Core Post 1 - Tucker Rayl

As consumers (of both film and tangible goods), most of us are conscious of the intricate relationship between stars, their work, and advertising. And there seems to be some sort of unspoken rule about how we want our stars to sell us stuff. They can appear in commercials, on billboards, and perhaps make a post on social media (although it may be annoying to some fans that their favorite celebrity is now linked with a brand). But their films have to be very careful about product placement. The rule seems to be "Don't sell us your shit during movies. That's tasteless. Everywhere else is fine, I guess."

This hasn't always been the case, though. Charles Ekert writes in his essay "The Carole Lombard in Macy's Window," that clothing, makeup, furniture, and appliance brands used to overtly advertise during films. Through a partnership with the studios, brands would use stars as models in print and radio ad campaigns. This wasn’t seen as tasteless at the time, but I think now adds to a certain camp aesthetic that older melodramas possess. The female leads are always impeccably dressed in the style of the time, and they make it known (because they have to). This can be seen in the scene in Now, Voyager where Bette Davis has transformed into a beautiful, mysterious woman aboard a ship, and she wears that incredible dress and giant hat.

Of course, this advertising in the film shaped the films of the time. The brands pressured the studios to set their films in modern times and make the main characters women. This would allow them to put high-fashion clothing and expensive makeup on the stars to advertise these products to women watching the film. So while it would seem that studios are giving their female stars more opportunities and bigger voices, they are actually exploiting them as advertising tools to exploit American women as consumers.