Celeste Oon - Core Response #1
While there are many potential areas of inquiry within Richard Dyer’s (1998) Stars, I find myself gravitating towards a fundamental question: what is the star’s relationship to celebrity? Are the two synonymous? I find that the terms are often interchangeable colloquially, so long as they both refer to the traditional Hollywood celebrity. But how does one define celebrity? Dyer proposes a number of ways to conceptualize the star, one of them being Alberoni’s (1963) argument that stars are “people ‘whose institutional power is very limited or non-existent, but whose doings and way of life arouse a considerable and sometimes even a maximum degree of interest’ (p. 75)” (p. 7). The notion of a lack of institutional power is highly debatable—especially in transnational contexts where celebrities and geopolitics are explicitly tied—but what I am most interested in is the focus on the star’s “way of life.” Certainly, the importance of a star’s personal life opens a pathway for influencers and content creators, whose productions and texts are their lives (however constructed). What I find curious, then, is the resistance against many influencers who have risen into stardom.
Around two years ago, there began to be more public discourse about the role of influencers in traditional celebrity industries. Are influencers celebrities? Should influencers be treated the same way as celebrities, and share the same spaces? There was much commotion in 2021-2022 surrounding the Met Gala when TikTokers such as Addison Rae and Dixie D’Amelio were invited. Many people online expressed their dissatisfaction with the presence of influencers at such a high-profile event, suggesting that only the most elite may attend. I recall a Twitter user who, when challenged to distinguish between influencers and “real” celebrities, stated that celebrities have talent, while influencers do not. Frankly, I found the statement (and the overall discourse) to be utterly bizarre, and Dyer himself critiques this stance as a somewhat “magical” explanation (pp. 16-17). This logic suggests that celebrity is an earned title after some measure of skill (in what?), and fails to account for those who have earned their celebrity status as personalities. For example, while most would consider reality TV stars to be celebrities, significantly fewer people would label them as talented individuals; such a deficiency does not negate their celebritized status, however.
Regardless, I do believe this discourse highlights a perpetual tension in the oscillating (class) status of celebrities. Dyer points out that “there has been a shift from stars as ideals, gods and goddesses, to stars as representations of ordinary life, mortals, just like you and me” (p. 91). When Jennifer Lawrence first rose to stardom years ago, she was beloved by many because of her quirky relatability, particularly around the topic of food. More recently, Reneé Rapp has been gaining traction online, not only for her role in Mean Girls (2024), but for her bold and humorous personality during the film’s press tour. Many people joke that she has not had any PR or media training, and are drawn to her because she simply speaks what is on her mind, even if it may be abrasive. The appeals of these two celebrities seem to revolve around a level of “realness” and authenticity, a quality that brings them down to the likes of the common people. Celebrities are often praised for being “just like us,” for engaging in “normal” behavior and activities despite a level of grandiosity and wealth that would suggest otherwise.
And yet, the prospect of the influencer—who oftentimes much more closely resembles and is a “regular” person—as a celebrity is still largely unacceptable. Celebrities may not be gods anymore, but perhaps we want them to be. Perhaps it gives us a justification for the level of celebrity worship that permeates contemporary society now. In my view, there is a desire for class distinction that persists amidst a competing desire for class collapse, which results in the (de)legitimization of particular peoples. After all, you cannot have just anybody walking a red carpet; otherwise, the institution of celebrity itself loses its value and disintegrates.
I wonder if these sentiments will still be as strong five to ten years from now, as the influencer industry is already hitting a saturation point and will only bleed into traditional industries even more. I would be interested to hear from others on their thoughts, even (especially) if they disagree.
ReplyDeleteMegan Sullivan -- Supplemental Post #1
First off, I really enjoyed you perspective on Richard Dyer’s "Stars", and the personal insights you were able to bring in with you knowledge of influencers as well as specific examples from the Met Gala. I agree with your curiosity regarding the resistance against stardom that many influencers experience, but wonder more about why this co-exists with the notation that influencers’ careers depend on a large fan base. This caused me to draw upon our conversation in class about what defines a star. In your discussion about the controversial tensions regarding influencers attending high profile events such as the Met Gala, I thought a lot about whether or not influencers should be considered stars in the first place, or are they rather celebrities? Just because an influencer has a large fan base does that make them a star? Does that designate them to an elite class level and make them worthy of attending such high profile red carpet events?
In attempting to digest these questions, even as a class, I find it somewhat difficult to answer. I was particularly intrigued by your comment in the end of your response that states, “Celebrities are not gods anymore, but perhaps we want them to be.” Perhaps this is where I take a stance on the difference between a star and a celebrity, drawing from our class discussion and the Dyer reading. I believe that influencers, among other types of people with a large presence in our society, can be considered celebrities. However, that does not necessarily mean that they serve the role of a star. Influencers are “just like us,” as you suggest. We follow them because there are many parallels in our lives and theirs such as daily routines, families, lifestyles, hobbies and more. We also follow certain influencers because they represent something we hope to be such as a chef, a new workout routine, or a travel enthusiast. These people have gained such a large fanbase of people who are interested in similar things— a large enough fanbase that they have become a person of common knowledge. I believe that this concept of an extremely large number of people following the life and being of a particular person constitutes a celebrity.
However, just because a celebrity has a large fanbase, that does not make them a star. Today, there is a lot of crossover between big megastars and influencers particularly because of social media. Stars today, such as the example you used with Jennifer Lawrence, have a lot of autonomy in how they express themselves on social media. Stars today are able to go social media and posts things about their everyday life, making the relationship between stars and fans more intimate than it was in the early beginnings of the studio system. I believe that a lot of the confusion and controversy over influencers attending high profile red carpet events stems from this melding of similarities between stars and influencers as a result of social media.
Lastly, as social media and other forms of media impact the role of the star, I think that one thing remains consistent: the star reflects the desires of society today. Perhaps today in a time of technological uncertainty and innovation, such as the emergence of AI, promotes a stronger sense of connection with stars and brings a sense of security to fans who fear that their ability to engage with stars' work may change. During the Great Depression engaging with stars such as Shirley Temple offered a sense of relief from the anxiety of the Great Depression. Perhaps the convergence of stars and social media offers a similar relief in a different way.
Like the convo developing here!
ReplyDeleteThank you Celeste for this wonderful first entry of our class' blog. The topic around the notions of "star" and "celebrity," particularly within the context of social media influencers, is intriguing since it touches on the crucial aspect for many: validity. As Richard Dyer explains in the introductory chapter of his book, there is an active relationship between stars and the audience because stars are not products by themselves or appear organically and unidirectionally.
ReplyDeleteIn class, we discussed or introduced people we follow on social media that we consider stars. As Dyer points out in his book, stars represent types, encompassing various values and beliefs that emphasize an ideological way of seeing the world. The idea of "Star" includes not only the type but the triumphant story of triumph, and that triumph and way of life become a commodity for some people and, ultimately, becomes validity. For instance, copying the look of a star can make someone feel attractive or desirable, or watching a movie or reading their biography can make them engage with some point of view in the world – for instance, reading something written by Jane Fonda or trying to copy Jennifer Aniston's hairstyle.
That relationship was clear before social media, but that technological advance changed the status quo. Social media did not kill the stars but opened the door to other ways for people to find new commodities that fulfill their social necessities. Today, the conversation around whether social media influencers can be considered stars links to social status in which people and influencers see themselves as diminished. However, the relationship between stars and celebrities points out two issues: a general conversation around professionalism and the historical perspective that stars have when talking about film.
Celebrities are not stars because they do not socially fit in what is considered a professional career. That statement makes many younger people feel bad because it is a way to invalidate the people they see as role models or link with them to navigate the world. Film stars belong to a larger institution and are subject to an industry in which a power relationship is developed. For many, there is a clear understanding of work (filming), a unionized frame (guilds in the States but also in other countries), and even there is an academic space, not only film schools or colleges such as ours but private or public institutions, such as the Academy of Motion Pictures in Hollywood of departments within governments such as the ones seen in Europe, Canada, or Latin America. Actors who are pointed as stars belong to a professionally recognized space. Furthermore, as Dyer stars have an economic power that supports the industry and stars participate, they act and sometimes produce films). So, are influencers who happen to be celebrities also stars?
According to some elements that Dyer shows, like the relationship between fictional characters and actors or the use of their characteristics within the fictional work, this distinction will not happen. Because of that, we are back to the idea of professional validity. Stars are seen as an acceptance that the notion of influencers does not have yet. I suggest understanding the institutional powers behind influencers and if they really fit in this idea of a star and, even more importantly, analyzing if the lack of acceptance as a star affects the personal validation of the fans.
Finally, there is a historical perspective attached to the notion of stars. I will not delve in that direction right now because the post is already too long. As we are exploring in class, stars belong to cinema, and as movies, they are also social agents that provide perspectives on the long history of cinema. Adding social influencers to the concept of stars, we challenge our understanding of film as culture.