Hepburn Core Post #5 Shelby

In Funny Faces, Hepburn is transformed from a loner bookworm into a chic high fashion model who wins the guy of her dreams. In the 1950s, fashion and film became “mutually supporting channels of exploitation” (135)” (Brown 131). Together, film presented fashion as glamorous and chic—a way of life any upwardly mobile person should aim to obtain. Fashion liked modern film for its ability to product place and display upcoming line-ups (131). After her physical change she won a good-looking guy, which further pushes the idea of consumerism that buying things will bring happiness. 

Consumerism in the 1950s was on the rise and this contributed to the success of this film and Hepburn’s fame. Hepburn emerged as a star due to several factors that linked the rise in consumerism to “the rise in tourism, particularly transatlantic tourism.” Fashion and tourism were then seen as going hand in hand. This fits perfectly within the movie Funny Faces. Hepburn’s character Jo begins as a normal girl who is transformed into a chic fashion icon, which traveling to Paris was part of that transformation. The postwar "refeminization" of fashion got its inspiration from designers in Paris, like Christian Dior (131). During Jo’s time in Paris, she seems like she is on vacation the entire time although she is technically working as a model. This is another element of tourism that linked itself to consumerism. "Furthermore, her independence is reinforced by the sense that none of Hepburn's characters never has to work. In a manner that ties Hepburn's screen persona to the expanding tourism industry of the 1950s...Hepburn is associated both with not working, and more positively, with holidays" (135).  The combination of fashion, travel and leisure ‘holiday’ time creates an image of privilege and wealth that many consumers of the 1950s would have aspired for.

This reminds me of the movie The Devil Wears Prada. A lot of the movie is about Anne Hathaway’s character and her coworker buzzing about the Paris Fashion Week and all of the great clothes they would get. Her coworker wasn’t eating so that she could fit into all of the free clothes. Anne’s character in Paris also never seems to be working—and also gets with a cute guy! The end of the movie ended with Anne quitting her job and losing some friendships because she had negatively turned into a different person. It is interesting that today this kind of film feels the need to hint to the audience about the dangers of consumerism. Perhaps that is because half a decade later we have seen/experienced the negative effects of 1950s high-consumerism.  However, the majority of the movie parallels Funny Faces and is full of beautiful people and high fashion and a lifestyle that an audience today still desires for. 

Emily Huang Post #5 – Hollywood Women as Site of Social Struggle

In her article “The Hollywood Latina Body as Site of Social Struggle: Media Constructions of Stardom and Jennifer Lopez’s ‘Cross-over Butt’”, Mary Beltrán discusses the politics of representation that are attached to non-white celebrities, specifically their bodies, and how these function in a celebrity culture dominated by whiteness. Beltrán also examines the context in which these stars are operating, specifically in terms of how they cross over and the types of audiences they appeal to, something that correlated closely with how well the star embodied aspects of whiteness. The author then analyzes the hierarchies of power that are conferred through the existence of the white gaze, which refers to the power that white people have to control the way that nonwhite ethnicity is constructed in popular culture in the US. Beltrán then looks at the way this affects representations of characters of color and the way that white audiences receive them.

Through a lens focusing on the intersections of race and gender and their manifestations into bodies of color, Beltrán is able to connect the systems of domination and hierarchy around race and gender to the exoticization and sexualization of nonwhite bodies. Beltrán focuses on how this manifests in the conceptualizations of African-American and Latina women in black and brown bodies, especially when posited opposite whiteness. She points out that these stars must maintain a very particular look to fit into the white gaze and its perceptions of beauty. Whenever stars step out of this mold, they are punished for not fitting into it, and even when they do fit into the mold, they often lose their agency because of the way they are regulated.

When thinking about the way that this applies to Asian stars, it must be noted that the expectations that are placed on them differ from those placed on black and Latina stars. While black and brown bodies have been sexualized as “inviting”, Asian bodies have been constructed as “submissive” and hypersexualized as a “better” version of femininity alternative to white women, as related to the “model minority” stereotype, which has also used to reinforce antiblackness. This is seen in the ways that Asian characters have long been depicted as subservient, there to serve the needs of the men without raising a fuss (think of the Asian prostitute's “me love you long time” in Full Metal Jacket). Even today, few Asian female characters are depicted as passionate, independent women, when they even have nuanced character portrayals at all. The few female Asian stars that have become more notable are still weighed down by the white gaze that keeps them in that box, which points to the desperate need for more representation that is not crippled by stereotypes and a hurtful, exploitative construction of Asian femininity.

Female Audiences Shelby Core Post #4

Laura Mulvey describes the male gaze as a process that the camera has a male perspective sexualizing the female image; the men do the looking and the women are to be looked at. This correlates to the reasons in which there has been an absence of audiences from film studies regarding the female spectator, according to Jackie Stacey in “Stardom: Industry of Desire.” There has been little examination of feminist works within Hollywood—the stars themselves and even less their spectators. By not even discussing the female spectator, it automatically implies passivity on the subject. Women make up a huge portion of the population who also partake in the consumption of entertainment so it is important to understand how the female audience might interpret stars in relation to their specific cultural or historical contexts.

Stacey claims that it is odd that feminist studies regarding stars in Hollywood hasn’t been pursued more because it seems “an obvious focus for the analysis of the construction of idealized femininities within patriarchal culture.” For example, the way that many people, especially women, strongly responded to Madonna in the 80s shows that Madonna represented a certain aspect of femininity that those people wanted to encapsulate for that era. Certain stars rise to fame because they represent something that the audience needs or desires from a public figure for that specific time period, because they actually desire it for themselves and stars are the embodiment of their desires.

Madonna was confident, aggressive and very comfortable with publicly expressing her sexuality—in fact in her Truth or Dare documentary she considered ‘artistic freedom of speech.’ She was always pushing the boundaries and perhaps her fans admired her rebellion against the generation above them and their traditional notions. She fought back against sexual repression and expressed her sexuality on stage. Her signature crotch grabbing is an aggressive masculine action. I think people responded well to this because it was so rebellious against how women were “supposed” to behave, not necessarily because it was sexy. This aligns with Molly Haskwell’s definition of the ‘superwoman,’ which is a woman who adopts male characteristics to enjoy male privilege. I would say that being very sex-oriented and crotch grabbing are not traditionally feminine and that is exactly the point. She acts like a man so she can be treated like one. I think her audiences wanted the freedoms and privileges of a man, too.

Emily Huang Post #4 – Identification with stars in gay culture

In her essay, “Feminine Fascinations: Forms of identification in star-audience relations”, Jackie Stacey dissects the ways in which audiences, especially female viewers, connect to the stars they are watching. Stacey discusses the concept of identification and how it functions as the main venue through which identities are produced. She critiques the theories that have thus far been used to explain the processes of identification through a psychoanalytic lens, and then recognizes the wider definitions of identification as through connecting to a character’s point of view or by empathizing or sympathizing with a character. Stacey then goes on to examine these theories in real life by looking at firsthand accounts of female viewers of their favorite stars, and assesses them to glean a number of common themes.

While I found this to be interesting, I also wondered what it would be like if the letters referenced had come from non-normative perspectives, specifically from queer female perspectives. Queer individuals face an extra layer of complexity when navigating same-gender friendships and relationships, especially within the context of the highly interconnected queer community. One of the mentioned requirements for identification was that the viewer did not view a connection with the star in the context of sexual attraction. My question is, if stars provide examples for audiences to look up to, how might the aspects of identification change when the contexts of connection are different?

Ellen DeGeneres - TV host, comedian, actress

Angel Haze - rapper, singer

Ruby Rose - DJ, actress, model

Ellen Page - actress

Queer women look up to openly queer stars for a variety of reasons. Through her examination of the letters she gathered from female viewers for analysis, Stacey discusses the themes she saw in her respondents’ experiences as being devotion and worship, the desire to become, pleasure in feminine power, identification and escapism, pretending, resembling, imitating, copying, and how copying intersects with consumption. As reflected on websites like Autostraddle or AfterEllen that focus on queer female culture, queer women also look to their stars for everything from style to inspiration, but also as visible examples of representation for their identities. However, the difference is that queer women are also navigating the way they view stars as possible objects of desire, and this becomes even more complicated when there are so few openly queer female celebrities. How might theories of identification change when the question becomes, “Do I want to be her, or do I want to be with her?”

The Transformation of Disney Stars (Supplemental Post #7)

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.

Garland's Authenticity (Final Core Post)

Throughout history stars have been in the limelight where their private lives and careers affected, inspired and entertained the world. However, some stars pushed things a little further when dealing with controversial and sensitive cultural issues. From women’s rights to racial justice and equality, each movement throughout time has been honored and respected by many celebrities who would eventually become somewhat of an icon or ambassador of that cause; some intentionally, others not so much. 

For example, Emma Watson is an icon for women’s rights, as she was selected as the UN Women Goodwill Ambassador in July 2014. This humanitarian actress was a student at Brown University, however during her time there, her classmates bullied her, as they repeatedly told her that her fame from her role as Hermione Granger could not be compared to the fame her co-star Daniel Radcliffe received; that she was the shadow of a male actor. Although hurt by the bullying, Watson continued to finish her time at Brown University, gaining strength from this discrimination against her gender, and directed her strength and efforts into attaining a position at the UN, representing women everywhere. 

Judy Garland is also considered an icon, but a gay icon. She was known as “The Elvis of homosexuals” due to the fact that she was an icon among gay men who admired her ability to perform. However, the LGBT’s adoration of Garland stemmed from her personal struggles as well as her diva-esque and over-the-top personality and confidence. Garland struggled through a lot in her past, including her marriage to Minnelli who married her to conceal his sexuality. Although this was deteriorating her image as a star, the LGBT community could relate to her personal struggles, as they mirrored their struggle fitting into society with Judy Garland’s struggle to keep an esteemed image as a star. Past struggles can either make or break a person, yet through perseverance and dedication comes a great outcome and a following that could last a lifetime. 

Today, many members of the LGBT community believe and look up to Beyonce as a diva, queen, fashion icon and role model. Her journey to success wasn’t easy but she remained true to herself, her image and her fans. The LGBT community can relate to that sense of authenticity because they simply want to be who they were born to be, no matter what! Hence they are inspired by those in the media who, against all odds, stay true to themselves!!

Garland's 1950 Was Britney's 2007: Last Core Post

In Dyer’s chapter on Judy Garland and the gay community’s interest in her and love for her, there are several extremely interesting points of analysis that I think apply to other, more modern musical stars and their LGBT following. As Dyer pointed out, the gay community enamored with Garland was a primarily white, male gay community, and I think this remains true when we look at the demographic of LGBT-identified people who also identify as deeply loving certain pop icons (for the purposes of this post, I will be focusing mainly on Britney Spears). However, though there are several potent similarities in terms of the types of cultural moments that these stars’ gay following reacts to, I am also interested in assessing the ways in which the behavior and expression of the gay community is different post-gay liberation movement.

            I want to focus on the aspect of Garland’s career that Dyer assesses in the reading as ordinariness. When referring to “ordinariness”, Dyer specifically addresses the idea that MGM crafted and imaged Garland in a way that implied a spectacular ordinariness, the quintessential “girl-next-door”. However, it was her split from MGM in 1950 and the subsequent media blast coverage of her woes that ultimately connected her to the gay community in such a strong and lasting way. Essentially, the implication is that Garland “came out” as non-ordinary after being “raised” to be the most ordinary, which relates to the gay narrative in a very clear way.

            This narrative also reminded me of the infamous 2007 breakdown of Britney Spears, especially because of the way that the gay community cherishes that cultural moment to this day. I also think it’s super important to mention one of the first truly viral videos that I can remember, which was made by a white gay male in defense of Britney at this time: Chris Crocker’s video entitled “Leave Britney Alone”. This video features Crocker in full-blown hysteria crying about all that Britney had been through up until her breakdown, with poignant lines in the video such as, “All you people care about is making money off of her, she is a HUMAN!” He is obviously referring to the way that the public and media outlets had a field day with photos of Britney shaving her head and (seemingly) hitting a car with an umbrella.

When Dyer talked about the way that gay writing about Garland changed throughout the gay liberation movement, he mentioned that the emphasis changed “from Garland representing gay men’s neurosis and hysteria to her representing gay men’s resilience in the face of oppression.” While this video is clearly an exhibition of hysteria, I think it is an example of the gay linking of theatricality and authenticity. It is camp in that it balances on a line between parody and earnest plea. I think the clear point to take away is that this gay man is so invested in specifically defending Britney’s humanity, and I don’t think he would have been this invested had her “ordinariness” that was so intentionally crafted by her management and labels hadn’t been so completely obliterated.