Harlee Buford - Core Response #1

    In this week’s readings, I found Richard deCordova’s chapter to be the most interesting. Specifically, deCordova discusses the interdependence of a star’s screen personality and their private life: “The star is characterised by a fairly thoroughgoing articulation of the paradigm professional life/private life. With the emergence of the star, the question of the player’s existence outside his/her work in films entered discourse” (26). When obtaining stardom, the traits of an actor’s characters or roles are attributed to their true identity, or who they are in their private life. The blending of these identities is heightened for actors who are heavily typecasted, unable to break free from certain stereotypes, such as the girl next door, the dumb jock, the seductress, the nerd, etc. Likewise, the more talented an actor is at playing a particular role onscreen, the more audiences believe that the way they appear onscreen is truly how they behave in their personal lives because of their genuine, lifelike performances. 

    Logically, we understand that an actor and their role are not the same person, but I think the way an actor moves us emotionally affects us so deeply that we attribute these emotions, either consciously or subconsciously, to the star. Fans become passionate enough to even interfere with a star’s personal life. For instance, an example I immediately think of is the hate Nikki Reed receives from fans of The Vampire Diaries because she is married to Ian Somerhalder, who previously dated Nina Dobrev while working on the show. At this time, their characters, Elena and Damon, were falling in love, so fans still wish that the couple would have ended up together in real life just like their characters. The chemistry that Nina and Ian shared on the show is palpable and has made audiences swoon, and although they were playing a roles, it’s interesting to think how many costars do date when they are on a show or in a movie where their characters are romantically involved. I’m not saying that every couple onscreen with great chemistry has genuine feelings for one another, but at times it appears that maybe the emotions they feel while acting carry over into their personal lives. 


    Moreover, with social media today, stars have no privacy as paparazzi can post pictures of them instantly online, rumors can be spread like wildfire, and fans can directly message them. Our society’s obsession with stars and our urge to idolize them reflects our pattern of idealizing and reimagining stars so that they fit their roles and public images that we have fallen in love with, or on the other hand, grown to hate. Yet, we truly do not know a star’s true self as we are not included in their private life as friends, family, coworkers, etc. Ultimately, we will never know the truth. However, we become so convinced that a certain star is kind, benevolent, and funny, or on the flip side, cruel, selfish, and greedy, believing that our perception of a star is an oath or an undeniable truth. 


    Like deCordova explains, the blending of a star’s professional life and their private life, especially when we apply these ideas to today’s society, removes boundaries, merging one identity into the other. As a result, our imaginations take over and we think with our emotions, becoming infatuated, obsessed, and passionate about stars, to the point of mirroring them, interfering in their personal lives via social media, building fandoms, and ultimately treating them like gods. 

Comments

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