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.