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)?
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.
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.
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?
Dyer's book Stardom: Industry of Desire makes several interesting points in terms of Hollywood feminism. In regard of both female stars as subjects of male gaze and female as spectatorship. First of all, Dyer talks about "images of women" and "women as image" in feminist film theory. For the "images of women", he quotes Molly Haskell's idea that "discusses the female stars in Hollywood cinema in terms of stereotypes which limit and control definitions of femininity in a male dominated culture". For the "women as image", Laura Maulvey's idea is that it's the investigation of female stars as objects of the ‘male’ gaze (as cited in Dyer, 147). Dyer gives example of the different constructions of femininity within Hollywood-- Bette Davis resembles power and rebelliousness, Marilyn Monroe resembles sexual attractiveness, and Deanna Durbin resembles clean-livingness (150). These are stereotypes draw by the concept that female stars as subjects of male gaze. They are defined with different tags in a male dominated society.
When it comes to women as spectatorship, it becomes female's fantasies about their own identity and the identity of the stars. Although Dyer argues there are four identification practices when it comes to fans who fantasize themselves being the stars (most of them are female spectators' fantasies)-- pretending, resembling, imitating, and copying. But it is the last identifications practice-- copying, that becomes not separable from consumption of fetish. For example, Dyer gives an example of female spectators copying stars' hairstyles to transform the identities of spectators. In addition to that, they also purchase clothes and imitate stars's makeups in order to transform their identities of spectators.
One example I thought of as an example of Dyer's statement is the television teen drama series Gossip Girl. Besides we see the female actors all dress in the way that male spectators would appreciate-- extremely felinity and charming (Dyer's argument that female stars as subjects of male gaze); audiences of this show kind grow with the characters. Since most of the audiences are teenagers from middle schools to young adults from colleges, their life experiences correspond to the characters' stories from season 1 to season 6. Countless girls and young women learned brand names such as Roger Vivier, Harry Winston, Proenza Schouler, Oscar de la Renta, and etc... from this show. Don't even mention Chanel, Dior, Christian Louboutin, and Louis Vuitton... Even since Gossip Girl the amount of sales of those brands increased rapidly just because every female spectator in real life want to dress either like Blair or Serena and live a life like one of theirs in the show. Thus, copying identification practice is not separable from consumption of star fetish. Although Dyer states that his research was to examine the spectators' pleasures of cinema experiences in the context of 1940s and 1950s, I think his findings still apply to today's audiences.
I have always loved boy bands and girl bands.I was an avid Spice Girls fan and watched Spice World frequently. In fact, the VHS I had got stuck in my grandma’s
machine and I insisted that we break it open to get it out. I also was obsessed with both N*Sync and The Backstreet Boys in their heyday. I remember winning the title of "best dancer" in kindergarten after wowing the class with my moves while "It's Gonna Be Me" was playing. Here's a link to the song, in case anyone's forgotten the classic:
You could say that I was a bit of a fangirl. And now, of course I am a fan of One Direction, a "Directioner" if you will. I'm fully aware that I play into the hype, and I'm okay with that. What's intresting about One Direction in particular is that they make attempts to brand themselves as an "unconventional" boyband. Unlike the Backstreet Boys and N*Sync, the members of "1D" cannot and do not dance. This is something made apparent in their music videos, as well as their concerts. When I went to The Rose Bowl to see them perform during the Where We Are Tour, I noticed that there was a lot of running around onstage and interacting with fans, but very little choreography. It was actually refreshing. They are much more relaxed than boybands from the late '90s/early 2000s, and this is an indication that audiences want to see more natural, "unplanned" performances. Suddenly the songs become more personal.
The idea of “types” is highly ingrained into most boy/girl
bands, and this is a concept that One Direction plays into as well. Zayn Malik (who controversially just left the band) is the "mysterious" one, while Harry Styles is the heartthrob and household name. And even if they didn't consciously create these types, the fans categorize the boys themselves. It's just what fans are used to when thinking of boybands in general. There's "someone for everyone," and that's what gives them mass appeal.
And, One Direction is notorious for using renowned celebrities as guest performers onstage and in their music videos. If 1D's target audience is tweens/teens, I'd say these celebrities play more to the appeal of parents than kids. My point being that having Ronnie Wood play guitar in a live performance One Direction's new hit "Where Do Broken Hearts Go" will interest a fan's mom or dad more than the kid. In fact, my dad is a huge Stones fan and we both watched the video together.
Ronnie Wood performing "Where Do Broken Hearts Go" on X-Factor with One Direction
Danny DeVito and Harry Styles dance together in the "Steal My Girl" music video
Say what you will about One Direction, but I think they make fun music that's great to listen and dance to. They also seem like genuinely nice guys. I got to seem them perform live again at a taping for Dick Clark's New Years Rockin' Eve, and they seemed like genuinely friendly and charming guys.
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.
