Payton Ewalt - Supplemental Post #4

In Beltran’s piece, I was most drawn to two things: the physical construction of the body and ownership of the body. As we see with so many stars and celebrities over time, and with non-stars and their cosmetic surgeries, those types of body modification are not only accepted without question, but often glorified. When a star gets a new BBL or an adjustment to their nose, the response is often positive; it’s their body, and they can modify it how they want (as long as it’s aesthetically pleasing). Is the construction of the body for the public image inherently bad? Is it expected to stay relevant in changing cultures and trends? What level of ownership does the person outside of star image have of their own body – is that agency?

Beltran uses the phrase “embody” to show how Lopez’s image might’ve convinced viewers of her ability to play the role in Selena. Is body so important to acting, that without a certain body an image is unbelievable? I can’t imagine believing Christian Bale as Dick Cheney without the weight gain, but I can imagine suspending my belief for his role in The Machinist without losing 100+ pounds.

Halfway through the piece Beltran writes an interviewer’s question to Lopez about her butt: “Is that butt yours, or is it padded?” Well, yes, the physical butt is obviously hers. But even if it was padding, isn’t it still hers? How much can she own of herself? Her image is created and adjusted for the public eye, her body can be put through what she decides to put it through, but is the idea of what her body can be really hers if it follows the cultural trend?

 

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