Emma Smith – Core Response #1

Richard DeCordova’s essay really explored and articulated something that I thought was evident in the history of the star, but I couldn’t necessarily articulate myself.  To me, the emergence of the traditional star system of classical Hollywood cinema followed this predictable pattern that aligned with the rise of cinema and fan magazines that publicized stage star’s and film star’s characters, personas, and later, personal lives.  DeCordova explained this pattern and added an immense amount of nuance to the process through his multiple quotations and analysis and expansion on the history of moving from the stage to film and the technology that aided it. 


Today, I think the star system has greatly shifted from stage acting leading to film acting leading to stardom.  With the rise of digital media and social media influencers, stars are being born with just a single post. These “stars” are getting bigger brand deals than the average B-list movie star and are even featured in their own movies or series, albeit not great ones (cough cough the D'amelio's or Addison Rae).  This pattern itself has also become predictable in society, just as the early Hollywood cinema pattern was.  I think this shift in the pattern reveals the important role digital and social media play in our everyday lives. It is the most accessible type of media and probably the most easily digestible, formulated by algorithms and consuming patterns that put each user in an echo chamber that reinforce all their established beliefs.  I think comparing the emergence of the classic star system to the way stars emerge today informs so much about our culture today.  


I guess a question I am trying to pose is: How did we get from the classical star system to the one we have today? Obviously the invention of digital/social media aided in this shift, but were there any other factors to this shift?

Comments

  1. Harlee BufordJanuary 25, 2024 at 7:47 PM

    Supplemental Response #1:

    I am also very interesting in how the star system from classical Hollywood has evolved into the different types of "stars" we have today. Other than social media and technological innovation, I think many of the changes regarding stardom are due to the amount of content available to us today, whether it be films, TV shows, TikToks, YouTube videos, etc. Since we have an overload of content, there are more opportunities and platforms for people to become stars, celebrities, or influencers. Further, I think that this is a huge reason why true stardom has faded because the plethora of stars, celebrities, and influencers today have made it much more difficult for us to be viewing the same content or to be familiar with the same stars. There are now more levels of fame and divides between certain viewers that fame and stardom has become less valued as it is no longer an exclusive, limited group of people.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 an
Read more

Payton Ewalt, Pau Brunet-Fuertes, Devin Glenn - Realist or Naturalist Style

Image
Group 1: Realist or Naturalist Style Definition: The naturalistic acting method involves creating a character based on a realistic representation, avoiding exaggeration and artificial mannerisms. As Barry Kind defines it in his article "Articulating Stardom," "Naturalism [is] the mode of the individual, his or her utterances, behavior and appearance in everyday setting, gives a privileged access to personal and collective realities" (172). The acting blurs in an impersonation that does not articulate ideas of characterization directly related to facilitating plot signifiers. This mode of acting conflicts with some notions of stardom, as "the actor confronts problems in characterization that relate to his or her being as a general cultural object rather than a theatrical object" (King 173). As Dyer points out, the naturalistic ideas of acting in Diderot and Coquelin method, states that the actor should never lose their role and should perform by observing
Read more