Week 7 - Stars

I had some difficulty grappling with the study of Stars. I recognize that it is an important and highly marketable trait in the business of movies, however analyzing it as a theory was strange for me. I will briefly try to address the assigned readings as best as I can before speaking a little on a star that I admire for being both a talented actor and overall good person.

Paul McDonald and Richard Dyer's respective publications on the study of movie stars seek to explain their appeal from four perspectives: semiotics, intertextuality, psychoanalysis, and audience studies. The first two approaches examine the Star as a text, while the latter two look at the ways in which audiences relate to stars. Both pieces strive to answer how stars come to have meaning, how that meaning is historically produced, why and in what different ways audiences identify with stars.

In class we mused on possible differences between stardom and celebrity and the ramifications thereof. In my opinion, it's a little like squares and rectangles: Stars may have celebrity, but not all celebrities are stars. Broadly, a star's job is to act (/direct/write/create) and they are celebrated for doing so skillfully. A celebrity's job is to be known. McDonald himself admits that "not everyone in film is a star (though this is often forgotten even within star studies where the search for new objects of study has led to the analysis of more and more minor performers as though they were stars)" (McDonald 80). While minor celebrities have been known to acquire roles in film and TV based on unrelated fame and media attention, there is a definite lack of skill and regard that separates them from true stars of the silver screen. That being so, I do not completely agree with McDonald's generalization that “[i]f genre theory made reference to the industry but tended to ignore the audience, star studies has made referece to the audience but tended to ignore the industry” McDonald 83). If anything, star studies is, in part, dependent upon the industry and its whims, since a cherished star will bring more viewers and therefore revenue to a film and thereby perpetuate the entire process. A keen industry uses talented stars righty for their ability to best relate to an audience of varied demographics though effective acting (/directing/writing) and so maintains the star's status in the firmament of the public eye.

Designating stars as either "universal" or "relative", though a little heavy-handed, might help illustrate different tendencies between merited stardom based on skill versus constructed or contrived stardom rooted in media inflation. A "universal star" is a star in his own right and acknowledged outside of film. He has overarching talent is skilled in craft his craft. His status as a star still allows him to have a distinct actual personality. His acting prowess is recognized by the fact that the characters played onscreen can be drastically different from his star image and yet we still relate to him. By comparison, a "relative star" might be labeled as “starring in” a film of lesser quality, and the designator is only applied within context of that specific film. He has a weak or contrived star image, and is identified more in fiction, his actual personality overshadowed by the character.

Plying apart fact from fiction when it comes to star image is very tricky, even trying to understand whether that image is merely a put-on projection or a filtered version of who the working actor really is. “Star images are the product of intertextuality in which the non-filmic texts of promotion, publicity and criticism interact with the film text [..] The star’s image cannot exist or be known outside this shifting series of texts” (McDonald 83). In what way? If it is that the star’s persona as a “movie star” be relevant only in the context of relating to that industry, then yes. If it insinuates that stars have no image other than their outward star image, I disagree. It is the job of the performer to do just that: perform as another person in order to exact a specific response from an audience or instill in them a certain understanding of fact or fiction. Outside this context, that of their profession, the actor should be able to be their true selves. I can only hope the audience recognizes that a star, while well-versed in their craft and admirable for their skill, is still just doing their job. Actors can be admired for their performance with relation to the screen as stars and/or for their actions as a responsible member of society and generally good fellow human being.

This segues nicely into introducing someone I admire. I hesitate to call him a star because there is so much more to him than just a media-coined title, a buzzword hinting at profession and past success. I speak of Robert Redford.

“The star is not simply a performer, but a figure with particular associations of glamour and charisma,” and there is no denying the Redford posessed all of these attributes onscreen in The Sting, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Natural, Out of Africa, and numerous others (McDonald 80). Whether he plays a very quiet character or one of questionable moral fiber, there is something that just draws the eye to him. These qualities in the man make the characters he plays sympathetic and so the film as a whole very effective. We trust him with telling the story. “Stars articulate what it is to be a human being in contemporary society; that is, they express the particular notion we hold of the person, of the ‘individual’ […] they articulate both the promise and the difficulty that the notion of individuality presents for all of us who live by it” (Dyer 8). Though everyone relates to people differently, it is nearly impossible to escape the juxtaposition the public image of on-screen appearances of the performer with the publicized private image of the star’s off-screen life, or the "real" person. These two interpretations of one physical being (one inferred as fact and one fictional) don’t and shouldn't need to fall into the categories of either seamless correspondence or antagonistic conflict. You can identify with a character or identify with the actor as a person with a profession that just happens to be very publicly visible. You wouldn’t admire the attributes of a villainous murderer, but you might admire the actor who plays him convincingly for creating such an effective illusion.

I find Robert Redford an interesting case to examine because he is publicly acknowledged for his work offscreen as much as onscreen, namely his impressive range of charity work and roles other than actor in the film community as an actor turned director and supporter of independent film through the foundation of Sundance and its numerous offshoot organizations. Is he recognizable as an auteur? His name certainly carries a mark that the work it is attached to will be of inherent good quality. Even though star studies initially emerged in part as a rejection against auteurism, they are really just different flavors of the same kind of layer cake. Both schools of thought recognize individuals for the unique, or at least identifiable and relatable qualities they bring to and display in their body of work.

Interestingly, though, I can explain his appeal by referencing a study amongst female audience members by Jackie Stacy on relating to portrayals in film. She found that attachment to a character could be categorizes as either Adoration, Transcendence, or Inspiration, while connecting with the actor, the star, as Pretending, Resembling, Imitating, or Copying. These aren’t actually all that different from how we develop our individual personalities, mannerisms, and beliefs based on the influence of those around us. We acquire some from parents, friends, and other role models from afar, imitating those that we agree with most or believe might be most advantageous for our own success in society and all other aspects of life.