Core Post Number One, Week 2 Readings ("To-Be-Looked-At-Ness and What Not")

The series of essays in this weeks readings by Staiger, deCordova, and Hansen were all challenging and interesting in their own ways. As a music student, I find myself with hardly any working knowledge of the film industry and film history, so it was helpful to read both Staiger and deCordova's revisionist histories of the formation of the star industry. In my opinion, Staiger's was a little more difficult to comprehend because it assumed more prior knowledge on the reader's behalf. I found that deCordova's language suited itself much better to  my way of learning and understanding, and I was left with some very interesting concepts to chew on in relation to the formation of the "star system" (which, by the way, sounds a little too similar to the "solar system", in my humble opinion).

deCordova referred to the emergence of this system as the emergence of a particular type of "knowledge", with the site of this knowledge being the actor. It is very relevant and important that this knowledge was "produced" and propagated through different mediums such as magazines, posters, and picture reels, as today these changing mediums alter the forms of knowledge that we may hold, and therefore may change the upper structure of our star system.

I really appreciated deCordova's laying out of the three forms of knowledge that emerged to produce the picture personality. First, the circulation of a name. And what's in a name? Well, apparently, the concealment or revelation of a name could tell you a whole lot about a person. It was fascinating to me that a major reason for concealment of an actor's name was that they were a "legitimate" stage actor who feared being "discovered" in the cinema world, the irony being that not knowing an actors name might in fact mean that they were well known. The second form of knowledge is intertextuality, which necessitates a regular audience who can see one actor in multiple films and grasp the essence of that actor's personality through their performance in these films. The last form of knowledge is "discourse on acting" or discussion of previous stage experience, which for me really stressed the fact that picture personalities were people whose professional lives were up for discussion. Beyond this, deCordova made evident that the main mark of transition between a picture personality and a star was whether or not their private lives were also on the table in terms of public discourse. I find the "reel hero/real hero" wordplay very interesting because of this concept that a star's private life needed to resonate on a moral level with the actions of their characters. I wonder if people think this belief is upheld today or has been turned on its head.

I was very surprised by the Hansen reading because I wasn't expecting to see a discussion that involved Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" so deeply. I personally love that essay because it (quite literally) opened my eyes and taught me a lot about being a critical spectator, but I appreciated Hansen's critique of some of Mulvey's points, as well as her willingness to explore Valentino as a possible contradiction to Mulvey's thesis. I have to say that I can't help but think of Valentino as more of a tool for exploitation of female moviegoers than as a result of the recognition of women as a "socially" significant group. As a music student, this situation reminds me of record companies development of race records after realizing that they could take Black people's money if they simply recorded a couple of Black musicians on vinyl. However, I am definitely interested in learning more about female desire and how it has played out in cinema and in the star system.

The SAGs and the Sluggish Stars (Sheridan Pierce - Supplemental Post #2)

While watching the red carpet coverage of the SAG awards, I was shocked when Jennifer Aniston and Julianne Moore refused to participate in the infamous “mani cam,” which is basically a small red carpet where actresses flaunt their manicures.  My first thought was “How dare they?!”  I felt that I as an audience member should be able to see their manicure when the opportunity presented itself.  This is a red carpet after all, and since actresses are flaunting their designer gowns and jewelry anyway, why not participate in something as fun as the “mani cam.”

For me, this point ties into audience perception.  Although the situation was ridiculous, it changed my perception of these actresses.  It made them appear to be stand-offish, as if they were “above” the rest of the people who had participated in the “mani cam” bit.  And if they really thought it was that absurd, well isn’t the act of standing on a red carpet telling an audience what you’re wearing just as ridiculous?  This made me come to the conclusion that the things that stars say or do often affect their image.  And in many cases, that persona can overshadow any talent that the star might have.  In the case of Lindsay Lohan, (who was actually a very capable actress before her life became derailed) her image has been so tarnished by her “party lifestyle” that audiences do not associate her with acting anymore.

The same weekend as the SAG Awards, there was an event by LAX where television stars from the 80s gathered for a “fan event.”  Among them were Joan Collins, Angie Dickinson, and Penny Marshall, who were very big celebrities in their heyday.  What was surprising about the event was that fans were lined up outside and had to pay to get an autograph or picture with their favorite celebrity.  The fact that stars that were at the peak of fame in the 80s were now selling their autographs for $25 is astounding.  However, one has to also consider that when these stars were at the height of their careers, they didn’t make nearly as much money as TV stars do now.  This event shows the other side of stardom, when the star does not shine as bright and relies on fans to keep them feeling relevant. 

Deja Oliver-Core Post #1, Week 2 Reading

I appreciated that Staiger called out the rhetorical fallacies in historians Jacobs, Hampton and Bernheim’s historical accounts, like withholding dates to strengthen their argument, but still realized their value in a comparative chronology.  While her reading was really economics heavy (and I just don’t get economics that well) it did provide a very solid basis to understand the following readings.  The one thing that struck me in the Janet Staiger reading was her explanation of title cards.  “By 1913, Edison had expanded this [title card] strategy by showing an image of a player and an intertitle with both the character’s and actor’s names…” (11); which I recalled were present in “The Sheik” (1921).  This stood out to me because I had never seen that done in a film before and I didn’t understand why it was necessary. I realize now that I was viewing the title cards through a modern lens, where the star system has been in place for almost a century and audiences know who is in the films they are watching.  It made more sense to me when I viewed the parenthetical statement that followed “clearly this was a carry-over from theater programmes” (11).  The influence and importance of theatre to film in the early stages, an important clarification, was explored even further in the deCordova reading.

I like the differentiation deCordova makes in the stages of the star system, ie the “picture personality” predating the “star system” as we know it today. I think this way of thinking will be helpful for anthropologists and future historians will categorize the cult of celebrity in the 21^st century and how it pertains to technology.  It was interesting to see how the authenticity of the actors in film developed.  The legitimacy film actors had was through their association to the stage which reminds me of how in modern times many people are criticized as being “famous for being famous”; there has to be another avenue, it seems, for celebrities to authenticate themselves in order to deserve their star power.  It is not exactly the same thing but I think it would be interesting to discuss why we as an audience demand authenticity from entertainers and celebrites.

De Cordova's "Emergence of the Star System" Application Today

I found the reading on how the “star” in film came about very interesting because even though the authors were discussing this transformation in early cinema, it made me think about the way we perceive stars today.

Richard de Cordova wrote that the emergence of the star in America correlated with the type of knowledge the public knew about an actor. De Cordova describes three transformations: the discourse on acting, the picture personality, and the star (17). The relationship between what he describes as the picture personality and the star is intriguing in regards to today’s perception of stars. De Cordova writes that the circulation of the name, intertextuality that restricted knowledge about the actor, and the actor’s previous film experience all create the “picture personality” (24-26). Even though these were steps of knowledge in the early 1900s that led to the emergence of the “star,” the same steps of knowledge can be applied to a budding star today. When an up and coming actor or actress is beginning to book many roles, they might appear in Teen Vogue or Nylon magazines on a “talent to watch” type article. With their many roles, even if only supporting ones, people will start to recognize their face. This, paired with the actors appearing in magazines or on websites leads to name circulation. Then, people may start to associate them with certain roles, and finally, the public will determine the actor’s level of stardom based on their professional experience.

Richard de Cordova writes that the last transformation, into the “star,” occurs when their private life emerges and can be compared to their professional life. Jennifer Lawrence is a good example of de Cordova’s definition of the emergence of the star in America. Lawrence was in a few movies that peaked interest in her and encouraged distant familiarity with her face before her Oscar-nominated performance in Winter’s Bone. After her appearance at the Academy Awards for Winter’s Bone, Jennifer Lawrence’s name was officially in circulation and people were comparing her previous film experience--officially making her a picture personality. When she booked the leading role in the franchise of The Hunger Games, Lawrence emerged as a star. Fans obsess over her private life, especially seen with her leaked nude photos and relationships, and they desperately attempt to understand her as a person separate from the version of her they love on screen. Even though de Cordova was describing the emergence of the star in early cinema, I think it is clear that his stages of emergence still hold true in star culture.

Working on Set- Supp Blog #1 Shelby Adair

A few summers ago, I had the opportunity to work on set of a GLAAD PSA with director/producer Brett Ratner. The concept was to "Come Out of the Closet for Equality," followed by various celebrities walking out of a literal closet and speaking directly into the camera. I had no idea that when I was offered a PA job that I would get to meet all sorts of celebrities like Jackie Chan, Jason Alexander, Charlie Sheen, Pauley Perrette and DeRay Davis. All of the crew and talent were there as volunteers, so I was surprised that so many showed up in their own free time, but it turns out that a lot of these people knew Ratner from working with him in the past and were volunteering as a favor to him-- and as an advocate to the cause. I was assigned the  job of greeting each celebrity when they pulled into the parking lot and then walking them inside to speak to the producer. Although there are a lot of people coming in and out of a busy studio parking lot, it was pretty easy to spot our guests because they usually arrived in g the shiniest, newest Mercedes Benz or Jaguar. But not all. Shawn Ashmore arrived in a light blue Prius, and I didn't even recognize him at first because he looked and acted so causal. Since I had walked a ways down to meet him at the gate entrance, he offered to drive me up the road to the set! Although he was clearly just a normal, really cool guy, I still geeked out for a moment that I was sitting shotgun to "Iceman" from X-men! I also specifically remember meeting Charlie Sheen because it was around the time that he used the word "winning" a lot and gained more fame for his abnormal interviews. I was unsure of what to expect, but he and his bodyguard/driver were so fun and friendly! While Charlie did his bit for the camera, me and his bodyguard hung out in the back of the studio chatting--mostly about their elaborate shortened limo that had a huge TV and several mini bars in the back seat. My job instructions were to interact with the guests and help them feel welcome, so I was simply doing my job!
I made a strong point to act completely normal the whole time and treat all the celebrities like I would any normal person, which really wasn't  hard since each person was so laid back. It was a cool experience, especially to interact with so many interesting people in one day. I have never been star-struck, but there is a certain level of shock and surrealism when interacting with the people seen on TV;  although it was the first time meeting them, I had a (one-way) level of familiarity towards them that I had to ignore and pretend like I had never google searched them or watched them each week on TV in my living room. It is amazing how meeting just a few people can be such a life highlight.


 The PSA series that were to be shown on HBO are now available on the GLAAD webpage (http://www.glaad.org/blog/glaad-launches-psa-campaign-created-brett-ratner-asking-allies-come-out-equality)

The reel hero vs. the real hero - Sandhya Nadadur Blog Post #2

deCordova’s reading grapples with the issue of a player or actor’s role outside of his or her work in films by asking the question: is your reel hero ever a real hero? While his essay and this question refers to the beginnings of the “star” system in the early 1900s, in my opinion, the separation – or lack thereof – between character roles and the individual who is regarded as the “star” remains relevant to our contemporary understanding of stars as well. deCorva’s response to this question in light of the early 1900 star system was that the real hero behaves just like a reel hero because the “the private life of the star was not to be in contradiction with his/ her film image” (27).  In other words, it is out of necessity that the actor have a persona outside that is just as much a performance in order to promote his or her actual performance, harkening back to the way theater actors were consumed by their roles both on and off stage. 

But, in the literal sense, the idea that reel and real hero’s are the same no longer holds; the fact that prominent film stars have political and social clout suggests that their prominence on screen translates into power off-screen. Indeed, that few days after the earthquake in Haiti Angelina Jolie was seen working beside the UNHCR in the country as a US ambassador, or Ben Affleck is consistently invited to the White House Correspondent’s dinner, supports this sentiment.

This brings to the surface a subtlety in the relationship between the star’s role on screen and his or her persona off screen. Unlike when the star system first surfaced, it seems that in the modern star system, there is more of a symbiotic relationship between the character and the persona. That is, a star may gain prominence for a role they played on screen, but in turn, the social recognition they receive as a result of this performance translates into social prominence off screen – a mutually beneficial relationship.

That the relationship between on and off screen persona is more circular, conflates the original separation film sought between character and persona. deCordova mentions how film actors felt that at the end of the day they could return home and become “normal” people again. However, the idea that Angelina Jolie or Matt Damon is still performing their role as “stars” off of the screen, be that in Haiti or at the White House Correspondent’s dinner, conflates these two roles. As a result, we cannot help but ask if our modern star system isn’t too different from the theatrical stardom it once separated itself from. At the end of the day, do Angelina Jolie and Matt Damon return home and cease to be stars? Probably not.

Peggy Song - Core Response #1

“Lean, hot-eyed and Latin, Valentino was every woman’s dream…” No doubt, Rudolph Valentino was very popular among the female spectators. As sparked by the emancipation and their integration into the consumer culture after WWI, women spectators were classified as “socially and economically significant group” (Gledhill, 262). The cinema was explicitly addressing to the female spectators because they drove the industry. With the changing course of femininity and sexuality, Valentino was one of those stars that closed the gap between traditional patriarchal ideology and the awareness of the “female experience, needs, and fantasies of the other” (263).

Before the 1909, the players’ names were not known to the public, but by 1912, most of them had been discovered which was probably due to the credit system. The credit system in films was started by The Edison Company, which was one of the earliest and most aggressive companies to promote their players. This strategy was seen in the silent film we watched last week, The Sheik, where the characters were introduced with the actors’ names. With people began to recognized these actors (and attaching the characters’ names to the actors’ names), fan magazines became useful in exploiting both the films and their players—and they became a profit-making machines. By 1912, the “star system” was truly born. The audiences were certainly “seeing them” and knowing that they were seeing them.

The most definite form of identification in Valentino films was that of recognition. Valentino films were driven by his “charisma” since the films he did were essentially adapted from costume dramas, which were notoriously known to have weak narratives. So to engage his viewers, Valentino had to live up to his “Latin Lover” status through the succession of masks, disguises, and scenarios.  His characters combined two sides of a “melodramatic dualism” (271). In The Sheik, Ahmed was known as the barbaric son of the desert until it was revealed at the end of the film that he was of British descent. As a woman spectator, she recognized him in all of his disguises and she essentially knew who he was; while the female protagonist, Lady Diana in this case, who found out who he truly was and only to fall deeper love with him in the end.

But it was not only his charisma or his disguises that drive his female spectatorship. His unruliness and barbarian characteristics emphasized on the sadistic aspect of the Valentino persona. The act of force and keeping Lady Diana captive could be seem as an interesting instance of sadomasochistic role-playing. Plus, his representation as the “he-man” or the “the menace” was widely advertised to the audiences—and the women “were to find in The Sheik a symbol of omnipotent male who could dominant them as the men in their own lives could not” (272). A scene that demonstrated this idea was when Ahmed told Diana to lie still on his horse—displaying his virility and dominance. In a sense, it represented his masculinity as the “Latin Lover.” He was different and the female spectators found pleasure at the prospect of being humiliated by the British-bred Barbarian (273). In a better example (or lack thereof) of the current culture, Valentino’s character was like Christian Grey of Fifty Shades of Grey. Their domineering personas made the female spectators “swoon” even in the most sadistic way.

And also a familiar pattern of this type of characterization was staging the exchange of looks between Valentino’s character and his female lover. As Hansen suggested in her article, “whenever Valentino laid eyes on a woman first, we can be sure that she would turn out to be the woman of his dreams, the legitimate partner in the romantic relationship” (265). This is quite apparent in The Sheik when Ahmed first laid his eyes on Lady Diana and when the camera singled out her in the shot within his point of view. As the camera panned to his face, we can see that “awakening desire.” Moreover, the scene when he stopped and stared at Diana while she was sleeping clearly demonstrated that effect where the female presence “freeze the flow of action in the moments of erotic contemplation” (266).

All in all, Valentino was marketed as a blend of sexual vitality and romantic courtship and his foreign status or his “exoticism” allowed the female spectators to indulge in a fantasy. Therefore, it is unsurprising that Valentino’s body became their fetish; Valentino received intimate garments from his fans in the male with the request to kiss and return them (281). This type of fan service is still present today (and even in the teenage culture). Young fans of the British boy band One Direction also threw their undergarments onstage in hopes that the boys would “keep it.”

Supplemental Post: Mila Kunis Caused Me To Lose Weight

Mila Kunis Caused Me To Lose Weight. No, not in the way you’re all thinking. I didn’t see photos of her and think that my body had to be a certain way. That had nothing to do with it. It all started in June of 2012 when my best friend Lindsey convinced me to take a spinning class with her. She had been trying to get me to go for a while but I was petrified. I played sports in high school but having been in college for a year, I kind of fell out of shape. She told me that Mila Kunis was in her class the other day and apparently goes all the time, so I decided to give it a try. It would be cool to see her; she’s a big star! This was a year or so after Black Swan came out and she was still a pretty big deal, as she typically is. We went to class that night and she wasn’t there, but we spun anyways and worked our butts off. Somehow Lindsey convinced me to go again the next morning.

We walked in the class and guess who was there; Mila Kunis, in all her Lululemon glory. She was there alone, making small talk with some of the other students. Lindsey wanted to say something to her but we didn’t know what to say. We made sure to think of something that could generate a conversation but not come off like big fans. In hindsight it’s so silly, but at the time we were very excited. Lindsey ended up asking Mila where she got her spinning shoes since Lindsey and I had regular tennis shoes on. We were expecting a short answer, but she ended up telling us about a few places and the different kinds of shoes they had. We felt special that she gave us that much of her time.

The class began and I quickly realized that me being there was a big mistake. I couldn’t feel my legs and my butt was sore. I didn’t eat breakfast either and as we began to spin, a part of me knew that I wasn’t going to finish the class. Fifteen minutes in, I started to feel light headed and told Lindsey that I felt like I was going to faint. She assured me that I was fine. I then assured her that I wasn’t. I got off the bike and it happened. I fainted in the middle of class. A few people helped me up and dragged me to the lobby, where they gave me crackers and water. I was mortified. I tried to laugh it off but I don’t know if anyone thought I was cool enough to brush it off. After class, Lindsey came out to me and made sure I was okay. Mila then came out and mockingly told me that Lindsey is a bad friend because she continued to spin after I fainted without making sure I was fine. She asked if I was okay and then told us a story about her friend who fainted and cracked her chin open. The three of us then walked over to Starbucks and chatted some more. We never talked about her being in the industry or who she was. She was just a girl in our class and these fifteen minutes were more than we ever expected.

The next day, we walked into class and she was there again. We could get used to this, we thought. Everyone got on his or her bike and Mila sat in front of us. Right before we began, she turned around to me and teased, “don’t faint.” We laughed and then had a great class. For the rest of the summer, Lindsey and I went spinning every single day hoping to run into Mila. Out of the 60 or so days we went there, Mila was in 40 or so of our classes. We chatted and had laughs, never once mentioning who she was or what she did for a living. I think it was refreshing for her especially on the days where she would walk in pissed off because of the paparazzi outside. She even told me that Lindsey and I reminded her of her and her friend. We often wondered how this experience was real. It wasn’t even anything life changing, but it was cool enough for us.

After we went back to school, we never saw her again. She had a baby and we’ve both been busy. Looking back on it, it’s crazy that one person and the idea of getting to know her could cause us to exercise everyday and spend so much money on spin classes. I wonder what we really thought could happen if we kept seeing her everyday. Would she take us to set? Would she take us to an event? No way. We knew none of that was going to happen. We also knew that we were crazy for caring so much. She’s a person just like anyone, but her celebrity status put her on a pedestal for us. We made fun of ourselves everyday like one would make fun of themselves for loving The Real Housewives. Even though we felt a little silly about it, our summer with Mila was fun and exciting and it gave us a memory we will never forget. Plus, it gave me a great ‘most embarrassing moment’.  

Jinghan's core post #1 Some thoughts on SID reading

        DeCordova's essay The Emergence of the star system in America argues that three significant transformations affect the star system: 1. The discourse on acting 2. The picture personality and 3. the star. I found the second point-- the picture personality really interesting because this feature, which has appeared by 1909, still applies for today's star system. I think DeCordova makes a very important statement in general, that star system is an industry--an economic reality. Hollywood create stars because of the economic benefit the stars could bring to Hollywood. A very obvious feature to identify if the person has became a star is to see if the audiences have remember his/ her name, so Hollywood kind of have to circulate the stars' names. But by what means? One quick way is to create the identification of an actor in a specific film with a name. We can also see this method today. When we talk about the Batman, we think of Christian Bale; when we talk about the Iron Man, we think of Robert Downey... Audiences always remember a star's name by his/ her most well-known figure in motion pictures. This applies to Rudoph Valentino as well. When his name come up, the pubic (especially female) always put an equal sign to his name and masculine feature. Only by first characterize the star with the thoroughgoing articulation of his/ her picture personality could the public later on recognize the star's existence outside his/ her work in films. Thus, I found De Cordova's second point is very persuasive to me.
        In Hansen's essay, he points out that "Increasingly, women spectators were perceived as a socially and economically significant group and films were explicitly addressed to a female spectator, regardless of the actual composition of the audience. As Hollywood manufactured the Valentino legend, promoting the fusion of real life and screen persona that makes a star, Valentino’s female admirers in effect became part of that legend" (p. 262). I have two comments agreeing with Hansen's statement. First of all, women spectators being seen as the significant group is still valid for today. For example, I have watched the all five films of Twilight Saga in cinema. According to my observation, the house is always full-seated and almost all the audiences are female. Even there were some male audiences most of them were there to keep their girlfriends accompanied. Hollywood manufactures figures such as vampires and werewolves to gain female admirers, by doing so they can create their stars and gain box offices. My second point is that today's male superstars who are able to draw the most attention from the public are without exception those who can gain most admiration from female fans. Hollywood have shaped Valentino, as well as today's male superstars in a very masculine figure in both films and their real lives.

Jennica Wragg Supplemental Post #1- Working the SAG Awards Yesterday, Where all the "Stars" come out?

I had the privilege of working the SAG Awards this past weekend which I thought I had to post about considering it is probably one of the most notable events that takes place every year featuring stars and celebrity. The SAG Awards are unique because they specifically honor actors or  “stars” achievement as opposed to a culmination of cinematic talent in various areas such as directing, screenwriting, and visual effects etc. that the Awards shows such as the Golden Globes and Academy Awards recognize.

            The SAG Awards are a particularly interesting event when we think about stars and celebrity because those invited and those who attend are generally those who are nominated for Awards but we do not have our “Kim Kardashian, and Kylie Jenner” type reality based and self made stars in attendance for this event. One of the interesting points about this weeks reading was the chapter on how the film star developed and the way in which talent was recognized preceded the development of the “star persona” that certain stars were expected to perform and uphold certain standards outside their film roles. Awards season in a way epitomizes the star as exhibiting a certain level of talent based solely or primarily on their specific onscreen performance as opposed to their “performance” in their everyday lives. The recognition these stars receive from both their fans awaiting their arrival, the photographers taking their photos on the red carpet, and ultimately the publicity they receive should they win an award is due to their performance in a specific film or television show.  However, to contrast this idea that it is purely their performance in particular role that denotes certain individuals the “star quality” at the SAG awards was illustrated by the fans excitement over the arrival of certain individuals in particular film stars who have developed their persona from not only the role they were being recognized for, but rather from the combination of multiple film roles over the entirety of their career. This raises the question if Awards shows actually highlight the achievement of a certain performance that occurred by a specific actor during that year or rather highlight the strong star persona of a particular individual that has been developed based on multiple film roles throughout their career in which another performance only illuminates their star quality but cannot necessary be associated with a particular level of talent.

            For the red carpet portion of the show my job was simple or at least I thought it would be – I was assigned to be the talent spotter along with another individual who in turn we were in charge of announcing all of the talent who arrived.  What I found was that I was caught in the same trap the fans across the street were in which was I only really had an idea of who a particular star was if I had seen them in various roles other than the ones they were nominated for. This means that I was recognizing these stars based on their personas rather than their actual role they were coming to the ceremony to be recognized for. The gray area between distinguishing how we develop a certain respect or fan base for a certain “star” is illustrated quite clearly when we think of Awards ceremonies where it become difficult to distinguish on what timeline we actually develop our respect for a certain individual and determine they are a star versus just an actor nominated for an award because it would seemingly mean that if “star” is directly correlated with talent then everyone arriving at the Awards ceremony should be considered a star based purely on their level of talent and achievement. However, this was not the case- there are presenters who arrive that clearly have developed a larger “star personality” than those actually nominated which was exhibited based on the ability to recognize them and excitement over their arrival, level of security etc. that set them apart from their other colleagues who were nominated for awards but were not necessarily considered the “stars.”

            Another interesting quality about these Awards was the way that instead of honoring specific individuals many awards are given to entire casts. This is interesting because these casts are recognized as a whole as opposed to giving credit to individuals with their given names or even character names.  I was assigned the job of escorting the Downton Abbey Cast through all of their winning press and I can personally attest to having absolutely no clue who the individual actors were yet this was the winning cast who was being recognized for having the Best Drama Series on TV this year thus shouldn't they be considered stars since their level of talent has clearly set them apart? However, can we consider them stars when the majority of us do not even know their name both character and actual name? One interesting thing about several members of the cast was that they have had relatively limited experience outside of that one show thus their persona is largely constructed based solely on Downton Abbey thus raising the question if their star power will follow due to the recognition they have received based on their performance in that particular show or if their lack of filmic roles will make it difficult for them to develop individual personas since they are constantly grouped together as a cast and lack the ability to individualize their performances with a variety of different casts throughout a variety of different roles as film stars typically do. Lastly, this brings up the notion of if we can group TV “stars” into the same group as film “stars.”  While the SAG awards uniquely combines both types of media the Academy Awards do not and considering those are typically thought of as the most coveted awards to receive in Hollywood does this mean we are discounting TV stars are less significant than film stars? If films are a dying medium and the majority of content being produced will either be released in TV format or online as opposed to theatrically how does it change our notion of who is a star and celebrity and will the power of individual celebrities like Marilyn Monroe and Judy Garland etc. become a concept of the past.

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

New Award Show? (A Supplemental Post)

Could Hollywood see a new award show? 

http://www.dailynews.com/arts-and-entertainment/20150121/after-oscar-nominations-new-awards-show-wants-to-celebrate-diversity-in-hollywood

An entertainment insider is seeking to develop the Myriad Honors Award Show. This would allow for a distinct honor that focuses exclusively on minority and foreign talent that are often overlooked. 

I found it odd that nothing like this existed. How could we live in a society that (proclaims at least) to recognize and support minorities, and not include this within film awards?

I took a look into past award recipients of the Oscars and found additional awards presented. These include:

The Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award

Presented to a creative producer whose body of work reflects a consistently high quality of motion picture production.

The Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award

Given to an individual in the motion picture industry whose humanitarian efforts have brought credit to the industry. Given for extraordinary lifetime achievement, exceptional contributions to the motion picture arts and sciences, or outstanding service to the Academy.

The Honorary Award

Given for extraordinary lifetime achievement, exceptional contributions to the motion picture arts and sciences, or outstanding service to the Academy.

There are 4 additional awards presented for Scientific achievements. Within the Oscars, one award is presented to a foreign language film.  

Other award shows include: 

• American Film Institute 
• Austin Film Critics Association 
• Black Film Critics Circle 
• Boston Society of Film Critics 
• Broadcast Film Critics Association 
• Central Ohio Film Critics Association
• Chicago Film Critics Association 
• Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association
• Denver Film Critics Society 
• Detroit Film Critics Society
• Florida Film Critics Circle 
• Gay and Lesbian Entertainment Critics Association
• Georgia Film Critics Association 
• Golden Raspberry Awards 
• Gotham Awards
• Indiana Film Journalists Association 
• Iowa Film Critics 
• Kansas City Film Critics Circle
• Las Vegas Film Critics Society 
• Los Angeles Film Critics Association 
• Maverick Movie Awards 
• Murray Film Critics Circle Awards
• National Society of Film Critics
• Nevada Film Critics Society
• New York Film Critics Circle 
• New York Film Critics Online 
• Nollywood and African Film Critics Awards 
• North Carolina Film Critics Association
• North Texas Film Critics Association 
• Oklahoma Film Critics Circle
• Phoenix Film Critics Society 
• San Diego Film Critics Society 
• San Francisco Film Critics Circle
• Seattle Film Critics 
• Southeastern Film Critics Association 
• St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association 
• NYU Tisch School of the Arts Wasserman Award
• Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association 

• Chicago International Film Festival
  • Gold Hugo (best picture)
  • Silver Hugo (picture runner-up, actor, actress, director and cinematography)
• Sundance Film Festival
  • Grand Jury Prize
  • Audience Award
• Hawaii International Film Festival
  • Golden Maile (best picture)
• Seattle International Film Festival
  • Golden Space Needle (best picture)
• Slamdance Film Festival
• The 20/20 Awards in Seattle, WA
• Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
  • Academy Awards, popularly known as the Oscars
• Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films
  • Saturn Awards
• American Choreography Awards
• American Cinema Editors Golden Reels
• American Society of Cinematographers
• Art Directors Guild
• ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers) Film and Television Awards
• Aurora Awards
• AVN (Adult Video News) Awards
• BMI Film Music Awards
• Casting Society of America
• Cinema Audio Society
• Costume Designers Guild
• Creative Spirit Award
• The Decade Awards
• Directors Guild of America Awards
• EDI Reel Awards
• Film Your Issue College Film Awards
• Golden Trailers
• Gotham Awards – Independent Feature Project
• Hollywood Foreign Press Association
  • Golden Globe Awards
• Hollywood Makeup and Hairstylist Guild
• Hollywood Reporter Key Art Awards
• Hollywood Reporter YoungStar
• Independent Spirit Awards 
• International Animated Film Society / ASIFA-Hollywood
  • Annie Awards
• International Film Music Critics Association (IFMCA) Awards
• International Press Academy
  • Satellite Awards 
• Motion Picture Sound Editors
• Murray Motion Picture Academy
  • MMPA Awards
• NAACP
  • Image Awards
• Producers Guild of America Awards 
• Publicists Guild of America Awards
• Screen Actors Guild Awards
• USC Scripter Award
• Visual Effects Society Awards
• Writers Guild of America, East & Writers Guild of America, west
  • Writers Guild of America Award 
• Young Artist Awards

Also, recently, Jessica Chastain received an award at the 2015 Critics' Choice Awards. In recognition of MLK Day, her speech recognized the need for diversity:

“Today is Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, so it got me thinking about our need to build the strength of diversity in our industry, and to stand together against homophobic, sexist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic and racist agendas. I’m an optimist and I can’t help but feel hopeful about the future of film, especially looking at all of the beautiful people in this room. Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.’ And I would like to encourage everyone in this room to please speak up. Thank you.” 

What do you think? Could Hollywood, and America, benefit from establishing a new venue to recognize under-represented minorities in film?