Core Post 1 - Ali Appelbaum

            As an actor myself, I found DeCordova’s chapter to be incredibly interesting, demeaning, and relatable. Both DeCordova and Staiger begin by explaining how for a while, the identities of actors were kept as a secret. The actors were completely uncredited and the reason given by Staiger was that if the actors had big names, then their salaries would have to increase. The star system eventually became incredibly profitable in both theatre and film because people would go see stage shows specifically to see the star rather than the show and the film stars were publicized in a number of lucrative ways like magazines and photographs. The star system described by Staiger and DeCordova is demeaning because it is entirely controlled by revenue. It is not about the actor, their talent, what is good for them, or what they want; it’s about where they fall into the puzzle. Even when interest sparked in sharing information about actors’ private lives, it was still used as a marketing tactic. Knowledge became gold and magazines and publications similar to the tabloids now ran rampant.  Actors were very much used like pawns in a game. If publicizing them raised their salaries, then it was bad, but when publicizing them actually produced money, then it was good.

            Today, the same ideas remain in place and actors are treated pretty similarly. When I worked at a casting office last summer, I saw how actors were treated as business deals, not as human beings. It is less about talent, more about who is going to generate the most revenue or viewers. For lesser known actors, each contract was shaped around how to pay the actor the least amount possible for what they were doing. It was awful to see and hear. It was all a numbers game and the actor himself or herself was not taken into consideration in the slightest. So, not much seems to have changed.

Even worse in my mind is the idea of the picture personality. This leads on that an actor is only as much as the role he or she portrays, which kind of goes against the entire point behind acting. When you are an actor you act like someone you are not. Actors portray people who are nowhere near their true selves and are often out of their comfort zones, and that is what makes the craft impressive. Even when this picture personality phase passed and actors were allowed to be stars instead of just a continuation of their on screen characters, they were still expected to hold an image that aligned with the characters they played, especially in terms of morality. So, even when actors were granted permission to express themselves, they had to do it within tight boundaries that limited them, disallowing them actual freedom to be themselves.
         The star system first fell into place with theatrical work, but what I find interesting is that when the movie industry began, actors didn’t want their names to be publicized because acting in movies wasn’t “legitimate.” I find this odd because already, film was where the money was, so you’d think it would be a good thing for stage actors to move to the screen, you’d think it was something to be proud of. Finally, the actors turned over a new leaf and realized that film acting leads to a better lifestyle, which I’m surprised it took them so long to figure out. The qualities mentioned in DeCordova comparing film life to theatre life are pretty obvious. When you work in the theatre, you work odd schedules, don’t have evenings free, and of course make less money. I find it strange that the actors wouldn’t have jumped to this shift even quicker.