Megan O’Brien — Core Response #2

 This week's readings thoroughly deepened my inner conversations about what determines a star and the lifespan of celebrity. With social media allowing fans to get a closer look at their favorite stars than ever before, it is no surprise that the terms of stardom have evolved with it. It has always been curious to me why people want to know every little detail about celebrities. In my opinion, that is not what a star is for. Like this weeks readings mention, star’s are spectacles that allow fans to admire the essence of who or what they want the star to be. The more fans know about the star, the more they will discover that disappoints their expectations. Dyer states, “we may read stars in a camp way, enjoying them not for any supposed inner essence revealed but for the way they jump through the hoops of social convention.(Dyer 14)” We should let stars be figments of our imagination, because discovering information on their personalities, political views, and humanistic qualities, will lead to a steep incline in cancel culture and decrease in the lifespan of a star. Dyer addresses this instability and mentions that, “the fact that we know that hype and the hard sell do characterize the media, that they are supreme instances of manipulation, insincerity, inauthenticity, mass public life, means that the whole star phenomenon is profoundly unstable.(Dyer 14)” This reading contextualizes what breeds a star and can be applied to today's world in determining why elite stardom is becoming less and less attainable. Stars were once easily distinguished due to their carefully crafted image and portfolio, but it has become harder than ever to place celebrities in a finite box due to their independence and exposure. 

The readings utilize Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn to break down what made a star in the 50s. Dyer explains how Marilyn Monroe rose to significant prominence due to her captivating audiences with her sexuality. She was the pinnacle of desire and society's fantasies personified. While her uprising fit the formula for stardom, Audrey Hepburn’s rise was slightly more fascinating. She was Monroe’s polar opposite, with her boyish demeanor. “In fact, Rosen describes Hepburn as ‘one of the decades most intriguing and individualistic heroines’(302). This sense of individuality ,of uniqueness, and of independence is important, as Hepburn refused to be molded by her studio, Paramount, in the same way, the other stars were molded by theirs.(Brown 134)” Hepburn and Monroe display the rise for stardom based on desire or intrigue. This further demonstrates the controlled image required for sustained stardom, that is nearly impossible to acquire in the present days. Both stars maintained their famous status because they weren’t overexposed. They played into their roles as public figures and didn’t dilute their image or likability with controversy. The influx of information, present day, is unavoidable with press tours and a social media presence now being a part of the job description. I look forward to delving deeper into this subject as we get into lessons about modern days stars and social media influencers further into the semester.