Supplemental Post 2: Star Sighting--Matt Bomer!

I was driving through Larchmont Village on Sunday, February 7^th when I saw him. I had just left a trendy new workout spot and was driving past all the trendy food places on the ever-so-trendy Larchmont Blvd. That place is like Bloggersville come to life. On Sundays they have a super expensive and high-end Farmer’s Market (which I do not take part in on my college student budget). So, as I was driving past instead of participating, I saw a man approaching the crosswalk with fresh flowers and produce spilling out of a canvas bag slung over his shoulder. I stopped to let him to let him cross safely and he smiled and nodded. As he made his way past my windshield, I realized it was Matt Bomer and I, quite literally, gasped and covered my mouth with my hands. Fortunately, at that point he wasn’t looking in my direction anymore. I watched him get to the other side in his mint green sweats and gray sweatshirt, tried to get it together and continued driving.

Now, there really isn’t any way for me to know if it truly was the stunning Matt Bomer, but it sure seemed like something he would be doing on a Sunday morning. I called my sister to tell her about my star sighting and she totally agreed that it would make absolute sense for Matt Bomer to be out grabbing fresh goods from the Larchmont Farmer’s market to take home to his husband and three sons. As if we can make such assumptions about someone’s life who we don’t know whatsoever. I suppose that is the nature of celebrity culture. We know a few tidbits about these people and we fill in the blanks ourselves.

I’ve long thought Matt Bomer is one of the most beautiful human beings ever so this experience was pretty exciting for me. If it really was him, seeing him in such a setting is pretty cool. Despite being unbelievably gorgeous and likely having several opportunities to be far more famous and well-known, he has stayed low-key as a celebrity. We know very little about his personal life and he’s never had any real noteworthy news story. He quietly does his job as an actor and quietly goes to the Larchmont Farmer’s market. Well, I think he does. Then again, we all have our different versions of celebrities because we don’t actually know them. I’m just glad I got to fan girl in my car for a few minutes. And if it wasn’t him, there’s another strikingly beautiful man out there so that’s sure nice to know!  

Supplemental Post 1: The Kardashian Infiltration of Eonline

It was bound to happen. One of us was bound to write about the Kardashians. Or the Jenners, or Kanye, or Lamar, or Scott, or Tyga, or any of the other personalities they have created and nurtured through calculated publicity methods. That’s why I’m writing about them and that’s why we talk about them. They know exactly what they’re doing and they’ve mastered the infiltration of celebrity culture at its new core—the Internet and social media.

I visit Eonline every day, as I will gladly admit. It provides me with all of my celebrity gossip in a one-stop shop and it’s even pretty funny and, at-times self-aware. As the Kardashians got their big break on the E! Show Keeping Up with the Kardashians, it’s obvious that this family would be their biggest resource to tap for content. Yet, it wasn’t until rather recently that I realized their brand has infiltrated every single corner of Eonline.

Simply taking a look at the site today reveals just how pervasive they have become. The Kardashians are under “News” with a story about Rob Kardashian getting his new girlfriend, Blac Chyna red roses for Valentine’s Day (what a concept!). They appear under “Photos” with pictures of Kim “rocking” blonde braids and her “post-baby body”. Under “Videos”, we find clips about Kanye West dissing Taylor Swift and Lamar Odom’s first outing since his health crisis at Kanye’s fashion show. A Jenner makes an appearance under “Style”, of course, as Kendall is referenced as an “It Girl” of New York Fashion Week. The big drop-down category, “E! Shows” had 24 clips from Keeping Up with the Kardashians, featuring everyone from Caitlyn Jenner to all the men in each Kardashian or Jenner woman’s life.

All of this wasn’t extremely surprising to me because the E! Brand is wisely aligning itself closely with the Kardashian Brand. What really astounded me is what happens whenever you click on a story that mentions at least one person in any way associated with the Kardashian Kore. Upon clicking on a story about Lamar Odom and Khloe Kardashian celebrating Valentine’s Day together, Eonline fills my screen with Khloe’s Instagram, a photo gallery of Lamar’s happy times on and off the court and four other galleries featuring the famous family. They add in the entire schedule of KUWTK for the week and “The Bible”, which features the absolute up-to-the-minute news on the family. Under this entire Kardashian area within the website, the Kardashians have their own Home, News, Photos and Videos categories.

I find this to be a testament to how much work each member must put in to simply maintain the constant flow of content necessary to sustain this attention. It means Kanye has to diss Taylor Swift yet again in his new album to cause an eruption of opinions from other celebs through social media. It means Kim has to go blonde and hold her coat just right to make sure everyone sees her “post-baby assets”. Kylie and Kendall have to wear red carpet attire to get frozen yogurt because every outing is a photo-shoot. It appears there is no going back for them now. They have a whole site to preserve and the only way for them to do so is by living their lives entirely exposed. 

Core Post # 1 Laura Mulvey's "Male Gaze" Reimagined as the "White Female Gaze"

A friend of mine posted a link to this article on her Facebook page about a few films that premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. I usually skim these types of articles, but this one was different: it name-dropped Laura Mulvey. And no, it's not about Daniel Radcliffe's farting corpse movie.

I want to apologize in advance if the subject matter or anything I say offends anyone, but sometimes controversy can make for great discussion, right? I'm not endorsing the article or the films. I just think it's point of view worth talking about.

The article, penned by Hunter Harris, reimagines Laura Mulvey's concept of the "male gaze" into the "white female gaze," by citing two movies that premiered at Sundance: "White Girl" and "Morris From America." Harris' argument is that both directors "have shown the effects of a white female [gaze]. It's earnest but also falsely emboldening: [the minority characters] don't see themselves as white, but they see themselves through their muses' white eyes, thinking whiteness can expand, extending all the way to their darker bodies."

I think it's interesting that as our culture has moved closer to female/male equality, there are still many instances where inequality and domineering/submissive relationships rear their ugly heads. One of the great things about films (especially early films) is that they often reflect the time period during which they were made, capturing the sociopolitical climate of the time. The male gaze was born out of the "patriarchal order" and objectification of women in both the cinematic narrative and the character/spectator relationship. Those spectators often lived in a world with a patriarchal order where women were objectified. 

But times have changed. What is acceptable and desired in our country now is much different than it was back when movies were first being made, and even back when Mulvey coined the phrase. So is it possible for the male gaze to evolve as well? Can it go as far as identifying a specific race?

Supplemental Post #4: Gilmore Girls, Fuller House, Girl Meets World and One-Hit-Wonder Celebrities

Recently, I've been eagerly accompanying the revival of the show Gilmore Girls. As a teenager, Rory Gilmore had been my idol, and it even got to the point my parents were a bit worried because I had to be absolutely punctual every day in arriving home so I could catch two back-to-back episodes (in the not-so-long ago days before streaming, where I would throw a bit of a tantrum if I missed my show and then wouldn't be able to watch it anywhere else).
Now, fast forward less than a decade, and the show has been picked up by Netflix for four 90-minute episodes as a new season. It's like almost every day Netflix announces a new actor who's signed up for the show, almost everyone from the two main stars to actors with tiny but beloved recurring roles. Then I realized that this wasn't the only one: from other revivals like Fuller House to Girl Meets World, almost all of the actors have been returning to the shows that launched their careers. And for a lot of these actors, not only did these shows launch their careers, but ultimately became the pinnacle of their stardom, with work more or less flailing once their majors shows get cancelled. Are they only returning because it might be the best role they've ever been offered and will be offered?
It's a bit sad to see such talented actors like Alexis Bledel and Lauren Graham, the mother-daughter duo from Gilmore Girls, not be able to reach the same level of notoriety and get the same amount of work they did while they were on the show. There is a bit to be said about how these characters ingrain themselves in our minds from their famous roles, but it's not as though it's impossible to breakout from hit shows. However, in the above examples, it seems as though only characters from smaller roles went on to become even more famous famous: Melissa McCarthy aka Sookie St. James became a blockbuster film star, Matt Czuchry stars in The Good Wife, Liza Weil can be seen in both Scandal and How To Get Away with Murder. From Full House, Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen built an empire while some of their costars hit rock bottom. It's also notable that McCarthy and the Olsen sisters are some of the few characters that won't be returning to their former shows.
When certain shows become so beloved, is it nearly impossible for an actor to detach themselves from their character to go on and play other roles? Is their stardom too attached to people's ideas of their original character? How does Alison Hannigan, once Willow in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, go on to become Lily Aldridge in the wildly popular How I Met Your Mother while Sarah Michelle Gellar is barely seen on our screens? I wonder if hit TV shows can sometimes be more harmful to someone's career than helpful as we come to see these actors on our TVs nearly every day for years, and then are left without the ability to see them beyond these shows and in another role.

Supplemental Blog Post -- The Delight and Discomfort of Makeover Montages

Hi, everyone! 

I wanted to do a supplemental blog about makeover movies and how this relates to the work we’re doing in class. Makeover movies are (as defined by me) as films in which the female or male (but predominantly female lead and usually a well known, well desired one) is characterized in the fifteen minutes of the film as, ugly, annoying, weird, and/or all together undesirable.  Then through her own ambition or usually some outside force the young woman goes through much needed ‘transformation’ or what I and many love to call it the makeover montage.  You can see and probably moderately to extremely enjoy these transformations in movies such as She’s all that, The Princess Diaries, You Again, or my personal favorite, Miss Congeniality. In all of these films, the female lead is transform from unattractive, masculine, or geeky characters to the beautiful, feminine, sexualized bodies.  This idea of transformation can be seen some television shows. (Think: Extreme Makeover, Love it or List it, Property Brothers -- any HGTV show has taped into the public pleaser of a tool.) But what makes makeover movies so intoxicating is it’s transformation of the human body. The human body becomes something malleable; a forever in-progress “project” one must clean up and put some work into.

And I’ll be honest -- I love makeover montages. I look forward to them. I bummed out when they’re not in the movie. Example: Where was the Pretty Woman-esque montage in Now Voyager? Instead of a physical transformation, we got to see most of her emotional one….which is important…..But come on!  She could have tried on a few dresses! But to be clear, I am embarrassed by how much I love makeover montages – especially when the female’s self-esteem and sanity are so tied into ‘catching’ the eye of a man. And despite my disappointment that there isn’t an exact makeover montage in Now, Voyager, we still get to revel in the reveal of rather  glamorized version of Bette Davis on the yacht sailing away. There is a kind of pleasure taken from the transformation - spectator satisfaction in these makeovers.

 These makeover movies follow some basic rules and create certain sensations for the audience. There is a direct link from the undesirable woman to the transformation to finally male attention because of this transformation. I think there is an undercurrent here for female obedience to the male gaze. If you want to be seen as attractive you must behave and confine yourself to societal (and white male-dominated) definitions of beauty. This act of behaving and conforming yourself to these definitions are not easy. No, it means putting in a lot of labor, time, and not to mention the roller coaster consumption of products and clothing. You need to buy this mascara, this skirt, this blouse, shave you legs, loose weight, gain weight and don’t forget to do something with your hair. You must charge forth being beautiful with the lots determination and a big wallet – and I guess try not to eat your feelings too much. But it’s cool because for all your hard work, you get the reward of male attention.

It’s also interesting when you look at other films that offer a different narrative/arc for the movie makeover-ed female lead. Clueless offers a counter argument. The lead, Cher transform Brittney Murphy’s character Tai from stoner, unattractive outsider to ultra feminine, desired popular girl.  But the film goes against the grain of these typical makeover movies by showing and digging in the ‘aftermath’ of this transformation.  While Tai may get male attention, as a character she isn’t glamorized. If anything her personality goes from attractive to unattractive, slowly changing into a shallow character; And at one pint Tai even goes as far as rejecting Cher’s help and friendship and makes Cher a kind of outsider. 

Beyond the movies I've mentioned, I'm interest in how this movie makeover fascination changes the the audiences behavior outside the movie theater. In what ways does this need to transform yourself come out in culture, consumerism, and our day to day concept of identity and expression of sexuality? 

Supplemental Response #3: Sia & Privacy in the 21st Century

Yesterday, The Guardian released an article about the singer Sia with a prominent quote: "Everyone in entertainment is insecure. We've been dancing our entire lives for your approval."(link: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jan/31/sia-everyone-in-entertainment-is-insecure-observer-music-interview) While the article discusses Sia's development within the entertainment industry in light of her recent album release This Is Acting, it begins with and continuously returns to her choice of always performing while obscuring her face. Rather than dance herself, she often chooses to have others dance while she signs along in the background. Sia has chosen wigs, paint, costumes and the faces of others to obscure and hide her own presence, a practice that has also been captured by the Guardian in photographs (link: http://www.theguardian.com/music/gallery/2014/jul/07/sia-1000-forms-fear-faceless-performance?view=desktop). It is interesting that in an age where stars keep displaying every facet of their life on social media, however polished it may be, Sia has attempted to and succeeded in maintaining a fairly low visual profile. Although her name is familiar to many, I had to Google Image her to get an idea of her face. I was unsure whether such photos would even be available, and was pleased to find a few photos of a regular, smiling face.

Privacy seems like an underrated currency these days, with teenagers who have grown up with social media more than happy to plaster their image all over the internet. Nowadays we don't even hear warnings from websites aimed at children to "ask their parents" before they log on and sign up, nor are there as many after school specials about the dangers of releasing your information. On the contrary, more and more often we hear stories about Vine Stars who have become Pop Stars, YouTube Stars who became Best-Selling Authors. This encourages young wannabe famous people to begin sharing their lives young, in order to accrue viewers and subscribers to one day catapult themselves into even bigger fame.

Even if famous people didn't want to be plastered all over the internet, it's likely they still would. Paparazzi follows every Kardashian or Miley Cyrus known to lead to sold photographs and greater viewership. Once a person reaches a certain level of fame and notoriety, it's assumed and usually inevitable that they will be in the public eye if they are successful enough; it might even be preferably to these people to display their lives on their own terms through social media rather than allow the paparazzi to do so. It also knocks out two birds with one stone for certain types like the Kardashians: they feed into the frenzy of their personas and brands while crafting their own image.

Yet Sia not only has avoided much of the media frenzy around her but does not want it at all. The media even seems to humor her as Rolling Stone released a cover of her with a paper bag over her face and the Guardian whites about her without displaying an available picture of her face. It makes me wonder whether it might even be part of some sort of contract she makes magazines and journals sign in order not to have her face released.

Of course, in the cynical 21st century the move seems to preserve her privacy as much as it seems to promote her image in some way. Her usage of wigs and paint and other famous faces become an undeniable part of a performance, a part of 'the dance' she mentions above, very appropriate for her album name of "This Is Acting". The myth of Sia is created, unlike other celebrities known to enjoy privacy who still show their face every once in a while, like Adele. Obscurity earns her equal fame to overexposure, if not more due to its curious and rare nature in these times. It becomes a win-win, as her fame increases while she's able to step outside without thousands of fans hoarding her as she goes by unseen.

It's the sort of privilege that one would think more famous people might enjoy, but maybe the ego and need for public adoration speak louder than the need for privacy in many people.

Core Response #1 Dyer and the Dad Bod

Richard Dyer, in his book "Stars," discusses celebrities as models of consumption who society admires through their public displays of wealth.  For example, the extravagant outfits of female celebrities signify that they do not have to "work," or at least their work is not of a laborious quality where it would be restricted by such outfits.  Similarly, "a man's athletic body may be much admired, but only on condition that it has been acquired through sports (a leisure activity) not labour" (39).

This makes me think about the way society's image of the ideal male has changed through time.  A tan and muscular man who today graces the cover of magazines wasn't always the ideal man.  The tan skin and muscles once indicated labor under the sun that only a lower class performed.  A more rotund person was favored because they indicated wealth as they were able to feed themselves abundantly.  A psychology professor at Clark University, Michael Addis (link here) comments, "It's (the contemporary ideal male image) a far cry from the male celebrities of the 1950s -- think Spencer Tracey or Robert Mitchum -- who wore their heftiness as a sign of financial success or a way to demonstrate masculinity."  But perhaps this image is coming back through the recent phenomenon known as the Dad bod.  Described as "a nice balance between a beer gut and working out," the Dad bod is non intimidating and doesn't require women to feel like they have to be toothpicks to impress a guy, when we all know it is harder for women to lose weight than men.

Perhaps, the dad bod phenomenon is an indicator of the model of consumption of which Dyer speaks.  Celebrities such as Leonardo Di Caprio, John Krasinski, and Alec Baldwin possess the dad bod, indicating the "leisure class" and "ordinariness" Dyer mentions.  But will a Dad bod ever be voted the Most Sexiest Man Alive?  Only time will tell, but for now, society's rampant consumerism has finally had a positive impact by giving males and thereby females, an attainable image.  Interestingly, an athletic body can both be acquired through leisure sports or working class labor, and a dad bod can indicate a leisure class, or a lower class that consumes a lot of fast food.  Consumption therefore, does not always indicate wealth when it comes to body image, but the two elements seem to be ingrained, perhaps subconsciously in our perceptions.