Personally, I found King's piece on articulating stardom to be the most fascinating and novel this week's readings. We often think and learn about stars as being a marketing tool for studios, but rarely have I seen discussion like this about how stardom interacts with actors themselves. First, King goes on to explain the historical debate of theater being superior to film. This is an argument I am not unfamiliar with, still I found it necessary in order to understand King's main point about the economics of stardom and signification, and why stardom was a mechanism to beat this criticism. As a spectator, I can somewhat attest to the argument that acting on stage requires more skill, or can be seen as more impressive since it is live action.
King explains that "It is on stage that the actor is best placed to realize his or her 'creative intentions' in character portrayal" (168). Therefore saying that not only is stage acting superior to film, it is quintessential in order for an actor to engage with their character to the highest degree and deliver the most quality "impersonation." Not having much experience with acting myself, I cannot know for sure if this is true but I am likened to see the point. King discusses another critique of film over theater as a "deskilling process" to the actor, or "rendering the skills of the actor obsolete" (170). This can largely be attributed to the way actors interact with film technology, such as editing and close ups. While King brings up this criticism, I disagree that cinematic technology can take away from an actors skills. Since there are so many takes when filming, there is even more pressure for an actor to understand their character and deliver a coherent performance during each take.
After understanding the weight of these critiques, one wonders how then film has positioned itself as immensely more successful than theater. King answers this question by explaining that the concept of the star as actor was a response to the heavy critique of film acting from the stage point of view. With this comes obvious implications, like typecasting and naturalism. Film acting lends itself to the development of personalities and star images. As we watched Streetcar Named Desire, part of Brando's persona was the "rebel," which he utilized both in his public life and while filming to delve even further into his characters. According to King, this is what makes the actor as a star such an economic commodity, where "the image is rendered as a 'real-life' trait property of its bearer, the actor as star" (174). Meaning that Brando acquired a proprietary over his image and subsequently constructed and delivered a character on screen like no other. However with this notion comes a limitation of sorts. This limitation is at its core, physical, because with the use of close up shooting there becomes a tendency to select actors based on physical attributes and let these attributes mean and signify in and of themselves.
There is a sense of personal monopoly in the concept of the star as actor. With all the competition present due to naturalism, an even larger emphasis was created on what was unique about the actor. King explains this personal monopoly as "shifting the emphasis in performance towards personification," to which has the implication that the actor must carry his or her persona into every day life. Therefore stars constructing themselves as personas ultimately renders them as irreplaceable, transcending the narrative. I certainly see this practice today in modern media, stars with an infamous persona beating out talented "impersonation" actors for roles. When I look at some of my favorite films and television shows, I realize the reason I enjoy them so much is for that star persona. If this persona were to be replaced by just another actor, even if he or she was extremely talented, I am weary that my interest would wane. Overall, this reading certainly opened my eyes to the larger economy of stardom, and the personal monopoly it gives actors.
No comments:
Post a Comment