Star Studies and the Mass Culture Debates

Star Studies and the megabucks gloss Debates Since the infiltrate of time, society has of all time had its avow dealers that multitudes of spate look up to as idols. Today, most of the stars that people flock to argon famous people in spite of appearance the entertainment business, most notably actors and actresses. Movie stars suffer been consumed by the publics center ever since the film indus subdue took off in the early 1900s. in that location be certain movie stars that transcend time, and lately, people do whatsoever(prenominal) they mess to find disclose as much as they brush aside of these stars to reveal who they truly atomic number 18 byside of be in forward of a camera.However, some critics of the agglomerate Culture Debates do find holes in the star system we have today. The critics feel as if the gardening of these stars ar graceful very interchangeable, which is greatly affecting the culture of people reflection them. To demonstrate my point, I get out be discussing how Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer oppose the arguments do about star figures in Richard Dyers essay, Living Stars. I volition a corresponding explain how Dwight MacDonald takes a very similar stance against Jackie Stacys Feminine Fascinations Forms of designation in Star-Audience Relations. Fin completelyy, I will finish off by explain how critic David Rise patch hitks to mediate the Mass Culture critics arguments and take the side of Dyer and Stacy. If Adorno and Horkheimer were to get wind Richard Dyers Living Stars and dissect it, they would feel that movie stars today atomic number 18nt original in that they use a very scripted formula to attract themselves to the mickle, which is wherefore they create popular in the first place. Throughout his essay, Dyer explains that star figures be re shell inations, ilk myths, who serve to re elaborate many of societys vital binary oppositions.He goes on to explain this point by saying, The pr ivate self is further be through a set of oppositions that stem from the division of the world into private and public spaces, a way of organizing space that in turn relates to the mentation of the separability of the idiosyncratic and society. (FSR 130) His primary opposition for which he discusses stars and their relationship to the public marrow is stars portraying their private selves versus their public serves. Public stars control themselves on screen, and adduce great poise and try not to display their emotions to readily, because they extremity to obligate a ophisticated image of themselves whereas private stars atomic number 18 much more acuate and intr everyplaceted, they arent afraid to express their emotions and show who they truly are behind limiting doors. Martin Scorseses film The Aviator serves to depict the private and public image of really tone film counterbalancer and aviation pioneer Howard Hughes. To the public, Hughes became a larger than life sta r in behaveing Hells Angels and purchasing a major skyway of the time. However, his mental health soon began to crumble when his Obsessive Compulsive inconvenience began affecting both private and public facets of his life.Eventually, Hughes comes a point where he locks himself in his house and slips into a deep depression. As a resultant role of Hughes manic behavior, Adorno and Horkheimer would believe that if Hughes private behavior were to ever leak out into the public spectrum, his image would be forever tarnished because the Howard Hughes behind closed doors is not the same man who became a superstar director. One of the primary arguments Adorno and Horkheimer have with mass culture is that they feel that culture itself is becoming too standardized based upon formulas to streamline mass reproduction.When profitable, these formulas can become reproducible, like the star system of today. Not lone(prenominal) are the hit songs, stars, and soap operas cyclically continual a nd rigidly invariable types, but the specific content of the entertainment itself is derived from them and only appears in change. (FSR 9) It is as if they feel like nothing is original anymore and that everything is scripted and painted with this formula that works for the system to get the masses interested in a item artist, song, show, movie, or in Dyers case, a movie star.Take for example Bette Davis, who in her films displays a very mannered manner and grace under pressure. She usually plays very strong, independent, manipulative characters who have a solid surface disguised by an internal inferno. So when individual may want to see the latest Bette Davis movie, they may not like it if she plays in the style of a goodie goodie housewife just like all the typical housewives seen in such 1950s sitcoms as Father Knows outdo and Leave It To Beaver.People are going to want to have her display some internal conflict she is constantly struggling with but in the end, over powers it because of her strong will and womanhoodly empowerment. This same principle goes for Howard Hughes and his image. People want to see the Howard Hughes that is a public sensation, a brilliant filmmaker, a man with a taste for beautiful women. Nobody wants to see him in a depressed state locking himself in his house, because that will deter peoples images of him and little people will go out to see his movies.This plays into Adorno and Horkheimers idea of these formulas becoming reproducible and how this type of consumerism the individual plays can create the illusion of individual identity and authentic community. They feel like stars like David and Hughes have become statistics based on their genres they play best rather than recognized as individuals with creative freedom over their work. Just as Adorno and Horkheimer would have a problem with Richard Dyers essay, Dwight MacDonald has many of the same qualms with Jackie Staceys views of seeing movie stars as idols we should strive to be someday.In her essay, Feminine Fascinations Forms of Identification in Star-Audience Relations, Stacey analyzes the relationship between the womanly spectator and the Hollywood stars she discusses. In her discussion of imitating and assumeing the egg-producing(prenominal) stars, the female spectators often try to emulate either the stars looks or personas to try and be just like them, and in turn want others to mean they are just like the star. Stacey explains that, Stars are thus identified with particular commodities which are part of the reproduction of feminine identities.The female spectators in these examples produce particular images of femininity which remind them of their favorite stars. In so doing they produce a new feminine identity, one which combines an aspect of the star with their own appearance. (FSR 153) It seems that Stacey is pointing out that these particular stars are consumable feminine images which female spectators then procreate through o ther forms of consumption. Not only do these stars try to solve the binary oppositions of private self and public self as Dyer mentions, they are meant to be consumed by an audience as role models.Both seem to check over on the fact that stars fill some voids in peoples lives. We try to see ourselves as these very public figures and emulate every facet of their lives to try and improve our lives as a whole. Dyers and Staceys arguments also share many direct correlations with David Buxtons article, Rock Music, The Star System, And The Rise Of Consumerism. In it, Buxton talks about how didder stars are being consumed by youth culture everywhere in that the youth are trying to replicate the stars styles and attitudes.He explains that, The presentation of the life-style of the stars as the ideal of sophisticated modern living grew as part of the American Dream. (OR 432) This proves that the idolization of stars is not a new concept that was originally aspect up of by any of these t hree writers. Dwight MacDonald, however, does have a problem with the standardization of this process and how our culture is heading in the wrong boot as a result of this.Dwight MacDonald wrote an essay entitled, A Theory of Mass Culture, in which he explains that elements of mass culture and high culture are starting to merge and become standardized. MacDonald uses the merging of Broadway and the movies as an example of this by saying, The theatre was High Culture, mostly of the Academic variety The movies were definitely Mass Culture, mostly very bad With the sound film, Broadway and Hollywood drew nestled together. Plays are now produced mainly to sell the movie rights, with many being directly financed by the film companies. (FSR 15) One specific example of this can be found in William Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet. Though the themes of Shakespeares story are silence in the movie version, Luhrmann blends high art and folk art to make a midcult style movie by placing the setti ng in present day South Central Los Angeles. MacDonald fears this type of media renders people passive by the end, and is one of the greatest threats to high culture. In MacDonalds opinion, as our lives become deluge with midcult such as Romeo and Juliet, the reality of consumerism becomes naturalized.In essence, the heroes and heroines of masscult and midcult that MacDonald speaks of become idols of consumption, mainly movie stars. Stacey explains how female stars such as Bette Davis and Joan Crawford are meant to be consumed by the public because those are the actresses that women most frequently hear about, and want to live just like them because they are classy ladies who are real role models of how one woman should act in society. Based on MacDonalds argument, the branding and consuming of stars oday represents a demise in our societys high culture in that these shouldnt be the people we should be idolizing. The real people that should be getting the praise are the people who c hanged our country to make life better for everyone in the end, like Thomas Edison and Benjamin Franklin. Using stars to fill the voids in our lives to solve mark oppositions to MacDonald are destructive to our high culture, which is what we really need to be evaluate instead all of the new media and stars thatve become mainstream, like Jersey coast and Teen Mom.Even though the left wing critics could have many potentiality problems with the star system of the past and of today, liberal sociologist David Riseman does present some points that could substantially counter Adorno, Horkheimer, and MacDonalds arguments. Riseman insists that mass culture consists of multiple forms of response by audiences. He believes everyone reacts differently to different forms of media and that no one is the same. The formulas that the left wing critics presuppose is ultimately destroying high culture do not exist in Risemans opinion.Even though some people may want certain stars to stick to the ir formula, some may like to see those artists branch out and look for new fields. The stars that people ultimately consume and strive to become are all different for each individual. Buxton, Dyer, and Stacey dont say that people only worship the stars that they talk about. Riseman also argues that audiences of high art want to find their own kitsch in what they consider high culture, just like mass culture audiences want to see their own kitsch in their forms of entertainment. OR 7) He seems to think that Adorno, Horkheimer, and MacDonald have their own ideas of what high culture needs to be, which in the end, becomes something that is copied and will soon generate the same response. For anything negative that the left wing critics index say towards Dyer and Staceys arguments, Riseman is on that point to back up there arguments to prove that their theories are valid after all. It is very apparent that the issue of the Mass Culture Debates has been around for quite some time.So m uch so, that you can readily give way them to many different aspects of life, including the star system in Hollywood. There always have been and always will be movie stars or musicians that we transport and like to go see because they are good at their craft. Dyer, Stacey, and Buxton are just like every other person out there who ca truly see the effect that stars can have on society and the crazy things that people will do to try and copy their methods.Whether or not the Star System is good or detrimental to mass culture like Adorno, Horkheimer, and MacDonald seem to believe, as long as stars continue to make the industry interesting, critics will continue to discuss their methods and an on-going will last for many generations to come. Bibliography Hollows, Joanne, Peter Hutchings, and stag Jancovich. Section One policy-making Economy and Mass Culture Theory. The demand Studies Reader. capital of the United Kingdom Arnold, 2000. 9. Print. Hollows, Joanne, Peter Hutchings, and Mark Jancovich. Section One Political Economy and Mass Culture Theory. The Film Studies Reader.capital of the United Kingdom Arnold, 2000. 15. Print. Hollows, Joanne, Peter Hutchings, and Mark Jancovich. Section Four Star Studies. The Film Studies Reader. London Arnold, 2000. 130. Print. Hollows, Joanne, Peter Hutchings, and Mark Jancovich. Section Four Star Studies. The Film Studies Reader. London Arnold, 2000. 153. Print. Frith, Simon, and Andrew Goodwin. go away One Groundworks. On Record Rock, Pop, and the Written Word. New York Pantheon, 1990. 7. Print. Frith, Simon, and Andrew Goodwin. Part Seven Reading The Stars. On Record Rock, Pop, and the Written Word. New York Pantheon, 1990. 432. Print.