Supplemental Post 2 - Vittoria Rizzardi Penalosa

I’m interning at Gina Rodrguez’s production company, so basically I'm doing coverage all day. I wanted to share with you guys something that thoroughly bumped me while reading all those scripts that are circulating in the industry at the moment. 

Although we’re in the middle of a revolution where women are finally gaining a true voice in society, in the film industry women’s characters aren’t making much progress. I came to this conclusion after having read characters’ description such as, “sassy, Valley girl with a brain” or even worst “23 with her breasts threatening to explode through her thin shirt.” It is appalling how someone feels the need to underline that a “valley girl” has a brain, as if one would have taken for granted that that valley girl didn’t have a brain. I can’t even comment on the second example of female character description that I wrote. It's simply wrong and shouldn't be tollerated. 

Moreover, those scripts which actually made an effort to respect women or even went for a female character driven story, still fell into the trap of portraying an ideal female figure of their dreams. Perfect, delicate, sexy, and violent; the latter seeming to be a latest trendy addition to the 21^st century perception women.  

Supplemental Post 1 (Josie Andrews) "Now, Voyager" and Consumerism

Supplemental Post 1

Josie Andrews

Because I had the flu last week, I wanted to comment on the film: Now, Voyager (Warner Brothers, Irving Rapper, 1942). This post is a bit long since I could not participate in class discussion last week.

Although not yet assigned, Charles Eckert’s 1957 article, “The Carole Lombard in Macy’s Window,” discusses how Hollywood/film became the site of rampant encouragement of consumerism as the Great Depression ended in the late 1930s. Because this article was linked so perfectly with the film, I decided to read it.  Eckert says that, recognizing the economic importance of the consumer and the dominant role of women as purchasers of most consumer items, film gave companies a captive audience in the 1940s and 1950s that could be manipulated. Film companies now negotiated and received free advertising by companies in exchange for product placement (furniture, coke, Camel cigarettes) in films. Eventually, large film companies, like MGM and Warner Bros, engaged in “tie ups” with companies that gave them exclusive access and use of contract stars (Coca-Cola); e.g., film company would be paid large sum, e.g. $500,000, and then company got exclusive use of star image/ etc. Also, film companies worked in conjunction with designated fashion houses (some who were designers associated with film company) to create fashion trends; selling outfits (originally high end) seen in films by stars; and later copy-cat low-end fashions to those in the films. A side benefit was filmmakers no longer had big expense for props/sets because the company advertising product would provide those products free.

“Mother, from now on, you must give me complete freedom, including deciding what I wear, where I sleep, what I read”—Charlotte Vale). The film Now, Voyager, is a wonderful example of the early consumerism Eckert (and Hansen briefly) discusses that dominated the early 1940s. The film stars Bette Davis as Charlotte Vale, a meek, overweight, mousy woman who has a nervous breakdown because of the cruel domination of her wealthy socialite mother. In the sanitarium, with the help of Dr. Jaquith, a diet, beautiful clothes, hats, heels, elegant make-up, and hair, Charlotte self-defines and dramatically transforms herself into a glamorous, confident woman who is self-reliant and can attract any man. In fact, she uses cosmetics, clothing and hairstyle as a means of resistance to the suffocating circumstances of her Bostonian life. When Charlotte’s mother threatens to cut her off financially, Charlotte aligns labor with power, responding (to her mother’s elitist horror): “I could earn my own living.  I’d make a very good waitress."

In this manner, the film exploits the new “women’s” market discussed by Ecker, telling female audiences that, like Charlotte, they can express their own sexuality and desires for freedom, pleasure and power by purchasing mass-produced commodities. Playing off of the idea that a woman’s social acceptance and marital happiness is conditioned upon the reactions of others to her physical self, advertisers used films, like Now, Voyager, to show that beauty, freedom and power are not inherent states but can be realized by any woman-even a frumpy Charlotte Vale—if they just purchase the right goods. If you can also lose your heavy eyebrows and weight and smoke a few hundred cigarettes—especially, if those cigarettes are sensually lit from Paul Henreid’s (Jerry's) mouth while he is lighting his own cigarette—all the better. Not surprisingly, according to Maria LaPlace, the film had several major tie-ins with national cosmetic companies.

What I truly love about the film is that, in the end, consumerism is not the all-encompassing panacea for all of Charlotte’s needs. While she is self-reliant--more likely due to her separation from her mother and Dr. Jacquith’s (Claude Rains) kindness and therapy--she must sacrifice her desire to have a husband, home of her own or even an adulterous affair, telling Jerry at the end of the film “why ask for the moon. We have the stars.”

One other note, I believe Bette Davis’s performance in Now, Voyager is also a wonderful example of the importance of star persona in a film’s success (Staiger and deCordova Readings).  Bette Davis evolved from early blonde bombshell pin-up films (Human Bondage, 1934) to strong films about women who transgress social conventions with an interesting combination of self-sacrifice and “vamp bitch.” A quick examination of publicity in this time period shows that Warner Brothers effectively used her private life to reflect Davis's changing screen persona during this time period (See March 28, 1938 Time Magazine, “Popeye the Magnificent” and January 23, 1939  Life Magazine, “Bette Davis: She Prefers ‘Attractive Wench’ Parts in Which Her Acting is Hollywood’s High”). Often marketed as unpretentious and a Hollywood "misfit," she was a legitimate Broadway actress which gave her more serious roles credibility, had married twice by the time the film was released, had opened the famous Hollywood Canteen, and was even the first woman to serve as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science president in 1941, furiously resigning after eight weeks because she was supposed to be only a “figurehead.” Also, Warner Brothers was known to revise film scripts significantly during the 1930s-1940s to reflect a star’s personality and online accounts of Now, Voyager’s Revised Final script indicates this occurred.

The ability of Warner Brothers to capitalize on star persona is particularly interesting in this film. First, while the film deliberately constructs Davis as mousy and ugly, the audience knows Bette Davis is beautiful, and part of the pleasure in watching the film is waiting for her disguise to come off—preferably in a magazine-worthy makeover that ordinary women can replicate.  Davis’s willingness to transform herself in such an unappealing way is a sign of her dedication to the craft of acting and talent. Second, given the time period, Now, Voyager surprisingly asked audiences to care and weep about a woman who has an adulterous affair with a married man and then, in an act of self-sacrifice, gives up that love to care for his child.  The publicity surrounding this film was carefully constructed to show Davis as a tragic heroine alone in her black velvet dress and the words “It happens in the best of families. But you’d never think it could happen to her!” Another publicity shot in the black dress is more “vamp-like,” with Davis holding the cigarette that is so prominent in the film, and the words “Don’t blame me for what happened.” The film was a tremendous box office success and solidified Davis’s star persona.

Interesting trivia: I read online that, signed to Warner Brothers with no way out, Davis was a huge box office draw but had no control over her roles and was paid one-third what her male counterparts, like James Cagney, were paid. In the late 1930s, she sued Warner Brothers to be released from her long-term contract. Although unsuccessful, she actually then got roles that she wanted. Now, Voyager was one of those films.  

Josie Andrews: Not a Core or Supplement, Just a Posting

Stars, Celebrities

Readings: Stardom Industry of Desire (SID)

Josie Andrews

Because I had the flu last week, I wanted to comment briefly on the January 23^rd readings and the film: Now, Voyager since I was unable to be in class. I will comment on the first two Readings, which are historical in nature.  I really did not have much to say about the Valentino Reading (Hansen, 1986) other than to remember to keep in context  that the article is written about a time period when women spectators were just gaining respect and interest as an economic group. A time period when charismatic male actors were just being recognized as sites of physical pleasure for women to permissibly gaze at (erotic objects or "subjects of identification" for them to swoon over), and male masculinity was being redefined by Valentino on the big screen. While I thought the "fetish" and "otherness" discussion of Valentino's appeal was fascinating, intellectually, I thought the references to the consumerism culture of the 1940s, when filmmakers used the big screen and stars to sell makeup, clothes, cars, furniture and lifestyles, was more pertinent to the film we watched. As such, after I read this article, I went on and read the Eckert article. 

Reading #1  Seeing Stars by Janet Staiger (1983)

I have always believed that early films promoted directors not stars because legitimate theater stars did not see film as prestigious or stock (company) theater actors may not have wanted their names associated with film; the pay was not as steady or predictable; and film-making companies believed paying stars would cost filmmakers more money and diminish profits and therefore had a policy not to engage in wage wars. I was therefore surprised that by Staiger’s analysis of this myth. Specifically, the Reading asks the Question: when did film actors become more important than the film story itself? To answer this question, the Article tries to identify the start of the “star system in film history” by exploring film historian Lewis Jacobs, Benjamin Hampton and Anthony Slide’s explanations. For example, Jacobs perpetuates the myth that the Trust and independents prohibited name recognition to keep costs down and adopts Florence Lawrence as the trigger point for the star system (Laemmle hired her away from the Patents Trust (Trust) in 1910 and heavily publicized her in films, including a 1910 Movie Picture World story of her death as a gimmick to promote a movie; arguably started bidding wars for stars). In contrast, Hampton dates the star system to Mary Pickford as the first “player” who really connected deeply to audiences. Slide rejects that filmmakers actually prohibited name recognition, discovering early trade magazines promoting stars, like Ben Turpin (1909), Pearl White and Pickford (1910), noting that only Biograph rejected star system until 1913 but that might be more related to its support of stock actors and its rejection of the 100-year old theatrical star system than a pure money concern.  

Recognizing that these historians leave huge history gaps and fail to compare (or often even give) real dates, Staiger conducts her own historic analysis. Initially,  Staiger explores  Bernheim’s four phases of US Theater Economic Development (1800s to 1920s)—which started with a stock system whereby theaters had permanent “house” actors, moving to a star system which still used stock actors as cast members (1820s) whereby stars became more important than the theatrical production , to stars traveling and using their own actor company (stock players almost vanish), to syndication of theater, which controlled all aspects of production and distribution and tied stars up with long term contracts. She then analyzes the evolution of film from “magic” vaudeville-like Nickelodeon acts to narratives to the financial stabilization of the industry when Edison’s patents were upheld.  By 1909, Staiger finds clear evidence that the Edison Company not only hired “stock players” as part of their company but heavily promoted and publicized these actors in their cataloge. By 1911, promotion of actors was in full swing and included: slides of actors between reels to promote upcoming films, Edison’s use of credit system in the films itself, and the introduction of fan magazines for film, including: Motion Picture Story Magazine (1st issue 1911); Moving Picture Takes (1911), Photoplay (1911), and papers, like Chicago Tribune, had Sunday film editions about stars. Staiger notes that, as films became longer, filmmakers had more money to spend, and by 1912, theater stars like Sarah Bernhardt appeared in film.

I found this reading very important, and the main take-away from her article for me was that the star system occurred almost concurrently with the transformation of the industry from "magic of film"  and Nickelodeon-like shorts to longer narrative stories, leading me to believe that audiences connected almost immediately with stars through stories. The industry may have been surprised by this early audience interest in unknown screen actors but, not surprisingly, profit-seeking filmmakers are naturally incentivized to respond to audience desires/wants. If star exploitation brings audiences to theaters, filmmakers will exploit stars.

Reading #2 "Emergence of Star System in America" by deCordova (1985).

This Reading asks the similar question, when did the Star System Emerge? The short answer is that the Star System was the result of the “production of knowledge” about stars. I enjoyed this Reading because it focused on a different aspect of the Star System as a site of carefully orchestrated public knowledge.  The reading walks us through three stages of the star system from discourse-acting to picture personality to star.  Significantly, from 1909-1914: picture personality emerges as economic reality. First, we see the circulation of the actor’s name (site of knowledge) done by almost all film companies (except Biograph) through trade magazines, advertisements, news, lobby posters by exhibitors (all with cooperation of film companies). There is even a “fake” secrecy of actor names but this was done more to create more curiosity and hype that perhaps the actors keep name secret because they are really famous stage actors who don’t want name tarnished by association with film. However, filmmakers restricted knowledge of the actor to the film they were in (intertextuality). The idea was to align actor’s personality off screen with the character seen on screen. This soon evolved somewhat to include the actor’s “professional” existence, e.g. other films actor was in and, to legitimize the film, prior stage roles. By 1911-1920s, audiences wanted more, and the star now became the subject of narrative separate from his/her professional experience. Private lives became a new site of knowledge and truth. Yet, we see this information was regulated to portray film actors as more moral than theater actors: healthier lifestyles with real homes, part of community, etc. Really fascinating because in reading trade magazines from this time period, you can actually see this evolution of public “star” knowledge. What I wondered after reading this article, however, was how much of this transformation was due to industry control and design, and how much was due to audience expectations and desires. I have a feeling it is more the latter.

Supplemental Post 2 - Hana Lee

Yesterday, January 29th, Kim Kardashian West took to breaking the internet once again. She posted a rather... nude photo on Instagram causing a frenzy on social media (the memes were beginning). With the internet already shook by one half of Kimye, West brought his half, the ye, and sent waves through social media as #YeezySeason6 also began trending. Influencers on Instagram and Twitter such as @babymeia, Yovanna Ventura, and @chinqpink began posting photos of themselves reenacting some familiar shots Kim has posted on her Instagram recently. And putting all the pieces together, we finally see the full picture.

The Power of Influencers

First, let's start off with Kim, Kanye's wife and muse. From her humble beginnings as Paris Hilton's friend, through all 37 seasons of Keeping up with the Kardashians, Kim has proved herself a business woman and cultural influencer. Kanye, who has been long time revered by many for his creative vision, is arguably one of the biggest personalities today, known for his rap game, clothing line, and catalyzing the takedown of a washed up artist we once knew (peep the 2009 MTV Music Awards below). 

Kim and Kanye both are powerful enough individually, but when you put them together, they embody an empire that could probably do more than break the internet. They broke what it means to be a star, how you can drop a clothing line, basically all the rules. 

What Kanye's done has altered how we think of stars and has ultimately shifted the advertising model in favor of influencers, hand picking those he wanted sporting the new line. In dropping the 6th rendition of the Yeezy line, West utilizes the stars of today, those with clout. Though we do see familiar celebrities sport Yeezy like Paris Hilton (tbt to that friendship),

we also see influencers who are popular amongst digital natives. This model has never been practiced in such a manner and in turn brings up the question of who are stars or what separates a star from a famous person. As studies have shown how highly social media influencers are perceived by younger generations, this drop could mark a milestone in the future of media and marketing. West's use of niche influencers also shows Kanye's embrace of individualism, regardless of body type, age, and race.

The Clues Along the Way

*Warning: Hindsight Bias

- No New York Fashion Week show? We should've known something was up.

- Kanye continues speaking about his Season 6 drop, despite the lack of participation in NYFW.

#YeezySeason6

https://twitter.com/KimKanyeKimYeFC/status/958495510716993536

Supplemental Post 2 - Lauren Sullivan

I enjoyed seeing another film starring Bette Davis and being able to compare the two roles. All About Eve and Now, Voyager are the only films I have seen her in, so it is interesting to look at how these two roles work in constructing her star persona. Bette Davis does not have an idealized persona, and is instead someone not afraid to be portrayed in unflattering ways. Her roles are not glamorous. Yes, in both films her characters appear to be glamorous at times, which is most of the film for Margo and after her transformation for Charlotte, but Bette Davis is also comfortable removing this glamor. You would never see a star like Marilyn Monroe on screen removing her makeup and rubbing cold cream over her face, or wearing matronly clothes, thick glasses, and bushy, drawn-on eyebrows. A specific, perfected appearance is not apart of Bette Davis’ persona. 

Both films, too, deal with the topic of aging. This was very apparent in All About Eve, as she watches her stardom become eclipsed by younger, fresher faces. In Now Voyager, she also grapples with the expectations of women as they age, as she is seen as an unattractive spinster who wasted her youth obeying her mother. While many stars may try to evade aging and discussion surrounding their age, Bette Davis creates a dialogue about this double standard women deal with through her roles. 

Aside from her appearance, she embraces unflattering roles in other ways, as well. Both Margo and Charlotte convey a great deal of emotional vulnerability on screen. Even when her character puts on a front of strength and confidence before other characters, as seen in Margo, her insecurities are on display for the audience. Her characters are flawed, vulnerable, struggling, and sometimes despicable, as seen in moments for Margo in All About Eve. Her persona is not one that is refined or idealized. Instead she is someone that can be related to and moved by.

Supplemental Post 2 - Joyce Chun

"...the only thing more frightening than watching a black man be honest in America is being an honest black man in America..." This quote by Dave Chappelle was used to introduce Kendrick Lamar as he performed his part in Rich the Kid's "New Freezer".
In one of my other classes today, we talked about this quote and how Kendrick Lamar gave a very strong opening performance at this year's Grammy Awards. He talked about his friend's only son who was murdered, presenting a very strong statement and story to the audience through his music, despite being offered the opportunity to offer a message of peace through his performance. We then talked about how rapidly the rap community was changing, bringing in Kanye and his huge influence over this. It's so interesting to observe how widely the rap community has emerged, from Kanye bringing in innovative "Chipmunk Soul" to rap music to Jay Z being the first rapper to be inducted into the Songwriter's Hall of Fame just last year, with
This goes back to our first week's discussion on who and what makes a star and the difference of being a star versus an artist. Because of this conversation, I started appreciating artists and their efforts in using their talents and passions to make a statement about issues and how much influence it has over those who listen to it.

Supplemental Post 2: Playing Against Role - Benjamin Noble

When we saw Now, Voyager last week, it felt very interesting watching an actress, whom I had read and heard about via readings in class and the internet as typically playing very strong characters, go against her 'persona', playing a very subdued, and nervous character. Even saying this now, it feels slightly strange, as an actor's job is to play any part given to them, and it should come as no shock if they decide to do something different. But, when I think about it in context with the Star as an established persona, created and exhibited by the films/other media forms that they star in, it does begin to make sense. In short, it feels strange seeing stars play a role that seems to go against their own persona.
Once I started thinking about playing against type, I kept on thinking about examples I have noticed in recent movies that I have seen. Examples that come to mind are Steve Carrell in Foxcatcher, Charlize Theron in Monster, and Adam Sandler in The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected). While I haven't seen the latter two, I have still seen significant attention given towards the roles that Theron and Sandler played in their two movies, most often when I stumble upon a Wikipedia article, or in a list compiled by Rotten Tomatoes. In any case, there always seems to be a buzz about actors choosing to go against their 'type', whether it's comedy, drama, sci-fi, etc, mostly because we don't expect this of them, and are surprised to see that they are more than what we believe them to be.
In a way, seeing actors today go against 'type' almost seems like a way for them to demonstrate that they are dynamic human beings, not just character tropes that we see on the screen and expect to be exactly the same when we encounter them in real life.

Supplemental Post 1 - Josh Nallathambi

This past week I was able to go to Park City and attend the Sundance Film Festival. This being my first time, I was excited to go and see the new independent films and also maybe catch a celebrity sighting or two. Luckily, I was able to run into a couple of celebrities that I knew, but it also gave me a perspective on what a star was to different people.

On my second night, I shared an elevator with Joel McHale, who was staying at the same hotel as me. He had an employee from the hotel with him, helping him get to his car for his screening. As I am familiar with his work, I was lowkey dying on the inside. This being as close as I had been to anyone on TV, I had no idea how to react. Do I try to say something, or do I just play it cool and act like I normally would in any other elevator? Luckily, he turned around and asked the rest of the common elevator folk if we were going to see any other films that night. As I froze trying to remember why I skipped class for a week to come here, my mom (who I had totally forgot was there) told him the name of the film we had saw earlier today. Hearing that got me to snap out of my funk and also add the name of the film we were on our way too. He smiled and remarked that both of those films were supposed to be good, then exited the elevator and probably out of my life forever. 

I waited until my mom and I were alone, then quickly said, “that was Joel McHale, he’s on TV.” She looked at me with dead eyes and it hit me. My mom had no idea who he was. What was a celebrity to me could’ve literally been another random dude to my mom, who only watches televangelists and Downton Abbey. The definition of a celebrity or a star was different to her and me. Being a film student and being exposed to most films and TV shows, my familiarity with McHale made him a star to me. My mom had no way to contextualize his fame, so even though he was on TV, he wasn’t a star to her.

Also another sidenote I saw Lil Romeo later at a bar and immediately texted five of my friends “EH OH WATCH IT GO ITS TIME FOR THE ROMEO SHOW I JUST SAW LIL ROMEO”. I got multiple texts of “??? The kid from Like Mike?”. I think I watch too much TV.

Supplemental Post 1 - Madison Lorenz

This past weekend my friend and I got on the topic of who we consider to be celebrities and who we consider just to be "well-known" but not necessarily a celebrity in our eyes. It was interesting to hear her take in comparison to mine. One of the things that she mentioned is that she has a nine year old brother who views YouTube personalities as celebrities. For me, that was funny to hear because when I think "celebrity" I think of Angelina Jolie and I never felt YouTube personalities were at the same rank as someone like Angelina. She said that she was having a conversation at the dinner table with her family and she mentioned that one of her friends is friends with a YouTube personality. Her brother went crazy and started asking a million questions. He was so in awe of learning this fact. This just goes to show how different generations and age groups have different definitions of what a celebrity, or star, is.
I then when on to ask her if she views certain social media personalities, or influencers, as celebrities. She admitted that she would get star-struck by certain Instagram and YouTube personalities and feels that they are up to the standard of a celebrity. On the other hand, I would have to disagree. There are some social media influencers that I feel are "popular" but not necessarily "famous." To me, celebrities are people who are recognized and known amongst different countries and are embraced by groups of people from all over the world. An American Instagram influencer may have some followers from other countries, but most likely if you stopped someone on the street in Europe, they would know who Britney Spears is but they wouldn't know who this influencer is.
I thought this conversation was fun and it was cool getting a different perspective on this topic from someone who isn't involved in the entertainment world.

Supplemental Post 1 - Ali Appelbaum

My friends had a really interesting star sighting experience that I thought I would share! Raven Symone posted that she was having a yard sale in Los Angeles and that she was getting rid of a lot of her stuff. She posted her family’s address and said that she was going to be there. My friends, Parker and Cade, saw this post and decided it would be fun to go. Cade is new to L.A., so he though it was a very “L.A. experience” to be able to go to a celebrity’s yard sale. They thought it was a one day event, and were upset when they weren’t able to go. But, the yard sale stayed open through the weekend and they were able to attend. They looked up the address and realized it was only nine minutes away. As they drove away from USC, the area got a lot less nice and a little unsafe. They were a little nervous and drove past the house a couple of times because they couldn’t find parking. They parked a two minute walk down the street and when they arrived, they were surprised that there were very few people there. There were a few locals and maybe one other couple there from her instagram promotion. They knew that they were going to draw attention because they were clearly in a different demographic than most of the people there. The others were there to actually buy things and Parker and Cade were there because they wanted to check it out and meet Raven.

Raven was sitting on the steps of the porch in a white zip up onesie, which was really dirty. It looked like she was running around in the grass. She had the hood on, wasn’t wearing makeup, and her hair looked like she just woke up. She wasn’t trying to impress anyone. She came up to them and pointed out that a certain box was discounted. Cade picked out a print from the Guggenheim museum, which was ripped at the bottom. He asked how much it was and Raven said it was garbage and he could have it for free. She called him “sweetie.” Cade bought a book and Parker picked out some video games. Raven went inside the house and someone from her family went up to them and said “Raven is going to leave soon, so if you want a picture you can do it now.” The family obviously knew they were there to meet Raven. They paid about twenty dollars for all of their items, Raven came outside, they took a selfie with her, and she left.

Parker and Cade said the experience humanized Raven a lot. Raven was Cade’s favorite Disney star growing up and he said seeing her family really put things into perspective and made him think about how hard she probably had to work to get where she got in acting and in her career. This is relevant to what we have been discussing in class because we have been discussing the intersection of a celebrity’s private and public lives and this is an example of when those two worlds intersect.  Having a yard sale and allowing her fans to see her in a completely vulnerable state is incredibly commendable and I think it’s amazing that Raven did this. I wish I knew about it!

Here are her instagram posts if you're interested!

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bd5k333AP-E/?hl=en&taken-by=ravensymone

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bd8f1QqAsAT/?hl=en&taken-by=ravensymone

Supplemental Post 1 - Giuliana Petrocelli

At this point in the class, we have seen Bette Davis in two films. In All About Eve, she was a strong female character, although obsessed with being an aging star. In Now, Voyager, she transforms from a timid and controlled daughter to a confident, independent woman. I am impressed by her versatility onscreen, as I felt that she was able to play both roles well. It seems like she really shines in moments where her character has to confront others or show her power onscreen. Yet, she also is able to be extremely vulnerable and emotional in the same roles, which is possibly why she was so successful. I have not studied her career or seen other films than these, so I would be curious if anyone has other opinions about her abilities or the roles she was often cast in. What star qualities of Bette Davis did you notice while watching the films?

On an unrelated note, an experience this weekend reminded me of how unique Los Angeles is. I was shopping in Hollywood and having trouble finding a particular store based on Google Maps. A group of people were congregated near where I thought the store was, so I went up and asked for directions. Before I could speak, they saw how lost I looked. "Are you here for the audition?" they asked me. Somehow, I had stumbled across auditions for an acting studio. "Oh no, no..." I answered and finished my shopping thinking nothing of it. But later that day, I was reflecting on the experience and laughed at the fact that only in Hollywood would you stumble across auditions without even trying. It seemed so stereotypical - the type of story that anyone outside of California might dream would happen. A tourist might stumble upon the audition and assume they would become a star!

Supplement 1- Madeline Virga

It was just released that Tom Hanks would be playing the beloved Mr. Rogers in a biopic. I can't help realize that in the latter half of Hanks life he has been cast as prolific men who are seen as kind and have a sense of childlike wonder (Walt Disney and now Mr. Rodgers). He has even voiced a toy which to me is the epitome of childhood.

This weekend I saw The Post, but I found it hard to picture Hanks as the ruthless hardcore editor of The Washington Post. In this class, we have already talked about the perception of a star/actor and how their consistent characterization in and out of movies influence peoples perception of future roles and the person themselves. To me, Hanks is a great actor, but in The Post, I could not see him as the character he was portraying.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/keelyflaherty/its-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-because-tom-hanks?utm_term=.euRjGyR3R#.qnQ19VAxA

Supplemental Post 1 - Lauren Sullivan

Last weekend my parents were in town and we were driving through Beverly Hills killing time before their flight home. We passed someone selling star maps and spontaneously decided to pick one up. None of us had done this before and figured it might be an entertaining way to kill an hour. This unusual practice got me thinking about stars and our relationships to them. The whole experience felt sort of bizarre and uncomfortable. The streets were largely deserted aside from the rare ridiculously expensive car and I felt like an outsider and an intruder. While the houses in these neighborhoods were as lavish and polished as the stars’ personas, it felt odd to look out at the places where these celebrities live out their private lives. It felt too intimate and invasive. I didn’t need to know that Nicholas Cage was hosting a children’s birthday party on Sunday afternoon. It reminded me that behind these star personas are real people and perhaps the public isn’t meant to see beyond this image. I think a degree of distance is essential between fans and the stars they admire.

Supplemental Post 1 - Erin Cooney

I had to check when the chapter from Hansen about Rudolph Valentino was written after I finished it and it made a lot of sense that it was from the 1980s. The article's attempt to use the language of "transsexual" and "transvestite" (pg. 269, for one example) may have functioned at the time the article was written--though I'm skeptical of even that--but that part is pretty much nonsensical today. How the article emphasized gender was a pretty challenging part for me. Identification with a character, a star, etc., who is of a different gender than you are (or a different gender than you've been assigned, if we want to actually talk about transness) can be interesting, but not really the way this article went about it. This is especially an issue around the article's conflation of gender and sexuality, by focusing some on what happens when the woman viewer identifies with the character whose gaze and attraction is the subject of the film but mixing that up with a conversation about gender and "spectatorial cross-dressing" (269).

I would love to read on article that engages with how trans folks identify with stars of various genders and how that operates, because I think that's a pretty interesting conversation around what celebrities do for gender, identification, aspirations, etc. This article kind of used that language, but in such a 1980s, outdated, confusing way that it just muddled up any actual point it was making, in my opinion.

Core Response 2 - Joyce Chun

In “The Emergence of the Star System in America”, Richard deCordova talks about the star system and its emergence from the picture personality. Picture personality appeared around 1909 and was “considered the beginning of the star system” which is also seen as a big difference from the star, according to deCordova. Not quite as exactly as today, player’s names were concealed from the audience because the “players did not want to risk their reputations by being discovered in films”. The Star, on the other hand, was not just known for his or her role in film, instead, his personal life was also involved. “The private lives of the stars emerged as a new site of knowledge and truth”. While reading this, the first thing that popped up in my head was The Kardashians. This mega family is the perfect illustration of The Star and how The Star is defined with the personal lives of “actors”; this family name is recognizable by almost everyone in the nation because of the stardom that was built behind it. With the audience’s constant interest towards these family members and the lives they live, the family was turned into “The Star” that Richard deCordova was talking about in this article. “The private life of the star was not to be in contradiction with his/her film image – at least not in terms of its moral tenor. The two would rather support each other”. Despite the Kardashians not being actors, this quote reflects their situation where the private lives of these stars support their image, not in films, but on whatever else they are involved in, whether it be endorsing a company, making a speech; the image drawn from their private lives is reflected by the other works they are occupied with.