets and accessories to be touching and amazing. People were confused and surprised with her performance. I know that I got the chills and certainly will remember her performance for a long time; this time because of her voice and simple presentation. Since the release of her newest jazz album, Cheek to Cheek, in
collaboration with Tony Bennett, she has substituted her overstated
closet to a more everlasting, Hollywood glamour style.
Gaga is finally reaching the pinnacle of her career and getting where she has always wanted to be. Here's a video of her performance:
The cast, the script, the costumes, the lighting, in short; all the materiality of film language is structured to tell a story endowed in certain conventions, such as gender constructions of men and women, protagonists as good and antagonists as evil, etc. The construction of gender in cinema and its representations have changed over time - as well as other aspects of cinema – and since 1960 margins became blurry, less dichotomous and more complex and ambiguous. Hitchcock, who imposed a very particular style and way of subversive expression, anticipated the crisis of sexual roles in his films since 1940s. On the other hand, John Wayne represented a completely different image of masculinity that was based in other principles and that served different political reasons.
The words male and female only exist because of each other; the meaning of one depends on the other. The concepts of masculinity and femininity reproduce a set of characteristics, values and behaviors, considered by a given society and culture as appropriate for men and women. An individual’s gender identity may be the result of the ways he expresses himself through his physical appearance, manner of dress, social activities and many other factors, all determined by society as masculine or feminine traits. This identity however, is constructed and transformed. And the social, technological, political and economic changes cause alterations in the constructions, definitions and meanings of identities, since individuals are within these transformations.
John Wayne
John Wayne was a Hollywood movie icon between the years 1927 and
1976; he worked as an actor, mainly in the Western genre, and eventually
became a major reference for men. Strong-looking, rude and always
wielding a rifle, he was a defender of the weak and helpless women,
especially in the American West. Wayne is the typical male model of
bourgeois society, from the industrial revolution, associated with
strength and virility. Attributes, linked to the idea of a male provider
coming from patriarchy, determine the configuration of the "real man"
that he represents. This had repercussions nationwide, causing a major
political and social impact in most Americans. In a time of much despair
and lack of hope, John Wayne was the light in the end of the tunnel; he
represented everything every guy in the US at that time wanted to be.
Which is why he set a standard that later on became known as the “John
Wayne Syndrome”. His "invincibility" further advanced the idea that he stood for something that many people thought had disappeared and longed for.
This video echoes the standard John
Wayne that is represented in all of his movies and that contributed to enhance
the standard of masculinity at the time, based on concepts such as
honesty, sincerity, courage, honor and manhood with restrictions on the
expression of affection and emotions.
In the text, Willis
portrays John Wayne as a symbol of masculinity for generations of
Americans – something that he calls the embodiment of an American Adam. However, this view of Wayne as a beacon for hope is slightly underwhelming for me considering the discrepancy between Wayne’s public
posture of a hero and his private life that showed the contrary. Wayne
was the representation of a hero that indirectly forced many generations
to sacrifice their lives in wars like Vietnam, whilst he managed
to cleverly escape from serving in World War II. This shows that Wayne
created a film persona that had a hidden political agenda. I thought it
was very interesting how Willis noted the ways in which stars act as
magnets and catalysts of own feelings, which made it even more important
to impose Wayne as a vehicle to push America forward.
The prologue
notes how Wayne’s persona differs from the super vindictive macho such
as Dirty Harry and Rambo, and also differentiates Wayne's status as an
authority figure of rebel heroes like Bogart and Cagney T.
Hitchcockian cinema takes a different look at masculinity, challenging its structure and shifting ideas about what it means to be a man. He puts into crisis these gender categories, scrambles the distribution of sex roles and builds sexually ambiguous characters since 1940. These gender categories can be seen through the costumes and narratives. His challenge to a topic that used to be very classified, is one of the many reasons why Hitchcock movies revolutionized Hollywood’s standards. Cary Grant in North by Northwest proposes a new idea of masculinity that by no means is any less powerful than John Wayne’s, just different and ahead of society’s beliefs and ideals. As pointed out by Steven Cohan, the poster itself already depicts male vulnerability with Cary Grant hanging and falling. This movie shows how the representation of masculine and femininity in cinema, before two opposite and separate categories, can be nuanced.
I was walking around Neiman Marcus the other day and saw two of my favorite things together in the title of a book: Hollywood stars and dogs. Of course I couldn’t help myself and had to stop to look through it; it was the two topics that I like the most to see in photographs - combined!
The pictures in the book, Hollywood Dogs, were taken between 1920 and 1960, a period considered the Golden Age of Hollywood. They capture the unattainable movie stars in a moment of pure spontaneity, stimulated, of course, by their faithful companions, inside and outside the movie sets. Dogs that were “professional actors” such as Toto from The Wizard of Oz (1939), also make an appearance in the book.
Marilyn Monroe and Mafia Honey
Frank Sinatra and Snuffy
Nowadays, dogs have become major stars and have an important role in historical and contemporary American culture. Which is why in 2012, the Golden Collar Awards was created, to award dogs that are essentially celebrities. It may seem like a joke, but Hollywood took it very seriously, handing golden collars to the best dog in a theatrical film, foreign film, television series, reality television series and Direct-to-DVD film. The awards demonstrate how dogs are stealing the show in the film industry – and in American society.
At the time, there was some criticism around the subject; many people thought the awards were only created due to the attention the dog Uggie from the movie The Artist (2011) was getting from the media. This 10 years old Jack Russell Terrier, is only a supporting protagonist in the story of George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), but steals the show effortlessly. Uggie also demonstrated his “stardom” in other events he attended such as The Golden Globes and Cannes Film Festival, where he won the Palm Dog Award. Uggie is not alone as a dog celeb – Lassie and Rin Tin Tin were also absolute stars in major productions of their time.
"Uggie is a star with true Hollywood pedigree"
This phrase mentioned in the video below really exemplifies the importance of the dog in the showbiz. The video shows Uggie's retirement announcement with "true celebrity style" by being the first dog to engrave his paws in cement for the Walk of Fame outside the Chinese Theater. Uggie represents how what is considered stardom has changed throughout the years and became something much more flexible to the parameters and circumstances of our contemporary society.
For some time now, dogs have gained a more important role in the American family. Which is why they have become so popular and important in the cinema industry. Dogs can be not only symbols of success in an American middle-class family but also of nobility and wealth for celebrities. For example, there are many dog breeds that have been associated with wealth because celebrities own them, such as Chihuahua and Pomeranian. It is no surprise that fans try to imitate their beloved stars by buying similar dogs – which shows how stars create particular cultural notions of class, even through their pets.
For Paris Hilton, dogs are almost like an accessory of clothing that can express her identity and have an have an important value to her image. It was no surprise when she bought a Pomeranian that allegedly costed $25K - it was as if she was buying a purse to polish her look.
From Hollywood to Beverly Hills, dogs know how to be the main stars of the show - and celebrities know how to use them to their advantage. Maybe one days dogs will take over and become the main stars of the showbiz, who knows...
