Jinghan's core post #5 some thoughts on feminism-- in terms of star image and fans identification

        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. 

       

Jinghan's core post #4: body shape and star power of Jennifer Lopez

        "The first thing that came to my head was the 'Butt' Girl because that separates me from everyone else. I love my body. I really, really dig my curves. It's all me and men love it. Some guys like skinny girls, but they're missing out. When a dress is on a woman, it shouldn't look like it's on a coat hanger. So many girls here are so thin-in fact nobody else in Hollywood really has my type of body. My husband calls it "La Guitarra," like the shape of a guitar, which I love because that was always my ideal woman growing up. So call me the "'Guitar Girl."!" (Beltran, 75)
        This is Jennifer's response to Movieline when she was being interviewed on her body shape as the cover story in February 1998. We have to admit that what differentiate her from other female stars is indeed her body shape and skin color. And the tags that come along with her name-- Puerto Rican and Latino. Although she is American. her ethnic identity contributes a big portion to her success in the U.S..Since she has the ideal Latin beauty-- that is, "neither too dark nor too light" (Negron-Muntaner, 183). On this cover, we see Lopez wears nothing but a white fur, her body shape has been displayed in a sexy and healthy appearance. She is not skinny, but her body reveals to us in the most plumpest way and appear to be very attractive. If her skin color satisfied what is the so-called Latin beauty by being neither too dark nor too light, I would say her body shape satisfied mainstream society's fantasy on a woman's body, that is being not skinny but sensual to audiences. Since "a first step in the media construction of a star image that emphasized what was constructed as extraordinary sex appeal"(Beltran, 75).

        Jennifer Lopez's star power has never been able to separate from her body image. Take another magazine cover for instance. Jennifer Lopez also appeared on October 9, 1998 Entertainment Weekly cover with the same setup. No clothes at all except a pair of black tights. She covers her breasts with a big smile and looks at readers with her flirty eyes and smile. It was when "the body-focused publicity actually began" (Beltran, 74). Her most controversial film but also the one that makes her super famous for her body shape is the film Selena (1997). After that, "much of Lopez's publicity for the film, especially in the Spanish-language and English0language Latino-oreinted media, focused on the fact that she didn't use any padding to play the bottom-heavy singer who often wore body-hugging costumes on stage" (Beltran, 74). From then, Jennifer's butt has became very famous and has contributed to her successful without any doubts. We hear her talks about her real butt (nothing fake no surgeries at all) all the time. And she seems really proud of it. Well she should be. Since "star images serve as definers of power and identity for a society. Nonwhite stars have particular salience in this regard, given that social and racial hierarchies are both reflected in and reinforced by a nation's system of stardom" (Dyer, as cited in Beltran, 72). Her big success in Hollywood, could not be gained without considering her star image allied with her body shape. After all, "as the hottest Latina actress in Hollywood at the time, Lopez was picked so she could deliver in the language every backer understood best: dinero, mucho dinero (money, lots of money). 

taste of U.K. vs. taste of U.S.

        I visited United Kingdom during spring break. Since we will talk about whiteness and taste for the coming week, I think it would be a great idea to compare the difference between Britain and America in terms of culture and movies.

        Personally I believe that movies always represent and reflect a nation's culture. If anything impressed me the most between the two countries' contrast, I would say it is the value differences revealed by these two countries' films. Hollywood films are quite famous for the tag-- big budget films. For almost every hot hit film that produced by Hollywood studios, one of their publicity tool is to announce how much they've spent on the film. Take Cinderella as an example. All they are trying to sell is that how much they spent on the dress--270 yards of fabric, dotted with butterflies and more than 10,000 Swarovski crystals... But no one's mentioning the film content. According to the feedback from those who have watched the film, the most frequently quotes I've heard about are "there's nothing in the film besides the fancy clothes!"

        However, comparing to another recent hot hit film that is on view right now. Kingsman: the secret service. There is no big production budget, but it just gained universal good reputation. The story is funny, the development is unpredictable, and above all, who doesn't love British accent?

        During this trip, I had a chance to have a little discussion with some of my peers who study films in Britain  We all agree that American films are fancier on the outside looking. But we won't compliment the value being filtered through Hollywood films-- expensive cars, gorgeous women, men with power... They all too artificial. However, on the other side, although British films are in general can't compete with Hollywood films' big production budget, but their stories have the depth to remind audiences of something else. Bridget Jones reminds us to be patient for the coming of true love; Love Actually reminds us the warmness of gathering together with families and friends and the people you love at Christmas; Kingsman reminds us to be a decent and honest person... British films are always promoting positive values, while Hollywood films are more and more preferring the value of judging people based on their fortune. 

        While I have to admit this Hollywood films' taste about judging people's success based on their ability to earn money is not totally wrong, since it does encourage people to work hard. But personally I would still prefer  British films' spirit-- an encouraging and warming atmosphere. 

      

Jinghan's core post #3 Is it the stereotype? Or is it genre?

          Among this week's readings, I found Britton's research on "the star 'vehicle' " is a little bit hard to understand for me. But some of his points actually make sense even in today's Hollywood.
          First of all, I want to talk about his statement on what this vehicle has provided to us. He says, this vehicle might provide
1. a character of the type associated with the star (e.g. Monroe’s ‘dumb blonde ’ roles, Garbo’s melancholic romantic roles). I think his statement is similar like today's persona stereotype when casting actors for certain types of films. When we see Monroe in How to Marry a Millionaire, we bought this kind of film because her image fits the role perfectly, so does Garbo in Wild Orchids.

2. a situation , setting or generic context associated with the star (e.g. Garbo in relationships with married men, Wayne in Westerns…);

or (c) opportunities for the star to do her/ his thing
I would immediately think of Gene Kelly in Sinin' in the Rain.

        Just like what Britton believes, vehicles are important as much for what conventions they set up as for how they develop them, for their ingredients as for their realisation. In certain respects a set of star vehicles is rather like a film genre such as the Western, the musical, the gangster film. However, I do not think Britton's idea is anything like today's people would talk about "oh you know this type of genre is his/ her thing, he/she always takes this kind of films. Genre is everything way larger than a stereotype "role", vehicles certainly provide distinct sub-set, but genres have contexts, contents, not just one vehicle-- the stereotyped stars' roles.
        In fact, plenty of stars often cross genres in order to avoid the stereotype images in audiences' minds. Honestly, I don't think it is a good thing for anyone become famous because of their first roles in a film. One perfect example is Harry Potter series, no matter how hard Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, or Rupert Grint try, they couldn't get rid off the images audiences have for them in Harry Potter. Because their first roles as actors are Harry, Hermione, and Ron. I don't know if my expression makes sense but I think this is what Britton's criticizing in his texts, star images doesn't equal to genres.
       I would love to hear any different opinions if I get his ideas wrong, since this article is the first one that confuses me so far among our readings.

Jinghan's post 3: when celebrities get married

        I'm overwhelmed by the news of Johnny Depp marries Amber Heard on February 3rd. I heard so  many people, especially women backbiting about Amber Heard. Mostly because she marries thousands of women's dreamboat and they don't think Heard deserves it. This reminded me of the Valentino reading. It seems like whenever male stars or celebrities get married, they always cause more responses than female ones. In my opinion, I think the reason is that female admirers are more likely to have fantasies of getting married with their dreamboats than male spectators. What is more, traditionally speaking, male celebrities often throw luxurious wedding parties. These luxurious wedding parties always cause female admirers' jealousy of the brides. At the same time, with the mood of envy, women intend to search the brands of what the groom and the bride use at the wedding. I think this is the brand effect caused by star power.
        For example, two weeks ago, Asian super star Jay Chou-- who I have admired for 12 years since I was 8, married Hannah Quinlivan in the gorgeous Selby Abbey in Yorkshire, the U.K.

        According to the media reports, Jay Chou has spent more than $20 million (US$633,000) on his wedding party, include his guests' flight tickets from Taiwan and accommodations in the U.K. This does not include his bride's wedding gown and jewelries, which estimated worth $100,0000. Fans got so upset that Jay Chou got married and there's a fun saying that the whole China were crossed in love.  Later on, the jewelry brand Chaument and the wedding dress brand Michael D that Hannah has wore during the wedding attract thousands of women's visiting because of Jay Chou's wedding. They say "If I can't marry Jay Chou, at least I shall try my best to use the Brand that Hannah chose for the wedding for myself".

Jinghan's core post #2 The consumerism in female marketplace from Now Voyager to Gossip Girl

        Although it's been two years since the last episode of Gossip Girl has aired, I still remember the buying spree that Gossip Girl has brought to us, especially its influence in the market of female consumers. At the time, I was in China when the first episode released by the CW. It was not a hit show yet. But then when it comes to the second season, all of the sudden everyone, even boys started  talking about their dress, their lifestyle, their elegant home in the upper east side, and their limos. The hot conversations about Gossip Girl were everywhere in big streets and small alleys. However, no one cared about the acting, all people were talking about is just what they have wore and used in the latest episode. On a Chinese electronic commerce website, "same style as the one appears in Gossip Girl" has became the hot words. Yes that's what phenomenon Gossip Girl has caused in China, 10000 miles away from where the CW shoots the drama.
        Later, when I came to the U.S., my first time visiting Roger Vivier, the sales assistant at the Neiman Marcus specifically told me there were one shoes is the same style as Blair's when she met the prince. And she said, "it's sold out everywhere, we only have this last one left". Subsequently, I learned whatever the brand was, as long as it has appeared in this show, its sales boosted. Although most of the brands that appeared in Gossip Girl are luxurious brands, people (I mean women here) were still scrambled for having those merchandises. We want to look like Blair or Serena, but we forget that those two girls don't have to pay for those merchandises, those brands sponsored them. Until now, I just learned from Eckert that Hollywood plunge into American marketplace has started from 1920s. And I found the two histories he mentions are very true and clear: that of the showcasing of fashions, furnishings, accessories, cosmetics and other manufactured items, and that of the establishment of ‘tie-ups’ with brand-name manufacturers, corporations and industries.

        Also, the fans phenomena he writes in his article--
While DeMille perfected a film display aimed at the fashion conscious, fan magazines and studio publicity photos helped spread an indigenous Hollywood ‘outdoors’ style made up of backless bathing suits, pedal-pushers, slacks, toppers and skirts. By the early 1930s these styles had penetrated the smallest of American small towns and had revolutionised recreational and sport dress.
I think this is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of the stars power reflected from Gossip Girl.
         What is more, I could not agree more with Gledhill's criticize on the "notion that identity is defined by the opinions of others, whose approval and disapproval create the self, and that these judgments are based primarily on a woman's appearance" in Now, Voyager. In fact, I think this notion has been existed and has been the mainstream ideology even until now. Otherwise there will not be women who spend time on loosing weight, keeping a diet, going to beauty salons, and above all, became so crazy try to get whatever the star has used in her films or television dramas.

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.