Types of Acting and Representation: Core Response

“Stars are representations of persons which reinforce, legitimate or occasionally alter the prevalent conceptions of what it is to be a human being in this society.”

This was a quotation from the reading that I found to be particularly interesting. This idea of altering prevalent conceptions directly relates to stars exposing and smoothing over cultural contradictions. It is interesting to look at how different acting methods influence how we view these cultural traditions. In melodrama and theatric tradition, there is exaggerated gestures which make the characters not seem real. Therefore, they become symbols, representing issues larger than them. I immediately think of Sunset Boulevard and Norma Desmond walking down the stairs. She quite literally is performing (as an actress unable to escape this world) and these exaggerated gestures make us question how did she get like this? What is she expressing? Her inner turmoil seems to have been causes by societal pressures and her gestures are the map we use to navigate through these contradictions. In the case of Sunset Boulevard, it reflects the consumption of the female body and its relationship to aging in terms of celebrity. Method acting, on the other hand, seems more focused on the individual which leads to better understanding how specific social forces affect the character, but I would argue it is more subtle. Seeing Marlon Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire, it is clear that he reduces Stanley to essentially an animal, reflecting a lot about the depiction of the ideal male during this time, however for me personally this spoke less to society at large but more to the individual. Of course, an individual’s experience can reflect a lot about the society they live in. Stanley’s class, race and more all influence how he interacts with Stella and Blanche who come from an upper-class background. Therefore, understanding the individual reveals things about society in method acting, but with melodrama understanding the society and contexts allows us to make sense of the individual, in my opinion. I think the distinction between the two is often subtle, but comparing Blanche’s gestures and dialogue to that of Stanley’s reveals a lot about how different acting methods highlight different aspects of the character’s background, identity and position in society.

            I also wanted to mention one other thing about the quote above, something I think Dyer has largely overlooked up until this point, which is how race and sexuality affect representation. Stars legitimate what it is to be a human in society, yet so many individuals never saw, and continue to not see, stars that look like them. Does this mean they are less than human? The production of celebrity has historically favored cisgender heterosexual white men and women, so this is important to look at. I am interested in looking at those who were largely rendered invisible by the early star system and how they felt about this system. Did they also idolize Joan Crawford and John Wayne? I think a more intersectional analysis would reveal a lot about the cultural production of the celebrity. I once heard that if you aren’t seen on TV (people like you) then you are invisible in society. I think this reflects why shows such as Transparent and Orange is the New Black are so important because they portray complex and ultimately human examples of transgender individuals opposed to a long history of mocking cross-dressing (Some Like it Hot). But there still are not many stars that are outside of dominant acceptable beauty standards and politics. This makes me wonder: does society need to demand stars that represent them or does the production system need to create these stars and this will determine how they are consumed by society?