Celebrities in Politics: How Taking A Social Stand Gets Them Publicity

After Trump's recent ban on Muslims, celebrities have taken to the streets to protest these unfair acts. More specifically, the two Hadid sisters, Bella and Gigi Hadid took to the streets in New York to protest against the fact that they were raised by a Muslim father.

It is to be noted that this act granted them publicity because of the fact that they were seen with the rest of the protestors as if apart of the whole. The political climate is forcing many celebrities that have a voice and want to use it to come out of the wood work and blend in with the whole. In a way, this political instability currently is making celebrities more approachable, more relatable, and more humanized.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gigi-and-bella-hadid-protest-trumps-ban_us_588f3a18e4b0176377955b70

Core Responce #2: Laplace's "Producing and Consuming the Woman's Film"

"Marketing tool" and "mechanism of identification", these are the two phrases Marie Laplace uses when describing the way in which the star system targets "the female spectator" (145). Laplace also writes that stars are not solely made by an audience enjoying a film, but by the additional knowledge the audience learns of the celebrity as a “real person” (146). But, what happens when an audience begins to show signs of media fatigue?

Take Bette Davis for example. Laplace states that Davis was a media darling for approximately five years (146). However, Davis acted for several decades. Davis went on to receive an Oscar nomination for her role as an aging star in All About Eve (1950) and she gave a memorable performance in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962), so what happened to change her importance in the eye of the media?

At the height of her career, Davis was loved for her “resourceful, ‘self-made’ woman” image and “down-to-earth” personality off-screen, but by the end of her popularity she became known as an argumentative diva (148). Yes, Davis was no longer a young woman and she no longer could play a youthful independent woman, but it is arguable that her aging appearance only made her more relatable. Not all audiences are made up of young women, and Davis had a huge following, but the youth market is coveted and she made the terrible mistake of embracing her age, and so she became less and less relevant as the years passed.

While Laplace is understandably only looking at a smaller section of Davis’s career, it is worth noting that Bette’s ambition and normalcy is what the media would later grow tired of seeing from her. Even today, there appears to be a time limit on how endearing it is for a celebrity to be “down-to-Earth” and “real”. Anne Hathaway and Jennifer Lawrence are recent examples of this treatment, and it begs the question does the star system only work for a limited amount of time or is there a flaw in being too easy-to-identify-with as a star? 

Core Response #1

I found Dyer's discussion and examination of the image of stardom to be very fascinating and it had me questioning how the model of this image has evolved, if at all. For the most part, the tenets of "consumption, success, and ordinariness" that Dyer outlines as the 'American Dream' image of stardom have remained relatively static as they shift into today's society. Along with this, Dyer also discussed the contradictions of this image which is just as critical to note. I particularly appreciated how Dyer uses the examples of Marilyn Monroe and Marlon Brando acting out in their private lives, clearly displaying malaise over their stardom. There has been no shortage of stars since then who have grappled with their place in the spotlight, from Lindsay Lohan to Britney Spears, the perfect image of stardom is constantly being challenged as Dyer suggests. In fact, I would argue that a tinge of angst or unhappiness is actually often a staple of these mega stars, aiding in their ability to relate to the "ordinary."In other words, some stars reject the image of a perfect lifestyle and rather lend themselves to a more realistic image, acknowledging they too go through struggles, loss, and low points. There is perhaps less pressure to present the untouchable "American Dream" image that was once so heavily placed on the stars Dyer names.

Another contradiction I enjoyed reading about was the question of ordinariness: are stars really that different? One question I'd like to ask is do we want stars to be different, or "superlative" as Dyer puts it? For me, I try to find as many ways as possible to relate to my beloved stars, but recognize they do live a different lifestyle. I'd argue that many people are also like myself in that they enjoy seeing stars performing actions or other things that would constitute a normal life - think: "Stars: They're Just Like Us!" articles.

I also particularly appreciated the different types of stars that Dyer outlined for us, such as the rebel or the pin up, it had me wondering if we could make any contemporary additions: perhaps the clown, mother, or girl next door character. But most intriguing to me, and what I think has withstood the test of time, is the label of the"independent woman" that both Dyer and LaPlace examine. There seems to be only two types of female stars that succeed and that is either the overtly feminine beauty queen, or the woman who has for all intents and purposes abandoned her femininity, taking on "male" qualities such as humor or independence.

While Dyer's discussion in this chapter mainly focused on what constitutes the image of stardom, Eckert gave us insight into why the star image is so important not to just fans, but more importantly to businesses. Eckert reminds us it is not a new practice that manufacturers, brands, and companies seek celebrities to endorse their goods and services. Today I would argue this has only been amplified with rampant technology and mass diffusibility of information. Really I don't think there is anything a celebrity could not sell his or her fans. And the manner in which we are being told to buy is not always the "in your face" stye. As Eckert explains there have always been hidden agendas in media, whether its overt or clandestine, using stars to manipulate people into thinking, "I need to buy that." This is always an unpleasant reminder to me and Eckert and LaPlace raised many points that made me frustrated with consumerism, particularly how it seems to have trapped women in a discouraging and endless cycle. Now, Voyager left me with undistinguishable feelings. In some instances, I appreciated Bette Davis' character consoling the young, "awkward" girl. But at the end of the film, the primary message seemed to be - if you manage to fix yourself up and beautify yourself, doors open and happiness is inevitable. I find it incredible how after nearly seventy years, this narrative still runs rampant. This testament that any woman can become beautiful so long as she buys x, y, and z is deeply rooted in history and remains in modernity, and the readings this week have me wondering whether history is doomed to repeat itself.

Core Post: Retching What You've Consumed: The American Woman's Story (edited)

Early on in reading Charles Eckert’s piece “The Carole Lombard in Macy’s Window,” I was struck by an association I thought I could never make: between the film industry and American agriculture. Nixon’s Farm Act of 1973 encouraged corn production into the billions of bushels, creating an uncontrollable surplus that was remedied by funneling corn into myriad new varieties of junk food; an assault on our grocery stories and arteries. Is this so dissimilar from the phenomenon Eckert described, in which the heads of industry, focused on standardizing production through the end of the 19th century, found themselves with products that had no buyers -  and so, used the burgeoning film industry as a tool to introduce American consumerism? Am I the only one getting a conspiracy vibe?

American consumers - particularly female - have long been at the receiving end of a desperate “buy more” rhetoric that's insidiously formed our cultural conscience regarding beauty, self-worth, and social acceptability. Manipulative media that trickled down from the nation’s most powerful capitalists was the main tool. Movies sold stars; stars sold products. It makes me uncomfortable knowing that the guys in charge of selling refrigerators were also tied into selling movies. They say Marxist film theory is outmoded, but I'm not buying it.

Maria Laplace’s analysis of consumerism, women’s fiction and fandom with reference to Now, Voyager complicates the issue: it isn’t as though American middle class women have ever been the exploited proletariat, forced to fulfill a purchasing quota of fur coats, perfume and lipstick. Laplace repeatedly notes that women have always been the primary writers and readers of the fan magazines that have glorified stars, who Dyer calls our “idols of consumption,” in Stars: their glamorous appearances and lifestyles, the products by which they’ve achieved their looks. Her purpose here is to indicate that women’s film has been defined by women - that women’s active engagement with the literature and stars intended for them challenges the belief that the genre is a male ploy to get inside female purses. It’s both heartening and unsurprising that fandom has long been a female phenomenon - I’ve been ‘round the Tumblr block enough times to tell you that. 

But it’s also troubling that women have been complicit in facilitating a material culture created to bind us, and set us against one another. It is a rhetoric that has manifested itself in racist, homophobic, and discriminatory ways in American culture and the evolution of feminism. The stars of the 1930s were benchmark examples of "feminine beauty" as defined by the white men writing their paychecks - and those men's ideas of female worth were maliciously limited. No women of color, no diverse body types. We created a standard of beauty that we exported world wide; we created a culture that saw African American children in 1954 testify that they swore that the white doll was pretty and important, and the dark colored doll was ugly and worthless. 

If women wrote these articles in fan magazines - fixated on shallow personal appearances - then they were upholding unproductive and insidious cultural values spread to hold us back, distract us, make us devalue ourselves and other women; in short, the ideas that today's feminism seeks to debunk. Considering the white female vote for Trump, it has not yet succeeded in doing so - and it's an uphill battle from here.

I appreciate that there was this ‘women’s circuit’ on the margins of woman’s film in the 1930s and 40s - but it may have been women melting into permanence the iron lock on our own cage. Behaving as the enthusiastic and unoffended consumers that the ‘men in charge’ had banked upon us being. After all, how much of that women’s fiction that Laplace references was written by women? How many of the film adaptations of women’s fiction were directed or written by women? Yes, there is subversive power in Bette Davis’ combined star persona and film roles - she was a true bad bitch. But that can't cancel out the even more subversive content of her films. In the context of American consumerism, Now, Voyager could be read as a two hour long treatise on the importance of diet, smart  shoes and plucked eyebrows if you ever want men - and by-nature judgmental women - to like you. Call me modern, but I struggle to find the feminism in that.

Core Post

I wrote a paper last semester about The Perils of Pauline where I discussed the beginnings of the star system. It was fascinating to learn about the ways in which gossip and obsessions with stars have lingered through all technological advancements that have occurred since 1914, when the serial first ran. These serials were targeted for women and always showed a female heroine, the names of their character were often either same or similar to their real name. Upon reading Laplace’s article on “Now, Voyager” similar ideas were discussed, particularly the distinction between the star and their “real life” persona. The blurred lines between what was simply a character played and what was the true personality of a star, has encouraged our increased deep involvement with film. The insight into the components of a “woman’s film”, popular during the 30’s and 40’s, shows the ways in which consumerism was tied to film since its beginnings. The Eckert article provided the context needed to understand the negotiation and incorporation of “tie ins” to market films across various productions. The objectification of women and the commodification of their interests is what drove, female centered narratives to become prominent. The focus on beauty and appearance was not only a selling point, but also a component that bled into the lives of real women and their understanding of womanhood. Bette Davis’ character, Charlotte Vale, is deemed neurotic and her illness is tied to the way she looks and her “repressed sexuality” as Laplace discusses. The ways Vale gets better is by undergoing a physical transformation, through more fashionable and glamorous clothes. This “metamorphosis” as Laplace calls it, represents the necessity to to give into patriarchal and consumer cultures in order to discover one's own identity. The “social self” is fueled by the ways in which others perceive, where popularity often equals happiness. The film follows the themes of women’s films by delving into familial relationships as we see with Vale and her mother, as well as with romantic ones that she pursues with Jerry. The recognition of women as a key marketing group, shifted the ways in which actors were portrayed and also the stories that were shown. Dyer discusses the contradiction of stardoms due to the “stars-as-ordinary and the stars-as-special”, in “Now, Voyager” we see how these two concepts can be used simultaneously. Bette Davis was regarded for being independent and an ordinary working woman, but she was also one of the highest paid actors late 30’s and early 40’s. This shows how a star's ordinary qualities also were what made them special and spectacular on screen.

Core Response #1 - Colin Sheehan

In this week's readings, I found myself most fascinated with Maria LaPlace's observation into the role of the "independent woman" in regards to film--specifically the consumerism aspect.  What was most intriguing was, despite the reading examining consumerism during the beginning of the twentieth century, it could easily have been discussing the role that advertising and materialism has on society today, especially in terms of female identity.  

LaPlace examines the role that advertising played on female consumers, especially in shaping the notion of the role of the woman within the home.  The fact that consumerism directly used the independency of feminists at the turn of the century by promoting home products as ways to paint the woman as the "administrator of the home" is both smart and terrifying (LaPlace 139).  Any independence marked for women was easily used against them by advertisers to reshape the idea of the independent woman to be the "independent" caretaker of the home and family.  Cigarette companies even used the notion that cigarette smoking was seen as a symbol of emancipation for women and advertised towards women with this knowledge.  The power of advertising in this circumstance is some kind of strange reverse psychology as advertisers incorporated the "ideas of freedom and equality for women" as "additional arsenal in [their] weapons" (LaPlace 140).      

Consumerism further, and probably most powerfully, pulled at the idea of beauty as a form of freedom and independency and, most importantly, happiness.  And while the ideology of beauty was not anything new, its role as a way to set women as equal, stating that no one woman was naturally beautiful without the help of products, is gross and, yet again, super fascinating to me.  The fact that consumerism used flaws as a way to "equally connect" women for the sake of forcing them to buy products to make them feel superior is so ridiculous.  However, this same ideology is just as present today--if not worse thanks to social media, the internet, television, and an even larger beauty industry.  Advertisers spread the idea that women needed beauty products in order to win and keep a husband, as beauty was not naturally provided, so if they did not buy the products, a strange "survival of the fittest" approach would take charge in the world of marriage.

I knew that the power of beauty and the image was played upon in Now, Voyager, but it is more strongly prominent now looking back on the film after reading LaPlace's article.  Charlotte's (Davis) insanity stemmed not from a strong mental place, but rather because she was denied her need for physical beauty in order to be happy in the world.  Her mother dismissing her from dressing nicely and grooming herself, produced an unstable Charlotte whom is then treated at a mental ward not through medication, but through a makeover.  Makeup is her medication--one that leads to self empowerment against her mother, to romance, and to a motherly love between her and Tina.  

In the end, the film and the article prove that beauty standards and definitions have not much changed since the early 20th century.  In both cases, then and now, the woman who is deemed the most attractive is the one that tends to be seen as the happiest or most successful, whether such is true or not.

Colin Sheehan Core Response #1

Core Post- Beauty in Now, Voyager

Charlotte (Bette Davis), in Now, Voyager, transforms from chubby and unattractive, mentally distraught young woman to a sophisticated, well-groomed, recognizable Bette Davis. Laplace characterizes Charlotte’s “metamorphosis”: “In place of the spectacle of ugliness, there is a spectacle of the metamorphosis- the thrill of ‘before and after’ so beloved of advertising directed at women” (Laplace 144). Charlotte’s metamorphosis highlights the 20th century standard of beauty in America. Witnessing her “before and after”, the audience becomes infatuated with the latter. How does she attain such beauty?

Laplace writes how “twentieth-century advertising introduced the notion that beauty was not a natural given…but achievable by any women- though only through the use of the correct goods: cosmetics, grooming aids, fashion" (140). Charlotte is the prime example of how to achieve beauty “through the use of correct goods”. Now, Voyager displays Charlotte as initially ungroomed, plump, and constantly wearing glasses. However, Charlotte changes her look through “cosmetics, grooming aids, fashion”. She removes her glasses, tweezes her brows, and changes her frizzy hair into a sophisticated up-do. While she was not born looking that way, Charlotte epitomizes how to attain this 20th century beauty ideal.

Further, the  “result of a glamorous transformation of her appearance which in turn brings about the next step forward, the love of a good man" (141). I agree with Laplace that Now, Voyager presents Charlotte’s romance as a direct result of her newly attained style and elegance. When Charlotte shows Paul a family photo, he asks who the  “fat lady with bushy eyebrows” is. First, Charlotte denies it is her, claiming that unattractive woman is an aunt. Soon after, however, Charlotte admits the truth. She explains, “that unattractive woman is me…forgive me…I’ve been ill”. Charlotte justifies her lie, claiming she has been “ill”. Ultimately, Charlotte suggests that her beauty was a crucial part of her "cure". Simply because “She looks better… she is better” (144). Laplace characterizes the idea that Charlotte’s beauty translates into her happiness.

Consumption in Stardom and Hollywood (Core Post)

To define stardom as “an image of the way stars live” composed of a contradiction of the spectacular with the ordinary, Dyer organizes this image around three themes: consumption, success and ordinariness. ‘Consumption’ surrounds how the image of a star is a model of consumption for the consumer society, identified by an expensive lifestyle of large houses, swimming pools, high fashion, parties, etc. ‘Success’ deals with the myth of success, of how anyone can get to the top in the American society. In relation to stardom, there are several contradicting elements functioning in the success myth, such as ordinariness being a distinctive feature of the star; the system rewarding talent (specialness); luck launching a star’s career; and hard work being necessary to get to the top of stardom. ‘Ordinariness’ also deals with a contradiction; it deals with how stars represent typical people of our society, while they belong to a completely different reality of society. There is a contradiction of stars being like us, but also being something different transformed by consumption and success. When writing about Elizabeth Taylor, Dyer’s following quote stood out to me: “Her love life plus her sheer expensiveness are what make her interesting, not her similarity to you and me”. This made me think about how today's stardom is not that different from the one that Dyer analyzes here. A contemporary example of this is the Kardashian-Jenner family. As they all became more famous and made more money, their star status evolved around their expensiveness, luxuriousness. Fans/tabloids/blogs have always cared for the Kardashian-Jenners’ love life, but as they become increasingly less and less economically similar to us, the star fascination grows. Keeping Up With The Kardashians could be what makes their lives relatable by dealing with universally human topics of love and family. However, this relatability is contradicting since, in the same way that Dyer writes about star actors, they are “absent from our actual day-to-day experience of reality”.

The Kardashians also mastered a technique developed in the early stages of the consumerist Hollywood: endorsements. Star endorsement is one of the elements mentioned by Charles Eckert in “The Carole Lombard in Macy’s Window” as he explains the evolution of capitalist practices in Hollywood, and, more importantly, how Hollywood contributed to solidify consumerism. Eckert writes about how by adopting merchandising strategies, Hollywood started to prefer modern films as they provided more opportunities for product display and profit. Studios would even ask firms to design products specifically for their movies in return of product display to audiences of thousands. From Hollywood’s involvement with fashion, all the way to home appliances and radio, Eckert shows how Hollywood contributed to consumerism by creating “powerful bonds between the emotional fantasy-generating substance of films and the material objects those films contained”.

Not only objects were subject to consumerism, however. In “Producing and Consuming the Woman’s Film: Discursive Struggle in Now, Voyager”, Maria Laplace argues that in film, consumerism can be seen in the capitalist attempt to profit on “women’s desire for sexuality, power, freedom and pleasure”. Drawing from Now, Voyager to provide examples, Laplace writes about how these variables, associated with passive consumption of mass-produced commodities, are present in the conventions of the woman’s film. One of the conventions is that the story centers on the heroine’s process of self-discovery. The text emphasizes how Charlotte Vale (Bette Davis) finds her “cure” in the rediscovery of her beauty and sexuality through expensive clothes, weight loss, and male recognition – all things that encourage materialism and consumption. Speaking of constructed female beauty as a source of self-worth boosting consumerism, should we go back to the Kardashians?

CORE POST - Dyer, LaPlace, Eckert on Bette Davis and "Now, Voyager"

In Richard Dyer’s Stars chapter “Part Two: Stars as Images,” Dyer discusses the connections between stars and their fans’ modes of consumption. Dyer dissects several fan magazine pages from 1930s editions of “Photoplay,” an early fan magazine devoted to giving star admirers glimpses into the private lives of stars. Dyer considers whether the magazine’s overtly lush and lavish depictions of stars work to portray them as “ordinary” or rather help stars epitomize specific “social types” (Dyer 43, 47). Dyer examines how certain stars are represented - from Elizabeth Taylor to Marlon Brando to James Dean - in terms of their “social types” and what those personas suggest regarding Hollywood’s notions of wealth and gender roles. Ultimately, Dyer implies that these “social types” dually help establish specific star personalities while also legitimizing the mythology of those celebrities’ Hollywood successes. 

In her article “Producing and Consuming the Woman’s Film,” Maria LaPlace discusses consumerism and advertising techniques in regards to female-led films. She specifically details her arguments in relation to Now, Voyager and how Charlotte Vale (Bette Davis) both subverts but also reinforces notions of domesticity, femininity, and beauty. Dyer argues that Bette Davis’s star persona is indeed one of an “independent woman,” but he argues that Davis constructed that personality in a less obvious, more subtle manner (Dyer 59). LaPlace contests, though, that Davis “could offer a certain kind of ego ideal for women…who is intelligent, articulate, self-possessed, dedicated to her profession and an artist, willing to fight for herself…” (LaPlace 150). In other words, LaPlace argues that Davis’s social impact was fully established and crystal clear.

Charles Eckert’s chapter “The Carole Lombard in Macy’s Window” in Stardom: Industry of Desire focuses more so on the negotiations between Hollywood studios (primarily Warner Bros. and MGM) and American consumer goods companies (primarily Coca-Cola and GE) during the 1930s. Eckert argues that product placement “permanently affected the character of films” but also proved radio could be a critical marketing component for studios ands stars alike (Eckert 36). He also highlights how stars were paired with major companies to help advertise their products, and how this ultimately ended up making the stars even more popular as they were essentially given more time in the spotlight alongside their products. 

To me, LaPlace identifies the most enduring aspects of Charlotte’s transformation in Now, Voyager. I found that for all of the ways in which, as LaPlace suggests, Davis’s character reinforces traditional ideals about American womanhood and beauty, the most startling aspects of the film were when Charlotte “snapped” - or, she seemed to be near full rehabilitation but had a momentary lapse. These are the moments, LaPlace claims, which helped to establish unconventional, even subversive ideologies surrounding female protagonists in films in the 1940s. Ultimately, too, these moments enabled Davis’s extraordinary range - just as in All About Eve - to be on full display. 

-Dean Moro (Core Post #1, 1/30/17)

Remembering Mary Tyler Moore

While I can't say I avidly watched the The Mary Tyler Moore (1970-77) show, I've seen the show and recognized its importance to television history. The show and its star had a tremendous impact on television and the sitcom genre. I can remember constantly singing the end of the theme song as a kid and never knowing where the song came from. That's just how catchy it was.

In terms of stardom, Mary Tyler Moore was definitely a television star, and she will be well remembered as such. Her work on television is timeless...

Sympathy for a #FreeMelania

In many ways, the nation's newly christened First Lady is best represented by the gif of her visage that went viral following the inauguration–an infinite oscillation between smile and grimace, an ambiguous crack in an already ambiguous facade. Her split-second expression change is difficult to interpret given the lack of access the public has to Melania's thoughts and opinions, but it nonetheless invited a flurry of pop-psychoanalysis from bloggers and netizens of all kinds.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/01/on-pitying-melania/514409/

Body language experts weighed in and gave conflicting accounts of Donald and Melania's level of intimacy–one emphasizing her lack of warmth and evident exclusion from her husband's journey, and the other reading her accommodating behavior as a perfect counterweight to his ego. Tweets, posts, and memes spawned across the Internet with the hashtags #FreeMelania and #SadMelania, spreading what was essentially a presidential fan-fiction: that Melania Trump is the blameless victim of a gold-digging fairytale gone wrong.

But why should Melania's apparent discomfort warrant the public's pity? The ongoing jokes play on the sides of both sympathy and ironic mockery, but ultimately assume the first lady's powerlessness over her own life. On the contrary, Melania Trump has exercised her agency over and over in order to shape her husband's narrative even before the election: she publicly defended his blatantly racist birtherism in 2011 touting her "credibility" as an immigrant, and has granted damage-control interviews to talk shows in order to recoup his image following PR gaffes. The tension between her active support in the making of a successful, openly misogynist presidential campaign and the liberal fan-fiction of her "matrimonial Stockholm Syndrome" exemplifies the contradictions maintained by female celebrities. Her persona has become a site for the projections of liberal, feminist fantasies that form an uncomfortable, anti-feminist juxtaposition with her personal history.

The Valentino Dream - Core Post

“Women are not in love with me but with the picture of me on the screen. I am merely the canvas on which women paint their dreams.” – Rudolph Valentino

  In this week’s reading, I found it very interesting how Staiger and deCordova’s texts complement each other. However, deCordova’s argument of how there were three significant transformations in the development of the star system stood out to me the most as I found it to be a very objective and clear way of understanding the emergence of the star.

As deCordova argues, a star is characterized by the combination of their picture personality, their professional experience, and their private life. Hansen’s text, however, shows how stars could (and still can) go one step further to augment stardom. As Hansen demonstrates, Valentino was the first male actor to emphasize his body and create an image (or a brand, as many would call it today) of virility that would feed into the sexual desire of cinema’s predominantly female audience. By doing so, he elevated his stardom, as he understood how to target an audience and make them obsessed with him mostly from drawing on sexuality. Valentino’s persona even seemed more manufactured to represent women’s desires than to represent his true self. I found this interesting because it shows how Hollywood has been profiting from exploring women’s minds and desires since the first male superstar until today.

Valentino’s case study made me think of how many Internet celebrities are becoming famous nowadays. By exploring sexuality and appealing to a female audience, a web celebrity like Cameron Dallas, who went from Vine to the 2016 Met Gala, is able to establish a huge fan base of girls that is obsessed and in love with him, which attracts investors interested in social media presence and, consequently, elevates his stardom.

T Swift Torn Apart, Again

When celebrities mobilize with The People, we always take note. And now, apparently, we even take note when they don't. And then we drag them for it.



Taylor Swift sent a ho hum little tweet about how "proud" she was of all the women who marched on Saturday - instead of marching herself. And she got absolutely ripped apart for it, in a new trend of TSwift Terrorizing that has become prominent in many of the Internet's feminist corners.

Our generation is all about "receipts" these days. Considering that half of everything that dribbles from our new president's mouth is a lie, I'd say we're lucky that the Internet is an endless database of clap-back material. If you don't keep your word, you'll be found out - we're all more accountable than ever. If you claim to support social issues, but don't show up when it matters, you'll become one with The Enemy, regardless of how nice your 'protest tweet' was.

I can't defend TSwift here, because why should I? It is lame that she didn't march. Yeah, it is. It's lame. I've never been on the anti-TSwift train and I won't get on it now. But she's done things like this that have alienated or disappointed her young female fan base before, and she should know better. She wants to consider herself a voice for our generation, well, showing up to the stuff our entire generation shows up for just seems fair.

But at the same time, to police someone's non-action like that makes me pretty uncomfortable. Our constant online presence makes our every move trackable. Only the paranoid or inflatedly self-involved actually believe they're being tracked by the government. But in reality, we are tracking the movements, the doings and now, non-doings, of celebrities. And that's a little cringe-worthy, if you believe - as all the young women who marched ought to - in an inalienable right to privacy.

Core Responce #1: The Modern Star

Dyer writes about how production and consumption are the two leading theories on how celebrity is made (17). Production emphasizes the importance of the filmmaker’s involvement, which “causes stars to exist” (example: Clark Gable and MGM) (17). Whereas consumption, which depends on audience interest and investment, is the other theory of celebrity creation (example: Robert Pattinson and the Twilight Saga) (17). Although a majority of Dyer’s writing speaks of the effects and value of these two schools of thought separately, it is clear that they are codependent on one another in our modern era.  

Jennifer Lawrence wins Best Actress for Silver Linings Playbook.

Take Jennifer Lawrence’s career for example. Lawrence entered the public’s radar in Winter’s Bone (Granik), in which she earned her first Oscar nomination for lead actress in 2010. In 2012, Lawrence would star in Silver Linings Playbook (O’Russel) and The Hunger Games (Ross), which would change her status from “rising star” to “household name” nearly overnight. 

Jennifer Lawrence signing autographs at a Hunger Games event

Silver Linings, with its independent status and official awards recognition can be regarded as a “production” film; whereas, The Hunger Games can be seen as a “consumer” film because of its commercial success at the box office and its immense popularity in a global market. Both films built Lawrence’s celebrity to what it is today. She is an award winning film star in the eyes of the critics, and a relatable fan favorite among the fickle youth demographic. If film studies can learn anything from Lawrence, it is that celebrity is not built by production or consumption . Both must work together to create a lasting career.

Work Cited: 

Dyer, Richard. Stars. BFI, 1998.

Images:

1.) Jennifer Lawrence wins Best Actress for Silver Linings Playbook.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/WDU7zLAd2-U/maxresdefault.jpg 

2.) Jennifer Lawrence signing autographs at a Hunger Games event. 

http://lancpump.com/jennifer-lawrence-with-fans 

Kim K's New Social Media Approach

I found an interesting article on Kim Kardashian's new social media strategy following a traumatic incident where she was held at gunpoint. I know that she went a relatively long hiatus from posting on all social media, and her return this year is indicative of a shift in how she chooses to present herself, her family, her life and her wealth.

Many blamed Kim's constant use of Snapchat, both by providing constant clues to places she frequently inhabits as well as serving as a tool to flash her wealth, for the robbery. I found this victim blaming appalling, but it made me think about this notion of privacy when it comes to public figures whose lives are up for consumption. With someone as public as Kim, who quite literally bares all for see, it seems that some feel like she deserved to be robbed and attacked. I find this deeply disturbing and after reading some interviews she has done after this incident, it is clear that she was heavily traumatized by it.

Her new social media strategy seems to be part of a "conscious rebranding" that reminds me of Beyonce's social media presence. While stars like Kim, Rihanna and more constantly post their looks, activities and views on social media, Beyonce presents a more obviously tailored version of her life. She shares often-staged pictures with her family, as well as pictures from concerts and events she attends. I do not think anyone who follows Beyonce on Instagram would claim to know too much about her, since she chooses to keep a divide between her personal and private life. Kim now has focused less on displaying jewelry and her outfits and instead has focused on her family (with some small exceptions). The heavily filtered photos make it painfully obvious that Kim is deciding what to share with us, removing an intimacy that was previously felt. While obviously Kim always was conscious in what content to post, now there is a filter that exists reminding her of her safety and how her posts could be used against her. I also find it odd that Kim was blamed for the robbery when it should be abundantly obvious that any celebrity has a tremendous amount of wealth, so Kim showcasing her lifestyle is certainly not an invitation to be attacked. I find this all raises a very interesting conversation about the use of social media in the constant battle that is the private versus public lives of the stars. What is the responsibility of the star on social media? Which celebrities let us the most in? Which celebrities are the most careful in curating their image and why?

Celebrities Getting Involved in Political Debate Regardless of it's Response

Aziz Ansari has recently taken over social media, trending on Facebook, Aziz proclaims that Trump supporters are "white supremacists" on Saturday Night Live.

http://latest.com/2017/01/aziz-ansari-exposes-trump-supporters-for-casual-white-supremacy-on-snl/

As celebrities have become more and more prolific in stating their political views in the public space, their opinions have helped make the climate more polarized. So much so that the outlets celebrities are broadcasting their messages on are not reaching the opposing side because of the outlets not having the broader demographics from the beginning.

Trump has also helped polarize the left and right wing by bringing attention to celebrities and humanizing them. A recent incident with Meryl Streep had Trump claiming her to be "a liberal nut job" while also de-validating her comments.

While this political climate has celebrities wishing to have their voices heard from the other side, Trump supporters have stopped following the more liberalized outlets making it more difficult for celebrities to reach them.

Similarly, America Ferrara vocalized her rights as both a woman and an immigrant in this country at the Women's March in Los Angeles this weekend.

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/963573273773548/?pnref=story

Celebrity Apprentice vs The Bachelor

Ratings were low for the new season of Celebrity Apprentice, now hosted by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The show once attracted viewers when it was hosted by Donald Trump, but now ratings are down "46% from the most recent Season 7." Deadline shares how the show was "topped in the 8-10pm slot" by ABC's The Bachelor. While viewers were once intrigued by Celebrity Apprentice's celebrity host, the show's popularity seems to be replaced by The Bachelor: consisting of men and women who crave star and celebrity status. 

http://deadline.com/2017/01/celebrity-apprentice-season-premiere-ratings-arnold-schwarzenegger-the-bachelor-1201877819/

Hollywood Bullying Donald Trump is the Only Bullying I Stand For

Home page of Variety today - 3 articles of celebrities speaking out against Donald Trump, with some-type-of-patriotic cover photos accompanying. Seems Meryl may have inspired a new wave of celebrity protest, one that diverse news outlets are ready to take part in. Journalists these days are still struggling with whether it's professional to call Trump a liar when he, you know... lies. But lucky for them....

Van Jones is keen to do it for them. Real question is: once Variety is dubbed "fake entertainment news," will our Fascist-Elect recommend we rely on Us Weekly or Star?

Celebrity and Information: When are we crossing the line?

As I am sure many of you are aware, Buzzfeed is one of the most popular outlets for information online, especially with millennials. I myself actively follow Buzzfeed on Facebook and Twitter. I came across a link to a Buzzfeed quiz today that caught my attention, not because it was testing movie knowledge, but because it's focus was on gossip. This quiz was made to test fans on who celebrities are currently dating. The quiz "Do You Know Who This Celeb Is Dating RN?" is reminiscent of the quizzes teen magazines would publish when I was younger. Now that I am older, I have changed the importance I place on such information, but I think it is worth discussing the value we as a society place on such information about our celebrities.

Interestingly, all ten of the celebs included in the quiz have had a history of being in the spotlight for their relationships. One star listed on the quiz, Kristen Stewart, has had a hard time for several years dealing with the public's interest in her relationships. However, in the past year or so, she has chosen to be more open about her relationships. Even though she is not hiding her relationships, should it matter who she (or any other star) is dating?  I am not immune to reading such things (obviously), but at what point are we crossing the line?

source: http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/kristen-stewart-dating-celesbian-gossip-twitter.html

I am interested to know how others feel about seeing celebrities personal information (like dating history) presented like this online. 

Here is the link to the quiz for reference.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/sheridanwatson/do-you-know-who-this-celeb-is-dating?utm_term=.bw5N7g0ag8#.hypZ6kjRkM

Thoughts on Star Persona in A Series of Unfortunate Events

As many of you likely have, I spent a good portion of the past weekend binge-watching the first season of Netflix's series-length adaptation of A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket. Among the many delights of this darkly whimsical show is Neil Patrick Harris' spectacular performance as Count Olaf. As odd as this casting initially seemed to me, Harris skillfully transitions between humor and sheer wickedness, and the first musical number quickly convinced me that his star persona and penchant for theatricality meshed perfectly with this role:

Even author Lemony Snicket (real name: David Handler) feels that Harris is the perfect fit, as he states in the following interview: http://ew.com/tv/2017/01/10/lemony-snicket-neil-patrick-harris/

Overall, the series has been highly satisfying, and I cannot wait to track Harris' involvement in the series and to see how this role further impacts his star persona moving forward.

Welcome to CTCS 412: Stars + Celebrity

You've found the course blog for CTCS 412: Stars and Celebrity, Spring 2017.  We'll use this site to respond to course materials, discuss celebrity culture, and share links and images relevant to the course.

From talk shows to the internet to The Enquirer to the countless star biographies scattered across cable and bookstores, fascination with celebrities permeates our culture.  We can all name favorite stars, and our desire to learn more about them can fuel our engagements with popular media.  Throughout the twentieth century, much of the popular writing on cinema has consisted of star biographies and tell-all memoirs, but scholarly investigations of the star are more recent.  This course revolves around a critical investigation of the role of the star in historical and contemporary U.S. culture.  In an attempt to analyze the star phenomenon, this class will focus on the role of the star within the ‘machinery’ of cinema – the ways in which stars function in the entertainment industry, within cinematic and extra-cinematic texts, and at the level of individual fantasy and desire.  We will pay special attention to the ways in which celebrity impacts cultural attitudes about race, gender, sexuality, and class.