Supplemental Post 1 - Tucker Rayl

Over the weekend, I saw I, Tonya, which is an amazing film that I can't get out of my head. Margot Robbie, Allison Janney, and Sebastian Stan gave incredible performances, which I'm excited to watch over and over. But I think what's so captivating about this movie for me is the way it presents Tonya Harding's relationship with fame. She's not the sort of star we ever see - especially from the world of figure skating (which I don't believe has really produced a mainstream star in the past 15 years [maybe Johnny Weir, but that's pushing it]). She's unglamorous; has a poor, working-class background that she never left behind, and never seemed to be ashamed of (not that she should leave it behind or be ashamed of it); and hung around some deadbeat people. Despite all this, she was beloved (for a brief period of time) for being exactly who she is in a field that celebrated posturing and pretension.

Tonya has a line in the movie where she says that she always wanted to be famous, but once it happened to her, she hated it. This reminded me a lot of a line from Monster where Aileen Wuornos (played by Charlize Theron) says something about how she knew that she was always going to be famous, she was just waiting around for someone to come whisk her away to stardom. This makes me think about how poor, working-class women are sometimes elevated to star status (granted, Aileen and Tonya became famous for very different reasons), but remain tragic figures.

Core Post

I found this reading to be very interesting, especially when it came to Richard deCordova's writing on "The emergence of the star system in America". For one, all of this is fairly new to me because I'm not associated or involved in the movie making industry in anyway or have any aspirations to be but as I began to read through some of the works in "Stardom" I started to gain a lot more insight as to how things worked. deCordova's breakdown of the way that the star system arose and evolved through time made it very understandable and relatable to a point where I gained knowledge of how things worked and might still work in the industry and the steps that happen along the way. There were three main breakdowns of the emergence of the star system that deCordova pointed too in his writing which are, the discourse on acting, the picture personality, and the star. After reading through his description on all three of these stages I found it to be very relatable to the way that I have fallen into the trend of wanting to gain more knowledge about stars through this same process even if I might have not been aware that I was engaging in it.

Personally, I truly believe that deCordova's three stages have evolved to such a point in our society today where we might skip through one or two of the steps and are willing to skip to the point of admiring one as a star from the moment that he or she appears on the screen. I think that in this day and age when the audience finds someone who plays a character in a show or movie that they are watching, and is in anyway relatable to their own situation in life there is a tendency to want to gain more knowledge about the actor or actress that is playing that character. Plus, I also believe that this does not stop on the movie/TV screen but also drags on into other aspects as well including sports as well.

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.

Supplemental Post 1 - Joyce (Yae Jin) Chun

"A Story Like Mine"

I wanted to share this powerful poem Ashley Nicolette Frangipane, otherwise known as Halsey, presented during 2018 Women's March in New York City.
Watch the video; it'll speak for itself.

(Just click "A Story Like Mine" and it'll link you to the article!)

Core Response #1 (Jan 24th Reading) – KC Chow

In her piece relating Rudolph Valentino and female spectatorship in Stardom: Industry of Desire, Miriam Hansen brings up the fact that films during Valentino’s heyday were targeted towards the female spectator, adding that women‘s “increased social and economic significance [were] acknowledged in whatever distorted manner” (262-263). With the aforementioned, I find it interesting how there is a stark discourse between the orientation of these cultural products and the execution. From its conception in the late 19^th century to its evolution into present day, females continue to be the biggest movie-going audiences. Despite this, film is often tauted as the media medium where women have the least desirable roles with many known film actresses running to television to play a more well-written character, such as Viola Davis (HTGAWM) and Thandie Newton (Westworld). With The Sheik, I found that, yes, the film does gear towards female fantasy (and generally the female consumer) with its exotic location and exotic male heartthrob; but as Hansen points out, it’s in a “distorted manner.” Throughout the story, Valentino’s Ahmed is visually what romance novels are made of but continually forcibly kisses Agnes Ayres’ Diana and tries to control her, even considering forcing himself on her. To Hollywood, at least with The Sheik, nightmares I guess are fantasies, too. To me, in seeking to progress by addressing the female spectator, they regress through their execution by reinforcing recessive behavior and societal ideas; even on television (which also caters towards the female), one of its biggest shows Big Little Lies known for its female cast centers is centered on domestic abuse by a handsome male.

Another interesting point Hansen delves into is the extent that Valentino occupies a space between masculine and feminine, holding a masculine gaze towards his female costars on film but also being a visual spectacle himself (262-265). This was very noticeable to me throughout The Sheik as Ahmed was definitely flashier costume-wise than his leading lady, whereas, tradition emphasizes female costumes on film more and celebrates them in awards shows. Think Keira Knightley’s green dress in Atonement or any of Audrey Hepburn’s lavish get-ups in My Fair Lady compared to their male costars’ wardrobe. Additionally, Ahmed’s eye expressions were often exaggerated towards Diana while he simultaneously physically dominated the spaces he was in with her; while Diana is still, he’d often walk around the area in strides. This reminded me of Bette Davis’ character in All About Eve (and Bette Davis’ close public persona) who, like Valentino, also resides between the masculine and feminine, albeit in a different manner. She has a rough deep voice and is assertive and power-hungry, but she still dresses in female silhouettes although more structured and less girly than her counterparts. Like with Valentino in The Sheik, Davis mediates that gender line. This can be seen most notably in the scene where she argues with Bill on the lower level of their home; as Bill stays constant in the space, Davis’ Margo physically walks around him – boxing him in, showing her dominance (like the traditional male), holding the gaze of her romantic interest, but still being the spectacle.

Core Post 1 (Cailin O'Brien)

The rise and expansion of the “star system” as explained by Janet Staiger is more intricate than I had imagined it to be. Initially you would think that the star system was a hit for theatre producers and filmmakers alike, but as she says “any public recognition actors received would inspire demands for bigger salaries”. Even before legitimate “stars” came to create this economic tension, DeCordova explains the how the degree to and way in which actors were of intrigue to spectators transitioned over historical context. Beginning as a “discourse on acting” and then transitioning to “picture personality”, the original “celebrities” of the 1920s were an entirely different concept than they are today. While today we pry into the lives of celebrities, spectators were once only intrigue by the  character roles played by silent actors of whom the spectator could replace their real selves with.  

Of rather profound influence in feminist film study is that of once famous actor Valentino who we saw perform the role of an evil Prince in George Melford’s film The Sheik. This point in time marked a transition towards the female intrigue and gaze, as opposed to pleasing masculine spectatorship. What shocked me most was the, almost, reverse psychology of the use of Valentino as en “exotic” item of desire for female spectators. While speaking of the liberation movement of the 1920s, the female condition in this time in America was under great change. Women were presented with more professional and everyday activities than the domestic household chores they once were refined to. In this time Valentino’s films gave rise to a public view that there was a “possibility of female desire outside of motherhood and family” (pg 275). Valentino did not only allow for a platform upon which female visual desire is satisfied, but for an even further experimental exploration of a more dynamic sexual drive. His character roles and the female fandom that resulted highlight “the more archaic component drives, reminders of the precarious constructedness of sexual identity”. His racial otherness in combination with a “discourse of exoticism” through roles such as the Arab Shiek or Indian Rajah, made it in a way socially acceptable for female to engage in this fantastical desire.

Core Post 1 - Vittoria Rizzardi Penalosa

Christine Gledhill in “Stardom: Industry of Desire” explores the very beginning of stardom. When the concept of “star” didn’t even exist yet. In 1910, Carl Laemmle’s promotion of Florence Lawrence opened the door to the “star system.” At the time, Laemmle’s competitive move was criticized accusing him to be an independent trying to “take business away from the Patents Trust.” This is because, Lewis Jacobs reasons, as an independent you can afford to communicate to the audience the players who are going to appear in the movie you’re promoting, thus, playing with the public’s attraction for some of those players. Trust manufacturers were bound to keep the player’s identities secret because they figured out that any “public recognition actors received would inspire demands for bigger salaries.” Many other independents started following Laemmle’s footsteps, promoting their players by their real name.

Hampton explores that with theatre this system wouldn’t have worked because plays are mostly for a specific niche. The use of personalities had only been adopted on screen because it was a low-cost film exhibition that could reach the masses. That’s how the concept of star entered the “calculation of possible larger revenues.”

It was Anthony Slide who unveiled the first ever actor to be “recognized by the trade press.” Ben Turpin had his own story published on Moving Picture World in 1909, which was followed by other two articles in two other newspapers. Straight after, a new advertising technique was developed, posters with stills of the players and their names were being sold.

In 1910, a Nickelodeon’s writer said that “the fact that exhibitors themselves are becoming more and more interested in the personnel of those with whom they have become so familiar in the image” means that those individuals deserve public recognition.

Richard Decordova argues that “the emergence of the star system can perhaps best be seen as the emergence of a knowledge.” It is safe to say that this “picture personality” was a result of the production and circulation of knowledge, which was then amplified by publicity such as fan magazines. The emerging of the star almost completely depended on the type of knowledge produced by the actor. This was done following three main steps: the discourse of acting, the picture personality, and the star. It was important that the story seen on screen distinguished the profilmic from the real, to give the characters a fictional status. The Picture Personality was the first element of product individuation at that time. It was a well-played game of concealing some information of the player but revealing others, so to keep the audience interested. However, picture personality and star are two very distinctive statuses. In the beginning of 1090, the concept of star started to emerge, “the star is characterized by a fairly thoroughgoing articulation of the paradigm professional life/private life.” However, there are strict rules to this, Gledhill argues, “The real hero behaves just like the reel her.” It was important that the private life of the star could not be in contradiction with his/her film image.

I researched Rodolfo Valentino’s life, after being captured by his handsome looks in The Sheik, and discovered that he had a dark moment in his career during 1922. Up to that point, he was labeled as the “Great Lover,” because of his distinctive features and due to all the very masculine roles he played. However, after marrying Natacha Rambova, in 1922, something changed. Rambova controlled a major part of his acting career helping him choosing which roles to accept, and most of these roles were very feminine. Valentino would be criticized for his strong androgynous costumes and speculations started to fill up many rooms regarding his sexuality. Once he separated from Rambova, he went back to play very masculine and villainous roles, although many people still assumed he was homosexual. This proves that the audience associates what an actor is on screen with his/her personal life. Because Valentino betrayed his “Great Lover” persona, the public attacked him for it, because that’s what they wanted from him.