STARS NewEdition WithaSupplementary Chapter andBibliography byPaulMcDonald V This Edition first published in1998by the BritishFilm Institute 21Stephen St, London W1P 2LN TheBritish Film Institute is the UK national agency with responsibility for encouraging thearts of film and televisionand conserving them in thenational interest. First Edition published1979 Reprinted1982,1986,1990,1992 Copyright British Film Institute1979,1998 Copyright Richard Dyer1979,1998 Copyright supplementary chapter Paul McDonald1998 Cover design: Swerlybird Art & Design Cover image: Jane Fonda as Bree Daniel in Klute, 1971 Set in10/12pt Minion by Fakenham Photosetting Limited, Fakenham, Norfolk NR218NL Printed in Great Britain by St Edmundsbury Press, Bury St Edmunds BritishLibrary Cataloguing-in-PublicationData A catalogue record for this book is availablefrom the British Library ISBN0-85170-648-7 hbk ISBN0-85170-643-6pbk Contents INTRODUCTION PART ONE: STARS AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENON 1ConditionsforStardom 2Production:Consumption Originsof stardom Starsasaphenomenonofproduction Starsasaphenomenonof consumption 3Ideology Starversuscharacter Life-as-theatre Ahistoricalparadigm-fromgodstomortals Starsandthestatusquo Compensation Charisma PART TWO: STARS AS IMAGES 4StarsasStars Consumption Success Ordinariness-arestars'different'? Thedreamsoured Love 5StarsasTypes Thenotionofsocialtype Alternativeorsubversivetypes 6StarsasSpecificImages Aspecificimage: JaneFonda PART THREE: STARS AS SIGNS 7Starsand' Character' Thenotionof character Theconstructionof character Starsascharactersin films 8StarsandPerformance Trendsinthestudyofperformance Performancesigns 9 ANoteonAuthorship CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER: RECONCEPTUALISING STARDOM SUPPLEMENTARYBIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX Acknowledgments Stillsandotherillustrationsusedinthebookarebycourtesyof thefollowing companiesand individuals:theBettman Archive;JamesBroughandStar Books; theBritishFilmInstitute;CIC;Cinecenta;Columbia-EMI-Warner;JohnGarrett andCameraPress;JohnKobal;JosephKraft;PictorialParade;Rank;United Artists; World Wide Photos. VI Introduction The aim of this book is to survey and develop an area of work within film studies, namely, film stars. Although stars form the basis of probably the larger part of everyday discussion of films, and although the majority of film books produced are fan material of one kind or another, very little in the way of sustained work has been done in the area. No work, that is, that elaborates some kind of theory of the phenomenon and uses this theory toinformempiricalinvestigationof it. Within film studies,reasonsfor studying thestars have largely come from two ratherdifferentconcernsthatmaybroadlybecharacterisedasthesociological andthesemiotic.Theformercentresonthestarsasa remarkable,and probably influentialorsymptomatic,socialphenomenon,aswellasbeinganaspectof film's'industrial'nature.Inthisperspective,filmsareonlyof significanceinso far as they have stars in them. The semiotic concernreverses this.Here, stars are onlyofsignificancebecausetheyareinfilmsandthereforearepartof theway filmssignify. This divisionof interest isreflected in thestructure of this book, in thatthefirstpartdealsprimarilywithsociologicalissuesandthethirdwith semiotic, and only the second very obviously combines the two. However, one of myassumptionsinwritingthebookhasbeenthatthisdistinction,whileuseful inhelpingonetohandleanotherwiseunmanageablylargetopic,isessentially oneof convenience,andthatbothconcernsaremutuallyinterdependent.Thus, ontheonehandthesociologicalconcerncanonlymakeheadwaywhenin-formed byaproperengagement withthesemioticsof stars, thatis,theirspecific significationasrealisedinmediatexts(includingfilms,butalsonewspaper stories,televisionprogrammes,advertisements,etc.).Thisisbecause,sociologi-callyspeaking,starsdonotexistoutsideof suchtexts;thereforeitisthesethat havetobestudied;andtheycanonly bestudiedwithdueregardtothespeci-ficitiesof whattheyare,namely,significations.Equally,ontheotherhand,the semiotic concern has to be informed by the sociological, partly because stars are, likeallsignifications,alsoandalwayssocialfacts,butalsobecauseitisonlyon the basisof a propertheorisationof one'sobjectof study thatoneisable topose questions of it.Semiotic analysis has tomake assumptions about how texts work beforeproceedingtoanalysethem;onceitisgrantedthatalltextsaresocial facts,thenitfollowsthatthesetextualassumptionsmustbegroundedinsocio-logicalones. You need toknow what kind of thing a textisinsociety inorder to knowwhatkindofquestionsyoucanlegitimatelyposeofit,whatkindof knowledgeyoucanreasonablyexpectittoyield.Thusalthoughthisbookis structuredlinearly,theactualenterpriseisdialectical,aconstantmovement 1 betweenthesociologicalandthesemiotic(andbetweenthetheoreticalandthe empirical). The book is structured in three parts. In all three, it is assumed that we are deal-ing with the stars in terms of their signification, not with them as real people. The fact that they arealsoreal people isanimportantaspectof how they signify, but we never know them directly as real people, only as they are to be found in media texts.Thethreepartsof thebookcanthenbeseenascentringonthedifferent questions we might pose of the stars as significations. Part One(Stars as a Social Phenomenon)- why do stars signify; i.e. what kind of social reality are stars? Why dotheyexist,ingeneralandinparticular?Whatistheirrelationshiptoother aspectsof social structure and values? Part Two(Stars as Images)- what dostars signify; i.e. what meanings and affects do the image of stardom and the images of particularstarsembody?PartThree(StarsasSigns)-howdostarssignify;i.e. howdostarimagesfunctionwithinfilmtextsthemselvesinrelationtoother aspectsofthetext,includingthosesuchascharacterisationandperformance which directly coincide with the star's presence? All three sections involve the concept of ideology. As this isa widely and vari-ouslyusedword(andasubjectof muchcontroversy),Ihadbetterstatebriefly here what Iunderstand by it.1 Ideologyisthesetofideasandrepresentationsinwhichpeoplecollectively make sense of the world and the society in which they live. It is important todis-tinguishbetweenideologyingeneralandideologiesinparticular.Ideologyisa characteristicof all humansocieties, but a given ideology is specific toa particu-lar culture at a particular moment in its history. All ideologies are developed in re-lation to theconcrete, materialcircumstancesof human life - they arethe means by whichknowledgeismadeoutof thosecircumstances.Thereisnoguarantee thatthisknowledgeistrueinanabsolutesense - indeed,allideology is by defi-nition partial and limited (which is not at all the same thing as saying it is 'false'). At the same time, thereis no way in which wecanthink outside of ideology and in this sense all analysis of ideology is itself ideological.2 Oursociety ischaracterised by divisionsof classandgender,and,secondarily butnotreducibletothem,bydivisionsbetweenracesandsexual,cultural,reli-giousandotherminorities/majorities.Withinthesedivisions,whichcomplexly cut across one another, sense is made out of the world, collectively but also differ-entially.Thatistosay,allideologiesarerootedinthelifeactivity of givensocial groups withina given particular society, but that any groupmay produce several contradictory inflections of its ideology. In any society- and therefore in the ideas and representations of any society - one can alwaysdiscern contradictions of two orders:betweentheideologiesofthevariousgroupsinconflict(potentialor actual)andwithin each of those ideologies. Theprimaryconcernof anyattentiontoHollywoodmustbewiththedomi-nantideology of westernsociety.Anydominantideologyinany society presents itself as the ideology of that society asa whole.Its work is todeny the legitimacy of alternative and oppositionalideologies and toconstruct out of its owncontra-dictionsaconsensualideologythatwillappeartobevalidforallmembersof society.Theoperationsofthedominantideologyarethusaceaselesseffortto mask ordisplace bothitsowncontradictionsand thosecontradictionstoit that 2 arise from alternative and oppositional ideologies. The latter always enter into the account with a popular or mass medium, as the medium must engage with audi-encesnotthemselvessituatedwithinthedominantgroupsofsociety.These operations are always in process, an effort to secure a 'hegemony' that is constantly underthreatfromwithinandwithout.(Forexample,thecontradictionwithin dominantideology betweenitschampioningof equalityanditsnecessarycom-mitment toinequality, whichhas to beat leastapparently resolved - through, for instance,universalsuffrage,educational'opportunities',accessbroadcasting-in thefaceofgroupsdemandingthatthepromiseofequalityberealisedforthe working class, women, blacks, etc.)For our purposes much of the interest of Hol-lywood liesinthis processof contradictionandits 'management' and thosemo-ments when hegemony is not, or is only uneasily, secured. From the perspective of ideology, analyses of stars - as images existing infilms andothermedia texts- stress theirstructured polysemy,thatis,the finite multi-plicity of meanings and affects they embody and the attempt so tostructure them thatsomemeaningsandaffectsareforegroundedandothersaremaskedor displaced.Theconcernofsuchtextualanalysisisthennottodeterminethe correctmeaningandaffect,butrathertodeterminewhatmeaningsandaffects canlegitimately bereadinthem.How theseareinfactappropriatedorreadby membersofdifferentclasses,genders,races,etc.isbeyondthescopeof textual analysis(although various conceptualisations of this will be found throughout the book). Ideologicalanalysisof mediatextsdoesof coursemakethepoliticalimplica-tions of what we are studying inescapable. Since we often seek to avoid facing such implications, preferring to believe that what we do has no political consequences, this is reason enough for such an approach. It is, however, also intellectually more rigorous-asIhavesuggestedabove,alltextualanalysishastobegroundedin sociologicalconceptualisationsofwhattextsare,andsincewhattheyareis ideology, withall itscontradictory complexities,itfollows that textual analysisis properly ideologicalanalysis. Wherepossible,referencetospecificstarsinthisbookhasbyandlargebeen restrictedtothefollowing -MarlonBrando,BetteDavis,MarleneDietrich,Jane Fonda,GretaGarbo,MarilynMonroe,RobertRedfordandJohn Wayne.Inthis way the same star can be seen within various perspectives. These stars were chosen torepresentacross-sectionaccordingtocertainconsiderationssuchasthe contrastbetween'classic'andmodernstarsandbetweenvariousstylesofper-forming in films, and an interest in stars who raise political issues directly (Fonda, Redford, Wayne)or indirectly through aspects of lifestyle(Garbo, Brando, Fonda) or sex-role typing (e.g. the notion that Davis, Monroe and Fonda 'resist' aspects of the stereotyping process). As will be evident, this means that the examples relate to the cinema rather than television(or sport, theatre, fashion, etc.), and to the American rather than other cinemas. The specificities of these other places where stars are to be found would always have to be respected, although at the level of theorisation and methodology Ibelievemostof whatiselaboratedhereinrelationtoHollywoodfilmstarsis broadly applicable to these other kinds of star. As usual, my debts to others in the preparation of this book are enormous. With 3 apologiesalready for omissions,Ishould like tothank Jack Babuscio,KenBartlett, CharlotteBrunsdon,RosBrunt,ColinCruise,ChristineGeraghty,MalcolmGibb, IanGilman,StuartHall,GillianHartnoll,MarionJordan,AnnKaplan,Angie Martin,JeanMcCrindle,StephanieMcKnight,TessaPerkins,VictorPerkinsand RachelPowellformanyusefuldiscussionsandinsights,ChristineGledhilland NickyNorthforthesameandsupportandencouragementthroughoutthe project.EdBuscombeforfurthereditorialhelp,ErichSargeantforhelpwiththe illustrations,thestaffoftheBritishFilmInstituteLibraryandInformationDe-partmentandstudentsinthe AmericanStudiesand AdultEducationdepartments attheUniversityofKeeleandinmy1977-8LondonUniversityextramuralclass forideasandstimulationthatIfearIneverproperlyacknowledgedorrecognised atthetime. Notes 1. For a very general introduction to the notion of ideology, see Colin McArthur, Television andHistory,ChapterOne.Moredetailedexaminationofthevariousapproachesto ideology is to be found in Working Paper in Cultural Studies 10, 'On Ideology'. A serious gapinthis last work isany considerationof the later work of Jean-PaulSartre,notably his The Problem of Method. These texts are for the most part elaborated within a Marx-istperspectivebutnotafeministone.Forthelatter,seeWorking PapersinCultural Studies 11, 'Women Take Issue'. 2.For a considerationof these problems, see Janet Wolff, 'TheInterpretation of Literature in Society: The Hermeneutic Approach', in Jane Routh and Janet Wolff" (eds.),The Soci-ology of Literature: Theoretical Approaches. (N.B.Publicationdetails of alltexts citedcan befoundinthe bibliography.) 4 PART ONE Stars as a Social Phenomenon The starsareareflectionin whichthe public studiesand adjusts its own image of it-self . . .Thesocial history of a nation canbe writtenintermsof its film stars. (Raymond Durgnat, Films and Feelings, pp. 137-8) Far morethan men, women[stars]were the vesselsof men'sand women'sfantasies and the barometers of changing fashion.Like two-way mirrors linking the immediate past withtheimmediate future, womenin themoviesreflected, perpetuated, and in somerespectsoffered innovations on the roles of womenin society. (Molly Haskell, From Reverence to Rape, p. 12) Take Robert Taylor, M. Boyer, Mr Laurence Olivier, and take Miss Durbin, Miss Garson and Miss Davis and a few more film actors and actresses, and you may be able to arrive atacompleteanthropologicaltypology of whichnoLaRochefoucauld,PascalorJung could ever dream. (J. P. Mayer, Sociology of the Film, p. 262) Stars. . .arethedirectorindirect reflectionof theneeds,drivesanddreamsof Ameri-can society. (Alexander Walker, Stardom, p. xi) PartOneisconcerned withthequestion - why doweget thephenomenonof star-domand,giventhatwedo, whydowegettheparticularstarswedo?Howarewe toaccountforthephenomenoninbothgeneralandspecificterms? Itisorganisedasfollows: discussionofthegeneralsocialconditionsfavouringstardom theroleoffereesof productionandconsumptioninshapingstardomandstars theideologicalfunctioningof thestarphenomenon. 1Conditions for Stardom FrancescoAlberoniandBarryKinghavebothsuggestedvarioussocialstructures thatmustobtainforthephenomenonofstardomtoexist.Theseconditionsare necessaryratherthansufficient-thatis,theydonotautomaticallyproducestars butarethegroundsonwhichstardommaybeproduced. Alberoniisconcernedwithstardomasageneralsocialphenomenonandnot justwithfilmstardom.Hisdefinitionof stardom,alreadyindicatedinthetitleof hisarticle('ThePowerlessElite'),centresonthefactthatstarsareagroupof people'whoseinstitutionalpowerisverylimitedornon-existent,butwhosedo-ingsand way of lifearouseaconsiderableandsometimesevena maxi mum degree of interest'(Alberoni,p.75). Thebasicconditionsforthisphenomenon, Alberonisuggests,are: astateof law anefficientbureaucracy astructuredsocialsystem. (Thesethreefactorsensurethatsocialrolesaredelimitedand judgedaccordingto 'objective'criteria(e.g.efficiency).Inthissituation, starsoperate only intheir own sphereandthereisno'danger'oftheir'charisma'becomingimportant'froma politicalpointof view'.) alarge-scalesociety(starscannotknoweveryone,buteveryonecanknow stars) economicdevelopmentabovesubsistence(thoughthisneednotbeverygreat development-cf.filmstarsinIndia) socialmobility(anyone,inprinciple,may becomeastar). Thus,argues Alberoni,starsarearemarkablesocialphenomenon -anelite,privi-leged group who yet on the one hand do not excite envy or resentment(because any-one may become one)and on the other hand have noaccess to real political power. Alberoni'sdiscussionisusefulforsuggestingexplanationsforsuchfeaturesof thestarphenomenonas:whyduringtheDepressionstarvingpeoplecouldhear andreadof thehighlifeof thestarswithoutapparentresentment;why only minor starshavebecomepoliticians;whythesocialistpresshashadfarmorepitythan scornforstars,stressingthemmoreasvictimsthanbeneficiariesofcapitalism. However,becauseastarcannotbecomeacrucialdecision-maker(andremain astar),thisdoesnotmeanthats/heiswithoutpoliticalsignificance.Alberoni ignorestheideologicalsignificanceofthestars.Inhisterms,theovertpolitical 7 standsofaJohnWayneoraJaneFonda,ortheimplicitpoliticalmeaningsofa BetteDavisoraMarlonBrando,areirrelevantorinsignificant.Whilstnoone wouldclaimthattheyhaveadirectpolitical'effect',surelytheseformpartof the way by whichvaluesandattitudesareshaped?However,itisprobablytruetosay thatWayne,Fondaetal.arewidelybelievedtobepoliticallyinsignificantand unimportant,andthattheonly 'real'politicsisdecision-makingwithintheinsti-tutionsofsociety.Becauseofthisbelief,theideologicalsignificanceofstarsis maskedordiscounted.Onemightthensuggestthatjustbecauseitissomasked itsrealpoliticalpowerisallthegreaterforbeing lesseasily resisted. King1takesuptheargumentwithAlberonibypointingoutthatstarshavea majorcontrolovertherepresentationofpeopleinsociety-andhowpeopleare representedasbeinginthemassmediaisgoingtohavesomekindofinfluence (evenif onlyof reinforcement)onhowpeopleareinsociety.Starshaveaprivi-legedpositioninthedefinitionof socialrolesandtypes,andthismusthavereal consequencesintermsof howpeoplebelievetheycanandshouldbehave. Kingalsosuggestshisownsetof preconditionsforstardom: productionof surplus(i.e.commoditiesinexcessof basicmaterialneeds) developmentofatechnologyof masscommunication extensivepenetrationof theculturalsphere by industrialisationwhichleadsto aseparationbetweenasystemofactioncommittedtoinstrumentalgoals (utilitarianandpredominant)andasystemof actioncommittedtoexpressive goals(moralisticandsubordinant) rigidseparationofworkandleisure:divisionofrolestructurebetweenex-pressiveandinstrumentalroles declineof localculturesandthedevelopmentof amasslevelof culture,trans-formationfromspecifictouniversalisticmodesof evaluation organisationofthemotionpictureindustryaroundcommodityproduction andtheprogressivecentralisationof controloverproduction arelativeincreaseofsocialmobilityintoexpressiverolepositionsuncon-nectedwithsacredinstitutions(whichinfeudalsociety constitutedcentresof power). Tosomeextent,King'spreconditionscoverthesamegroundas Alberoni's.King's instrumental-expressivedistinctionreworksAlberoni'sdistinctionbetween effective(i.e.inhistermspoliticallysignificant)rolesandnon-effectiveones.The advantageof King'stermsisthattheyallowonetoseethepoliticalorideological significanceof expressiverolesaswellasof instrumentalones.Alberoni'stermin-ologyontheotherhanddoesremindus,assuggestedabove,thatexpressiveroles arenotbelieved tobepoliticallysignificant. 8 2Production:Consumption Both Alberoni, by default, and King, expressly, point to the need to examine stars in terms of ideology. However, in supplying a list of preconditions, neither explain why stars arise on the basis of those preconditions. This question can be approached first intermsofwhatEdgarMorin(inNewTrendsintheStudyofMassCommunications) callsthe ' production-consumptiondialecticof masscommunications' .Thatis,are starsaphenomenonof production(arising from what themakersof filmsprovide) orof consumption(arisingfromwhattheaudiencefor films demands)? Originsof stardom Theproblemof whatdetermineswhat -productionorconsumption-isendemic toalldiscussionsof themassmedia,andemergesclearly fromaccountsof theori-ginsofstardominHollywood.Lookingatthisisagoodwayof highlightingthe issuesandproblemsinvolved. ' The history of moviestardomasan institutionisa familiar one', states Richard SchickelinHisPictureinthePapers,andproceedstoprovideaveryusefulsum-maryofit: how the producers had resisted giving billing to the actors who played in their little films; how the actors themselves, regarding appearance in a medium that robbed them of what they regardedastheir primeartisticresource,their voice,had beengladtohidetheir shame in anonymity; how the public had begun singling them out of the crowds on the screen,demandingtoknowmoreaboutthem,and,moreimportant,demandingto know, in advance, which pictures featured their favourites; how a few independent pro-ducers, grasping at any weapon to fight the motion picture trust (composed of the major studios), had acceded to public opinion and had been rewarded by the most deliriously rising sales curves; how the demand for stars was quickly perceived as a factor that could stabilize the industry,since thisdemand was predictable ina way that the demand for storiesor even genres was not; how, as feature-lengthfilmsestablished their popularity and the cost of producing these longer films required bank loans, star names came to lead thelistofcollateralthatbankerslookeduponwithfavorwhentheirassistancewas sought; how certain actors achieved unprecedented heights of popularity and prosperity almost overnight in the period1915-1920; and how this phenomenon, this beginning of a new celebrity system, destroyed or crippled almost everyone caught up in i t . . .(p. 27) The key eventinthishistory isusually takento beCarlLaemmle'sactionof plant-ing a story in the St Louis Post-Despatch to the effect that Florence Lawrence, up to then knownasthe 'BiographGirl', had been killed by a trolley carinSt Louis,and followingitadaylaterwithanadvertisementinthetradepressdenouncingthe story as a vicious lie. This event was the first occasion that a film actor's*name be-* Ihavethroughoutusedtheterm'actor'torefertobothfemaleandmaleperformers,astheterm actress' seems to me tohavestrong connotations that both belittle and trivialise women actors. 9 came known tothe public.It is the first example of the deliberate manufacture of a star'simage.Equally,runstheargument,itisthe first exampleof theproducersof filmsrespondingtopublicdemand,givingthepublic whatit wanted.Itisthusat thepointofintersectionofpublicdemand(thestarasaphenomenonofcon-sumption)and theproducerinitiative(thestarasaphenomenonof production). Leftatthat,withintheconfinesofthefilmindustryandmarket,therecanbe littleargumentthatfilmsstarswereaphenomenonof consumptionthathadeven beenstrenuouslyresistedbytheproducersinthefirstinstance,althoughthey mightilycapitaliseduponitonceitwasunderway.Thereare,however,acouple of problemswiththehistoryasitstands.First,thenotionof 'demand'.Starshave notexistedinallsocietiesatalltimes.Wheredoesthedemandforthemstem from?Whodefinesit?Second,thestarsystemwasalreadyawell-developed featureof thepopulartheatre(especially vaudeville,fromwhichthecinematook itsfirstaudiences).Starswerepartof thebusinessof show business.If thepublic demandeditof thecinema,thenthiswasbecausethepublichadcometoexpect itof theentertainmentindustryasawhole.Thisthenforcesusbacktotheques-tionof whyitwaspartof allentertainment. Alookathowtheoriginsofstardomhavebeendiscussedisusefulbecauseit orchestratesandconcretisesthemoregeneralissuesinvolvedinthissection.Let menowturntosomeof theexplanationsof thestarsystem,allof whichcouldbe consideredinrelationtotheearlyperiod,althoughtheyarediscussedbelowin generalterms. Stars as a phenomenonof production Starsareimagesinmediatexts,andassuchareproductsofHollywood(or wherever).Discussionof Hollywood productiongenerally takes place between two polarviews.ThefirstconsidersHollywoodproductionasacapitalistproduction like any other,andinthisperspectivestarsare tobeseenintermsof their function intheeconomy of Hollywood,including,crucially,theirroleinthemanipulation of Hollywood'smarket,theaudience.Attheotherextremecomeviewsthatseem innocentof any considerationof Hollywoodintermsof profit,andaccountforthe star phenomenonintermseither of someintrinsic property of thefilmmediumor elsethespecialmagicof thestarsthemselves.(Fordiscussionof starsasthepro-ducersof their ownimages, seeChapter9.) Economics StarsarewidelyregardedasavitalelementintheeconomicsofHollywoodin termsof: capital.Starsrepresentedaformof capitalpossessedby thestudios.Robert A. Bradyseesthisaspartofthe' monopolistic'characteroftheHollywood industry:'eachstaristosomeextentaholderof amonopoly,andtheowner of contractsfortheservicesof astaristheownerof a monopoly product.The majorsdominatetheemploymentofthisindividualmonopolytalent'('The Problemof Monopoly',pp.131-2). 10 investment.Starswereaguarantee,orapromise,againstlossoninvestment andevenof profitonit. outlay.Starswereamajorportionof a film's budget-hencetheirhandling,in filmicterms,hadtobecarefulandcorrect. themarket.Starswereusedtosellfilms,toorganisethemarket.Alexander Walkertalksof' theuseof astartostabiliseaudienceresponse'(Stardom,1974, p.15). Alice EvansField writes: 'Starnameson the theatremarquee,abovethe titleofthepicture,drawgreataudiencesnotonlybecauseoftheirpersonal magnetismbutalsobecausetheyaresymbolsofcertaintypesofentertain-mentandbecausetheyassureproductioneffortsfaraboveaverage'(Holly-woodUSA,p.74.)Thissuggestshowstarsbothorganisethemarketandact backuponthe'quality'of thefilmstheyarein. HortensePowdermakerinher'anthropologicalinvestigation'ofHollywood,the DreamFactory,sumsthisup: Froma business pointof view,therearemany advantagesin thestarsystem.Thestar hastangiblefeatureswhichcanbeadvertisedandmarketed -aface,abody,apairof legs,a voice,acertainkindof personality,realorsynthetic -andcan betypedasthe wicked villain, the honest hero, the fatal siren, the sweet young girl, the neurotic woman. Thesystemprovidesaformulaeasytounderstandandhasmadetheproductionof movies seem more like just another business. The use of this formula may serve also to protect executives from talent and having to pay too much attention to such intangibles asthequalityof astoryorof acting.Hereisastandardisedproductwhichtheycan understand, whichcan be advertised and sold,and which not only they, but also banks and exhibitors, regard as insurance for large profits . . .(pp. 228-9) Theeconomicimportanceof starscanbehighlightedbycertainmomentsinfilm history:forexample,it wasthedevelopmentof thestarsystemby theindependent producers(especiallyAdolphZukor,butalsoLaemmle,Fox,Loew,Schenck, Warner)whichbrokeupthemonopolisticholdtheMPPC(MotionPictures PatentsCompany)hadontheindustry.Also,in1933' Paramount. . .wentinto unexpectedreceivershipinJanuary. . .OnlyabreakintheEuropeanmarketand theunexpectedsuccessof Mae West'sfilmsathomeenabledParamounttorefloat itself with its ownresourcesat theendof the year'(Walker,Stardom, p.235).Simi-larly DeannaDurbin 'saved' Universalin1937,andEdgarMorinargues thatMar-ilynMonroe(andwidescreen)weretheindustry'sanswertothethreatof televisioninthe50s. Against this,however,itmust bepointedout that,eveninHollywood'sheyday, starsdidnotabsolutelyguaranteethesuccessofafilm.Starsmoveinandoutof favour,andevenattheheightoftheirpopularitymaymakeafilmthatnobody muchgoestosee.IfsomeofthecareerschartedbyDavidShipmaninhistwo books2arebroughtdownbyill-healthorsheerlousypictures,themajorityrise andfallforreasonsunconnectedwitheitherofthese(e.g.JoanCrawford,Bette Davis,John Wayne).Forthisreason,starswerea veryproblematicnecessityfrom aneconomicpointof view. I.C.JarviesuggestsinTowardsaSociologyof theCinemathat'starsareneither necessary nor sufficient for success'(p.188), basing this ona comparisonof the fail-ureofthestar-studdedCleopatraandthesuccessofDrNo,TheSoundofMusicand 11 TheGraduate,whosestarswereatthetimelittleknown.Thisisfairenough,but itdoesnotdemonstratethatstarsdonotsellfilms,simply thatfilmsdonothave tohave them for success.(The recent-ness of the examples may also be worth bear-inginmind;starsmaybelesscrucialthantheyweretwenty,thirtyorforty years ago.) Theeconomicimportanceofthestarsisofaestheticconsequenceinsuch thingsasthecentringofspectacleonthepresentationofthestar,andthecon-structionof narrativeswhichdisplay thestar'simage,andsoon.However,therise andfallof thestarsindicatesthateconomicsalonecannotexplainthephenom-enonofstardom. Manipulation The success of stardom and stars has been attributed to the manipulation of the mar-ket,ananalogy withthe ' manipulations'of advertising.Thisisanextensionof the economic argument about the stars,although it need not be developedina Marxist direction(i.e.onecanbeagainstmanipulation,withoutbeingagainstprofits;the questionof manipulationcanbetreatedasaquestionof ethics,unless,following PaulBaranandPaulSweezyinMonopolyCapitalism,forinstance,youarguethat manipulationof themarketistheinevitableconsequenceof thedevelopmentof monopoly capitalism).Manipulationargumentsin relation tothestarshave infact tended to stress the social-ethical aspect of the question rather than the economic. Thestarsystemlendsitself particularly welltothemanipulationthesisbecause oftheenormousamountofmoney,timeandenergyspentbytheindustryin buildingupstarimagesthroughpublicity,promotion,fanclubs,etc.Thomas HarrishasdescribedthisprocessinrelationtoGraceKellyandMarilynMonroe. Thebasicmechanismsforpromotingthestarsinclude: a preliminary publicity buildup starting months or even years before the star is seen on thescreen.Frequent devices used insucha buildup are a 'discovery' usually concocted by studio publicists, a series of glamour pictures sent to all the print media, a rumoured romancewithanotherstaralready wellknowntothepublic,orarumouredstarring role in a major film. This publicity finds a primary outlet in syndicated Hollywood gos-sipcolumnsandmoviefanmagazines.Whentheactororactressisactually castina film,the studio assigns a 'unit man' to 'plant' items about the personality in these places as well as national magazines and Sunday newspaper supplements. A network television appearance is also a highly coveted plum in the studio 'pre-sale' campaign for both the picture and the personality. Prior to and during the filming of a picture all publicity em-anatesfromHollywood.The New York publicity officeof thestudiothentakeover the filmandcontinuetohandle publicity through thedistribution-exhibition phase.New Yorkisalsochargedwiththedevelopmentof nationaladvertisingandthecreationof stuntsandmerchandisetie-instoexploitthe picture.Especially importantinthis total process is the perpetuation of the star stereotype. It is the publicist's job to interpret the new film role in termsof the pre-establishedstereotypesand tocommunicate through the variety of means at his[sic]disposal.('The Building of Popular Images', p. 46) Giventhesheerelaborationof thisapparatus,itisnotsurprisingthatthenotion of starsasmanufacturedhasdeveloped.EdgarMorinobserves: Theinternalcharacteristics[of thestar system]are the very onesof grand-scale indus-trial, mercantile and financial capitalism. The star system is first of all fabrication. This 12 is the word chosen instinctively by Carl Laemmle, the inventor of the stars: 'The f| cation of stars is the fundamental thing in the film industry'. (The Stars,1960, p.l! [thismerchandise]istheverytypeof grandscalecapitalism:enormousinvestment, industrialtechniquesofrationalisationandstandardisationof thesystemhaveeffec-tively made the star a merchandise destined for mass consumption,(p.135) Outof thisemphasisonmanufacture,theredevelopsanaccountof thestarsys-temas' pure'manipulation.Thatis,bothstardomandparticularstarsareseenas owingtheirexistencesolelytothemachineryoftheirproduction.Notonlyare theynotaphenomenonofconsumption(inthesenseofdemand);theydonot even havesubstanceor meaning. Thisis theessenceof Daniel Boorstin'sargument inhisbookTheImage.AccordingtoBoorstin,stars,likesomuchofcontempor-aryculture,arepseudo-events.Thatis,theyappeartobemeaningfulbutarein fact empty of meaning. Thusa stariswell-knownfor her/his well-knownness, and notforanytalentorspecificquality.Theyareanexampleof the'celebrity',mar-ketedonthestrengthoftrivialdifferencesofappearance.Starsdonothavea 'strongcharacter,butadefinable,publicizablepersonality:afigurewhichcan becomeanationally-advertisedtrademark'(p.162).' Thequalitieswhichnow commonlymakeamanorwomanintoa "nationally advertised" brandareinfact anewcategoryof humanemptiness'(p.58). Boorstin'sargumentisclosetothatofHerbertMarcuseinOne-Dimensional Man,wherethecultureof latecapitalistsocietyischaracterisedby justsuchthin, pseudo, fabricatedelementsasBoorstindescribesinThe Image.Marcusegives this amoreintellectuallytoughargumentthanBoorstin.Hemaintainsthatinpre-viousperiodsculture(includingtechnologyandthesciencesaswellasthearts andphilosophy)actedasa'negation'of theexistingsociety,pointingtoanOther oranAbsolutetosetoveragainstthestatusquo.(Arthecallsapromessedebon-heur.)Incontemporarysociety,however,culturehasbecome'positive',thatis,it merelyreproducesthestatusquo.Thisdoesnotmeanthatartisaffirmativeof bourgeoisvalues,fortoaffirmthosevalues,howeverlimitedtheyare,isstillto affirma value,apositivequality,tosetagainstthetawdrinessof theachievements of bourgeoissociety.Rather,arthasbeendrainedof meaning,of values,issimply asideshow.Itdoesnotaffirmvalues,merelythatwhichis.Thetypicalbecomes theideal,theaveragethebest.The'culturalpredecessors'ofstarscanbeseenas 'disruptive-characters[such]astheartist,theprostitute,theadultress,thegreat criminalandoutcast,thewarrior,therebel-poet,thedevil,thefool',butthetra-ditionhasbeen'essentiallytransformed'.' Thevamp,thenationalhero,thebeat-nik, theneurotichousewife, thegangster, thestar, thecharismatictycoonperform afunctionverydifferent. . .Theyarenolongerimagesofanotherwayoflifebut ratherfreaksortypesof thesamelife,servingasanaffirmationratherthannega-tionof theestablishedorder'(p.60). ThisisnottheplacetodiscussalltheproblemsofMarcuse'swork(seePaul Mattick'sCritiqueofMarcuse).Onecanseethestarsasamanifestationoftheone-dimensionalityof advancedcapitalistsociety,althoughIwouldprefertoseeitas atendencyof thesocietyratherthanafullyworked-throughprocess. Thefollowingobjectionscan beraisedagainstthe viewof thestarphenomenon assheermanipulation: 13 Notallmanipulationworks.Therearemanycasesof starswhoaregiventhe fullpromotiontreatment,butdonotmakeit.(See,forinstance,DavidShip-man'saccountof AnnaSteninTheGreat Stars-theGoldenYears,pp.505-6.) Thefluctuatingcareersof starsalsoindicatethataudiencecontrol wasaprob-lemfor thestudios.Thisdoes notmeanthattheanalogy withadvertisingdoes nothold,but,equally,notalladvertisingworks-oneneedstoconceptualise whysomeadvertisements/starscatchonandsomedonot. BoorstinandMarcusedonotexaminethecontentofstarimages.Indeed, their argument restsuponthe ideathat there isnocontent tostar images,only surfacedifferencesof appearance.Butdifferencesof appearancesarenot,ina visualmedium,necessarilysuperficial,andstarsneedalsotobeseeninthe contextoftheirrolesandtheirfilmicpresentation.Examinationofstars' imagesrevealscomplexity,contradictionanddifference.(Itmightstillbele-gitimatelyarguedthatthecomplexity,etc.isallpartof thebeguiling,empty spectacleof capitalism.Intheenditalldependsonhow closed(andhopeless) youseesocietyandpeopleasbeing.) Inasense,bothBoorstinandMarcusetreatsocietyasavastmechanismin whichhumanconsciousnessplaysnopartexcepttobeused.Manipulation arguments(althoughitisunfairinthefinalanalysistolumpMarcusewith Boorstinhere)dependuponabehaviouralconceptof humanbeings.Thatis, media' input'hasagiven'effect'(inthiscase,passiveacceptance)onthe humansubjectwithouttheinterventionofthatsubject'smindorconscious-ness.Wherethesemioticmodelof communicationstressesthehumanprac-ticesofencodinganddecoding,behavioural/manipulationmodelsstressthe mechanicsof human'response'.One'spositiononthestars-as-manipulation willthendependuponone's positiononbehaviouralmodelsof themediaand indeedofcommunicationingeneral. Fashion Fashioncanbeseenasavariationonthemanipulationthesis,whichtakesoneof theobjectionstothatthesis,namelytheriseandfallinastar'spopularity,asa questionof thestarcominginasanoveltyandgoingoutasahas-been.Thiscan beseenasapurephenomenonof manipulation,andassuchisopentothesame objectionsdetailedinthepreviousparagraphs.Afurtherpointmaybemade. Fashionisoftenassumedtobetheultimateinmanipulationbecauseitisso superficial.However,asJarviesuggests:' Onefunctionastarservesistofixatype ofbeauty,tohelpaphysicaltypeidentifyitself.'Clearlytypesofbeautydefine normsofattractiveness.Fashioninthissenseisamuchlesssuperficialortrivial phenomenon thanit appears.Seen inthis perspective,achange in physical style is alsoalwaysachangeinsocialmeaning.(Forfurtherconsiderationsonfashion andsocialmeaning,seeMary EllenRoachandloanneBubolzEicher(eds.),Dress, AdornmentandTheSocialOrder.) The nature of the medium Theeconomicandmanipulationargumentsoutlinedabovealltendtocomefrom aperspectivehostiletothecinema.Fromamorefriendlyperspectivecomesthe 14 argumentthatthereissomethinginherentinthefilmmediumthatcreatesstars. Somewritersstresstheroleoftheclose-upinthecreationofstardom.Says AlexanderWalker: untilthecamera got close enoughtorecordtheplayer'sownpersonality, the film star couldnotemergefromthestagegroup.Theclose-upwasthefirststeptothis. . .by isolating and concentrating the player's looksand personality, sometimesunconnected with his or her abilities, it was to be the decisive break with stage convention, the most potentmeansof establishinganartist'suniquenessandthebeginningof thedynamic psychologicalinterplayof thefilmgoers'andthefilmactors'emotions.(Stardom,the Hollywood Phenomenon, p. 5) SimilarlyRichardSchickelcomparesfilmandtheatre: the stage is a less intimate medium(even though the audience is physically in the pres-enceoftheactors)becausetheprosceniumhasaprofoundlydistancingeffect-no close-ups here. (His Picture in the Papers, p. 6) Inthisway,thestarprocessalreadyunderwayinthetheatrecouldbeintensified byfilm'ssupposedinherentintimacy. Thisviewoftheimportanceoftheclose-uphasbeenmorephilosophically consideredbyBelaBalazs.3Heseestheclose-upasafundamentalaspectofthe filmmediumwhichreveals'thehiddenmainspringsofalifewhichwehad thought wealready knew so well',forinstance, 'thequality inagestureof the hand wenevernoticedbeforewhenwesawthathandstrokeorstrikesomething'(p. 185).Theclose-upledto'thediscoveryof thehumanface': Facialexpressionisthemostsubjectivemanifestationofman[sic],moresubjective eventhanspeech,forvocabularyandgrammararesubjecttomoreorlessuniversally validrulesandconventions,whiletheplayof features,ashasalreadybeensaid,isa manifestationnotgovernedbyobjectivecanons,eventhoughitislargelyamatterof imitation.Thismostsubjectiveandindividualofhumanmanifestationsisrendered objective in the close-up. (p.188) Close-upsareakindof 'silentmonologue'inwhich: thesolitaryhumansoulcanfindatonguemorecandidanduninhibitedthaninany spokensoliloquy,foritspeaksinstinctively,sub-consciously.Thelanguagesof theface cannot be suppressed or controlled,(p.190) Quiteapartfromnotionsof thesoul,andBalazs'emphasisonthe'solitariness'of humanindividuals,thisaccountoftheroleof theclose-updoesraiseproblems. Balazs is essentially treating film as transparent, just ' capturing' the face and the soul itreveals.However,weknow thathow weread(andproduce)facialexpressionsis deeplydependentonconventionsof variouskinds:filmic(e.g.Kuleshov'sexperi-mentswithediting;theroleof lightinginhighlightingdifferentfacialfeaturesand sochanging expressions), artistic(i.e. the iconography of expressionsdeveloped in painting,etc.),andcultural(i.e.facialexpressionsarecoded;cf.Polhemus,Social AspectsoftheHumanBody).However,Balazsisimportantbecausehegives expressiontoa widely held view,namely thattheclose-uprevealstheunmediated personalityoftheindividual,andthisbeliefinthe' capturing'ofthe' unique' 'person'of a performerisprobablycentraltothestarphenomenon. 15 Furtherdifferencesbetweenfilmandtheatrethatrelatetothestarphenom-enonarethefactthat'starsof thepopularmelodramaticandspectacularstage tendedtosubmergethemselvesinoneortwoorthreeroles'andthatthepopu-larpressbeforethearrivalof themovieswaslessinterestedinentertainersthan in'politicalandbusinessleadersandinventors'(Schickelop.cit.,p.6).How-ever,alltheseaspectsoffilm,thoughtheyhavecometobevirtuallyinsepar-ablefromthemedium,arenotintrinsictoit.AsEdgarMorinputsit,'The starsaretypicallycinematicandyetthereisnothingspecificallycinematic aboutthem'(TheStars,p.6).Anotherwayof puttingthisistosaythatstars arenotinherentinfilmasamediumbuttheyareinherentinthecinemaasa specificsocialinstitution.Thechangeofinterestonthepartofthepopular pressrelatedtoawiderphenomenon,discussedbyLeoLowenthalin'TheTri-umphofMassIdols',inwhichherofiguresthatmaketheworld('heroesof production')havebeendisplacedbyfigureswhosimplyenjoythefruitsofthe world('heroesofconsumption').(ForfurtherdiscussionofthisseePartTwo ofthisbook.)Thenotionsoftheimportanceof theclose-up,andoftherole beinglessimportantthantheperformerinthecinema,canberelatedtothe aestheticofrealismwithwhichthecinemahaspredominantlybeenburdened, thebelief thatfilm,likephotography,'captures'or'reflects'reality.Thatis,de-spitetheirextravagancesandextraordinariness,thestarsareanaspectofreal-ismbecausewhatisforegroundedistheirpersonasmuchasthecharacters they play.(SeePartThree.) Magic and talent Theexaminationsofthestarphenomenonsofardiscussedtendtoexplainit away, accounting forit by reference tosomething else(economics, the medium). A very common view, however, though not intellectually very respectable, is that stars are stars because they are exceptional, gifted, wonderful. An extreme version of this view was expressed by Samuel Goldwyn: 'God makes the stars. It's up to the producers to find them'(quoted in Richard Griffith,The Movie Stars, p.25). But even a sociologist, I. C. Jarvie, ultimately comes up with the same sort of notion, maintainingthatstarsarestarsbecauseof 'talent',whichincludes,accordingto him,'strikingphotogeniclooks,actingability,presenceoncamera,charmand personality, sex-appeal,attractive voice and bearing'(Towards aSociology of the Cinema,p.149). Again, Molly Haskell, in discussing the way some women stars counteracted the demeaning roles they had to play, points totheir 'special' quali-ties:'inthemidstof mediocrematerial,theyrosetothesurfaceandprojected, throughsheer willandtalentandcharisma, imagesof emotionaland intellectual power' (From Reverence to Rape, p. 8). Howmuchcredenceyougivetosuchideaswillintheenddependonhow much you believe in 'great unique individuals' as opposed to famous people being 'the right type in the right place at the right time'(always remembering that type, placeandtimeareshapedbythesamesociety).However,therearealsomore immediate,less 'heady' objectionstothe 'magic'explanationof stars.First, there is the empirical observation that not all highly talented performers becomes stars, nor are all stars highly talented. Iimagine anyone cansupply their own examples 16 of boththesecategories.Second,thenotionof 'talent',especiallyasdefinedby Jarvie,ishistoricallyandculturallyspecific.Evenifonesimplymeanttalentas skill, one would have toask, skillat what?Not 'acting'in theclassic sense, as in-numerableexamplesshow.Skillthenat beingacertainsortof personor image. Thismayberight,butthenthekeyquestionis,whydoesthatsortofperson becomeastar?Aquestiononceagainof cultureandideology.Third,Haskell's positingof agap betweenroleand performanceinthecaseof certainstarsneed not be discussed in terms of those stars' magic powers. One can see it either as a contradictionin the film text between the role-as-writtenandthestarimage(see p.129), or else as a question of authorship(i.e. the star's authorial concerns being in conflict withthose of a film's other authors; see p.155). Theenormouseconomicimportanceof thestars,theelaboratemachinery of image-buildingandfilm'simportanceinestablishingcharacter-typesallsuggest thepotentialpoweroftheforcesofcinematicproductionforcreatingthestar phenomenon. However, these explanations of thestar phenomenonare not suffi-cient in themselves, and we need tosee the phenomenon in its cultural, historical andideologicalcontexttounderstand wheretheproducers'ideasandimagesof stardom and of specific stars themselves come from. This will be returned to after a considerationof thestarsintermsof consumption. Stars asa phenomenon of consumption Lookingatthestarsfromthepointof viewof productionputstheemphasison thefilm-makers(including theeconomicstructures within which they work and themediumtheyuse)whomakestars,orcausethemtoexist.However,ithas been argued that a more determining force in the creation of stars is the audience -thatis, theconsumers- ratherthantheproducersof mediatexts. Andrew Tudor has suggested a typology of audience/star relationships, drawing on Leo Handel's work and reinforced by the latter's finding that people's favourite stars tend to be of the same sex as themselves, which Handel and Tudor take to in-dicate that star/audience relationships cannot be based on sexual attraction.(One couldof coursearguethatattractiontoone'sownsex isalsosexual,and that,as homosexuality istaboointhissociety, thecinemahasprovided through thestar phenomenonthevicariousanddisguisedexperienceofgayfeelingfornon-gay audiences.) Tudor's model (as given in Image and Influence, p. 80) is as follows: Range of consequences Context specificDiffuse High Range of star/individual identificationLow Self-identification Emotionalaffinity Projection Imitation (ofphysical andsimple behavioural characteristics) TYPES OF AUDIENCE/STAR RELATION 17 Thedistinctionbetweenspecificanddiffuseconsequencesisnothardandfast, butisintendedtocatchthedifferencebetweenaresponsethatislimitedtothe ' watching-the-moviesituation'andonethathas'consequencesforadiffuserange of aspectsof thefan'slife'. Thefourcategoriesofstar/audiencerelationshipthatemergeinthisclassifi-cationarethus: emotionalaffinity.Thisistheweakestcategoryand'probably'themostcom-mon.' Theaudiencefeelsalooseattachmenttoaparticular protagonistderiv-ingjointlyfromstar,narrativeandtheindividualpersonalityof theaudience member:astandardsenseofinvolvement'{ImageandInfluence,p.80). self-identification.Thishappenswhen'involvementhasreachedthepointat whichtheaudience-memberplaceshimself[sic]inthesamesituationand personaof thestar'(p.81).Hequotesoneof the womeninterviewedby Han-delasanexampleof this:'TheseactressesImentionedaregreat.Theymake me feelevery emotionof their parts.Ifeelasif itweremyself onthescreenex-periencingwhattheydo'(p.81). imitation.Thisisapparentlycommonestamongtheyoungandtakesthe star/audiencerelationshipbeyondcinema-going, with 'thestaractingassome sortof modelfortheaudience'(p.81). projection.Imitationmergesintoprojection'atthepointatwhichtheprocess becomesmorethanasimplemimickingof clothing,hairstyle,kissingandthe like'(pp.81-2): Themoreextremetheprojection,themorethepersonliveshisorherlifeinterms bound up with the favoured star. . . In asking themselves what the star might have done in this situation the star-struck are using the star as a way of dealing with their realities. Attheextremethewholerangeof lifeexperiencesaremediatedinthisway.The 'real world' becomes constituted in termsderived fromthe 'star-world',(pp.82-3) (Tudorwarnsagainstourtakingexamplesofextremeprojectionasbeingwide-spread.) Whatisclearfromthisaccountofthestar/audiencerelationshipisthatthe audience'sroleinshapingthestarphenomenonisverylimited.Thatis,the accounttellsuswhataudiencesdowiththestarimagesthattheyareofferedand henceindicatesthesourcesof thesuccessof stardom,butitdoesnottelluswhy theofferedimagestaketheformtheydo. Needs, dreams and the collective unconscious Many writers see thestars,in general and inspecificinstances, asgiving expression tovariouslyconceptualisedinnerwantsonthepartofthemassofthepeople. RichardGriffithstates:' nomachineryeverof itself andbyitself madeastar.That takesplaceinthedepthsofthecollectiveunconscious'{TheMovieStars,p.23). Thenotionof thecollectiveunconsciousissuspectonseveralcounts.Ittendsto suggestasupra-individual,quasi-metaphysicalhumanconsciousness(ratherthan peoplehavingincommonthecodesof theculturethey livein);itispresentedas beingbeyonddetermination,anessencethatprecedesexistence. 18 EdgarMorinandRobertK.Mertonintheiruseof ' dreams'and' needs'donot perpetuatetheproblemsjustoutlined,buttheirformulationshavetheirown drawbacks.Morinquotesfromsomeof J.RMayer'scorrespondentswhospeakof theirdreamingaboutstars,andconcludes: The star thus becomes the food of dreams; the dream, unlike the ideal tragedy of Aris-totle,doesnotpurifyustrulyfromourfantasiesbutbetraystheirobsessivepresence; similarly the stars only partially provoke catharsis and encourage fantasies which would like to but cannot liberate themselves in action. Here the role of the star becomes 'psy-chotic': it polarises and fixes obsessions. {The Stars, p. 164) Itisnotclear whereMoringetstheseideasof howdreamswork from,nor whether theyhaveanytheoreticalsupportorvalidity.Whyshouldoneassertthatdreams arenecessarily moreobsessivethancathartic?ThewayMorinwritesdoessuggest that heseesthis 'polarising'effectasinsomesenseanideological -orsimply ' bad' ! -functionofthestarsystem,buthedoesnotquestionwheretheimageryof dreamingcomesfrom.Finally,hedoesnotexaminetheproblemsof theanalogy betweenthedreamasasub-orunconsciousindividualmentalprocessandfilms asanatanyratepartconscious,rule-governed(thecodesofart,etc.),collec-tive/corporateformofculturalproduction.(Thiscouldbesaid,ofcourse,of othercelebratedusesof thefilm/dreamanalogy,includingKracauerandWolfen-steinandLeites.) RobertK.Merton,inhisstudyofthesuccessofKateSmith'swar-bonddrive {MassPersuasion,describedbelow,p.29),stressesherembodimentof' sincerity' andlinksthistotheexperienceintheaudienceof feelingthattheyareendlessly being ' manipulated' by contemporary society.Smith thenresponds toa need.This seemstometobeacceptableenough,providedthatoneputsit(asMertononly partiallydoes)inthecontextofideologicalquestions.Thatis-wheredoesthat needitself,andtheresponsetoit,comefrom?Whatshapesthem?Everysociety (andeachclass/groupateachperiodofthatsociety)foregroundscertainneeds (whichmayormaynotbeinnate-seeAbrahamMaslow,MotivationandPerson-ality), by virtueof both whatit promisesand whatitfailstodeliver.Likewiseagen-ciesinthosesocieties(e.g.thecinema)provideand/ordefineanswerstothose needs.ForthisreasonthenIdiscussthedetailof analysessuchasMerton'sinthe nextchapter,undertherubricof ideology. Alberoni,inarguingagainstthemanipulationthesisof themassmedia,comes upwiththisformulaforunderstandingtheproduction/consumptiondialectic: 'thestarsystem. . .nevercreatesthestar,butitproposesthecandidatefor"elec-tion",andhelpstoretainthefavourof the "electors"'('ThePowerlessElite'p.93). Thisseemstometobeaveryusefulstatementprovidedoneremembersthator-ganisinganelectionisawayofdefininganddelimitingchoice,andthatboth thosewhoproposecandidatesandthosewhoelectthemareshapedbythepar-ticularideologicalformationsof theirsituationinsociety. 19 3Ideology Productionandconsumptionaredifferentially determiningforcesinthecreation ofstars(producersalwayshavingmorepowerovercommoditiesthancon-sumers), but both are always mediated by and in ideology. This chapter is not con-cernedwiththeideologicalcontentof thestarphenomenon(seePartTwo),but with what specific kind(s)of ideological work it does, or tries to do, the nature of its 'ideologicaleffect'.4 Star versus character (see also Part Three) Stars are, like charactersin stories, representations of people. Thus they relate to ideas about what people are (or are supposed to be) like. However, unlike charac-ters in stories, stars are also real people. This point is suggested time and again in writingaboutstars:'Thepeopleofthemovies[come]beforeusfirstofallas people, and only secondarily as actors - artists - if at all' (Griffith, The Movie Stars, p.xiii).Becausestarshaveanexistenceintheworldindependentoftheir screen/'fiction' appearances, it is possible to believe(with for instance ideas about the close-uprevealing thesoul, etc.)that as people they aremore real thanchar-actersinstories.Thismeans that they serve todisguise the fact that they are just as much produced images, constructed personalitiesas 'characters' are. Thusthe valueembodiedbyastarisasitwerehardertorejectas'impossible'or'false', because the star's existence guarantees the existence of the value s/he embodies. This is to position it at its extreme, and put like this it implies an extreme gulli-bility on the part of the audience.Ido not mean toimply that audiencesdid not realisethatstarshaddifferentlivesfromthoseof thecharacterstheyplayed.It would be a sign of mental disorder to believe that Greta Garbo actually was Queen Christina. What I think is the case, however, is that the roles and/or the perform-anceof a star ina film weretakenasrevealing the personality of thestar(which then was corroborated by the stories in the magazines, etc.). What was only some-timesglimpsedandseldombroughtoutby Hollywoodor thestarswasthat that personalitywasitselfaconstructionknownandexpressedonlythroughfilms, stories,publicity,etc.(Itisnotcleartowhatextentthiselisionof starasperson and star as image is current today.) Life-as-theatre Thisprocesswasperhapsaidedbythegrowthof notionsof life-as-theatre.As Elizabeth Burns points out in her book Theatricality, the analogy between life and drama or theatrehas beeninusefromPlatoonwards.However,whereinearlier 20 times the analogy derived from 'a view of life directed by God, Providence or some lessanthropomorphicspiritualforce',currentusagederivesfrom'agrowing awarenessof the way inwhichpeoplecomposetheirowncharacters,contribute tosituations and design settings': 'the commonplace analogy is of the world itself as a place where people, like actors, play parts, in an action which is felt obscurely to bedesigned by "socialforces" or thenaturaldrivesof individualmen'(p.11). One of the consequences of the growth of this notion is that we have two distinct conceptions of what we are, of our 'selves'. On the one hand, we can believe in the 'existence of a knowable and constant self, which is theoretically distinct from the socialroles wehave toplay and the wayswe haveof presenting our 'personality' toothers.On the other hand, asBurns stresses, there is increasing anxiety about the validity of this autonomous, separate identity - we may only be our 'perform-ance',theway in which wetakeonthevarioussocially definedmodesof behav-iour that our culturemakesavailable.Clearly this isnot the place to teaseout all thephilosophicalconsequencesof this, butif weaccept for themomentthefact ofuncertaintywithregardtonotionsofaseparateselfandpublicself-presen-tation,performance,role-playing,etc., wecanIthinkseeaconnectionwiththe starphenomenon. Burnsstressesthesharedconventionsof performanceinthetheatre, whereby theactorperformsandinterpretsaroleandthereby constructsacharacter.The actor 'intervenes. . .betweentheauthenticity of hisownlife,of hisownself and its past as known to himself (and as known or assumed at least in part to the audi-ence)and theauthenticated lifeof thecharacter heis playing'(pp.146-7).('Au-thenticated'referstotheway anactorestablishesacorrespondence betweenthe characterasplayedandthesocialnormsof thetime-orthe way s/heembodies a social type;see Part Two.)Stars, as I've already suggested, collapse this distinc-tion between theactor'sauthenticity and theauthenticationof thecharacter s/he is playing. Whileinsomecases(John Wayne,Shirley Temple)thiscollapsemay rootthecharacterina'real','authentic','true'self(thestar's),inothers(Bette Davis, Lana Turner)thegapbetweenthe 'selfand the performance,appearance, constructedpersonamaybepartof themeaningofthosestars.Thatistosay, whereasWayneandTemplepointtoabeliefinaseparateidentity,Davisand Turner point to the anxieties surrounding the validity of that notion of individual identity.(WayneandDavisarediscussed below;onTempleseeCharlesEckert's articleinJumpCut,2;onTurnerrefer tomyarticleinMovie,no.25.)Thestar phenomenonorchestratesthewholesetofproblemsinherentinthecommon-place metaphor of life-as-theatre, role-playing, etc., and stars do this because they are known as performers, since what isinteresting about themisnot thecharac-ter they have constructed(the traditional role of the actor) but rather the business of constructing/performing/being(dependingontheparticularstarinvolved)a 'character'. A historical paradigm - fromgodstomortals Athirdaspectof thequestionof how thestarphenomenonworksideologically emergesfromthehistoricalparadigmof thedevelopmentofstardom,foundin Morin, Walker, Schickel,Griffith and others. This is that in theearly period, stars 21 were gods and goddesses, heroes, models - embodiments of ideal ways of behav-ing.Inthelaterperiod,however,starsareidentification figures, peoplelikeyou andme - embodimentsof typical waysof behaving. Some take the transition point as being the coming of sound. Walker writes: A loss of illusion' was certainly one of the first effects that the talkies had on audiences. Richard Schickel defined 'silence' as the most valuable attribute of the pre-talkie stars. 'A godhead is supposed to be inscrutable. It is not expected that he speaks directly to us. It is enough that his image be present so that we may conveniently worship it.' (Schickel and Hurlburt, p. 13) Once they had dialogue on their lips, the once-silent idols suffered a serious loss of divinity. They ceased to be images in a human shape personifying the emotions through the delicately graded art of pantomime. Their voices made them as real as the audience watching them. (Stardom, p. 223) AlexanderWalkerseessounditselfascreatingde-divinisationofthestars, partlybecauseitenhancedthenaturalismof themedium.EdgarMorinonthe other hand sees the progress from gods to identification figures as part of the 'em-bourgeoisement' of the medium. He suggests 1930 as the turning point, but main-tainsthatsoundisonlyoneoftheelementsintheprocess.Soundbroughta certain realism('the concrete truth of noises, the precision and nuances of words', TheStars,p.15),butthesearchfor 'realism'wasalsomarkedbythegrowthof 'social themes' in Hollywood cinema (Vidor, Fury, Mr Deeds Goes to Town, etc.). Concurrently,theDepressioncausedHollywoodtocommititself tothe'dogma' of thehappyend:'Thenewoptimisticstructuresfavouredthe"escapism" of the audience and in this sense departed from realism. But in another sense, the mythic content of films were "profaned", brought down toearth'(p.16).This, Morinar-gues,constitutestheembourgeoisementof thecinematicimagination.Thecin-emawasa'plebeianspectacle'atfirst,drawingonthemelodramaand penny-dreadful,characterised by magic,extraordinary adventures,suddenrever-sals,thesacrificialdeathof thehero,violentemotions,etc.'Realism,psycholo-gism, the "happy end" and humour reveal precisely the bourgeois transformation of this imagination' (p. 16). Chance and occult possession are replaced by psycho-logicalmotivation.Bourgeoisindividualismcannottakethedeathof thehero, hence the insistence on the happy end. So stars become more usual in appearance, more'psychologically'credibleinpersonality,moreindividuatedinimage(and hence less obviously standing for a given virtue or, as Janet Gaynor said of herself, 'essence'5).Thestardoesnotceasetobespecial,butnowcombines'theexcep-tional with the ordinary, the ideal with the everyday' (p.19). In Morin's formulation, this combination of the ideal and the typical is a prod-uct of themingling of the proletarian and the bourgeois imagination.(Thereare, it needs to be said, considerable problems with identifying early cinema with pro-letarianculture/consciousness - since it can hardly be said to have been a product of theproletariat -andwiththeapparentvaluation,simply because'proletarian', ofnotionsofchance,theoccultandviolentemotion.)Thesamecombination could be seen as another aspect of the wider process(affecting all levelsof art and culture)of one-dimensionality described by Marcuse.Thus theearly stars main-tained the distinction between the ideal (what should be) and the status quo (what is)-they werea'negation'.However,thelater,demystifiedstarsclosedthegap 22 betweentheidealandthestatusquo,andcanbeseenaspartoftheprocess whereby the type, the average, has become the ideal. Another way of looking at this processissuggested inthe discussion by Orrin E. Klapp and Leo Lowenthal of the 'deterioration of the hero'. Morin and Marcuse bothwork withinformsof Marxistthought;KlappandLowenthalontheother hand work within a context of liberal thought, seeing the deterioration of the hero as the corruption of bourgeois ideals. Klapp's account of the deterioration of the hero, in Heroes,Villains and Fools, focuses on the following points in contemporary images: the fact that the heroas amodelisnotmuch(if any)better thantheaverage;thathigh 'character'isnot stressed;that the''goodfellow' quality socurrently valued is easily simulated;that modelsarediverseandcontradictory.Klappdoesnotsuggestwhatshouldhave caused thischange, nordoes he link this account tospecific earlierideals, just to 'ideal' in general. Lowenthal'saccountisbasedonananalysis('TheTriumphofMassIdols', described below, in Part Two) of biographies of heroes/celebrities in popular mag-azines,in which he sees ashift away from heroes whoembody the idealsof what hecallsan 'open-mindedliberalsociety'(p.113)tothose whoare 'adjusted toa closed society'. Thus success is shown as based not on work but on luck: 'There is nolongerapatternforthewayup.Successhasbecomeanaccidentaland irrational event' (p.126). Everything in the biographies points towards a concep-tion of the hero as 'passive':s/he is a 'product' of her/his background (by virtue of 'a kind of primitiveDarwinianconcept of social facts', p.119); thereisno 'devel-opment', i.e. progress from childhood toadulthood, for thechild is just seen as 'a midget edition'(p.124)of the adult: 'people are not conceived as the responsible agentsof their fateinall phasesof their lives, but asthe bearersof certain useful ornotsousefulcharactertraitswhicharepastedonthemlikedecorationsor stigmas of shame' (p. 125). There is an emphasis on co-operation, sociability, good sportsmanshipasagainst unrestrained 'emotional' behaviour, hence 'it isa world of dependency' (p.129). Lowenthal, like Klapp, writes within the context of liberal discontent. This view is concerned with the erosion of liberal values such as individualism and freedom bythelarge-scaledevelopmentof industrial,urbansociety,andinparticularby suchpressurestowardsconformismasproduction-linegoods,themassmedia, the centralised organisation of education and government, etc. The key concept of this view is the 'mass',asin 'masssociety', 'mass communications', 'massculture', etc. Social issues are then posed in terms of the individual versus society/the mass, rather than class struggle, and inevitably, as with Lowenthal, notions like sociabil-ity and dependenceare devalued. Nevertheless, Lowenthal's analysisdoes suggest a further possible way of conceptualising the work the star phenomenon performs for ideology, namely the suppressionof notionsof human practice,achievement, making the world. Starsand thestatusquo DiscussionofMarcuseandLowenthalhasalreadypointedtopossiblewaysof conceptualising theideologicalfunctionof thestar phenomenon - asnegationof 23 negation(Marcuse),asconcealerof thehumanitywhichmakeshistory(Lowen-thal):functionswhichservetopreservethestatusquo.Themajorityofaccounts of thestarphenomenonareconcernedwiththis'conservative'function,butcon-ceptualisedindifferentways. InhisCollectiveSearch forIdentity Klappsuggeststhatstars(andothercelebri-ties)canhaveoneofthreedifferentrelationshipstoprevalentnorms-reinforce-ment,seductionandtranscendence. 'Toreinforceapersoninsocialroles-encouragehim[sic]toplay thosewhich arehighly valued-andtomaintaintheimageof thegroupsuperself arepresum-ably theclassicfunctionsof heroesinallsocieties'(p.219).GivenKlapp'salterna-tive,butnecessarilyexceptional,categoriesofseductionandtranscendence(see below),thisisacceptable.Hiselaborationof theconceptismoreproblematic: The beauty of heroes as a character-building forceis that the individual, daydreaming, chooses for himself'[sic], within the opportunities the available models provide - which, fortunatelyforthesocialorder,usually 'justhappentobe'moresupportingthanero-sive or subversive,(p. 220) Wemightwanttoquestionheretheextenttowhichtheindividualisnotso shaped by the ideologies of her/his culture, or so structurally placed within her/his society,thatchoicebecomesvery delimitedandpredefinedindeed.Equally,Klapp doesnotexploretheimplicationsof hisview thatmodels'justhappentobe'sup-portiveof thestatusquo-hisinvertedcommasshowheisawareof theproblem, buthisliberalismdoesnotallowhimtoaskwhofashionsthestatusquoorwho controlstheprovisionof models. Intheseductionscenariotheherobreakstherulesornorms,butinacharm-ingway.Klapp'sexamplesareMickeySpillaneorJamesBond,whodemonstrate that 'itispossible,permissible,evenadmirable,torompintheforbiddenpasture' (p.227).Klapppointsoutthat: the main shortcoming of the seductive hero as teacher is that he [sic] leads a person into experiencefelttraditionally tobe wrong,butdoesnotredefineandrecreatestandards by which experienceis to be judged.He[sic]eludesand confusesmorality, but makes little contribution to it in terms of insight,(p. 228) Inthecaseof transcendence,thehero'producesafreshpointof view,afeeling of integrity,andmakesanewman[sic]'(p.229).Thisismorethanjustgetting away withsomething,asin the previouscategory,sinceit does 'redefineandrecre-atestandards by whichexperience is to be judged'.Oneof Klapp'sexamplesin this category is Jean-PaulBelmondo, whose popularity withcollegestudentshe seesas epitomisingtheirdiscoveryof aradicalnewlifestyle.AnotherexampleisIthink moreinteresting,sinceitsuggeststhepossibilityof transcendenceinamuchless intellectuallyrespectableinstance.Hequotesanaccountbyawomanstudentre-callingherenjoymentofSandraDeeinGidget,particularlyherperseverancein learningtobeasurfer,despitemockery,setbacks,etc.Hereisanexample,Klapp suggests,of astaroffering 'aspringboardby whichagirlcanvicariously leapfrom femininityintoaroleusually reservedforboys'(p.234).Thereareproblemswith Klapp'scategoriesofseductionandtranscendence.How,forinstance,canone 24 actuallydistinguishwithanyrigourbetweenthetwo?Canonenotseeboth,and especiallytranscendence,assimplyprovidinga'safety-valve'fordiscontent,and by providingexpressionof itsiphoningitoff asasubstantialsubversiveforce?The answertothatdependsonhowhermeticyourconceptionof themassmedia,and ofideology,is.Myownbeliefisthatthesystemisagooddealmore'leaky'than manypeoplewouldcurrentlymaintain.Inmy view,toassertthetotalclosureof thesystem is essentially todeny the validity of class/sex/race strugglesand their re-productionatalllevelsofsocietyandinallhumanpractices.IfindtheSandra Dee/ Gidget exampleparticularlysuggestivebecauseitstressesboththepossibility of a leakata very unprestigious,ordinary,exploitativepartof thesystem,andthe roleof thespectatorinmakingtheimagesubversive forher. Thenotionofsubversionisdiscussedelsewhereinthisbook(seep.52),but mostexaminations,ofthestarphenomenon,otherthanthisbriefsectionin Klapp,discussstarsasinsomesenseorotherreinforcingof dominantvalues. Reinforcement of values under threat Klapp'scategoryof reinforcementsuggestsonlythatheroesreinforcebyembody-ingdominantvalues.Twostudiesofindividualstars,WilliamR.BrownonWill RogersandCharlesEckertonShirleyTemple,suggestthatstarsembodysocial valuesthataretosomedegreeincrisis. InImagemaker:WillRogersandthe AmericanDreamBrownshowshowRogers embodiedthefourstrandsoftheAmericanDream(thedignityofthecommon individual,democracyastheguaranteeof freedomandquality,thegospelof hard workandthebelief inmaterialprogress)atapointintimewhenthedreamwas becomingincreasinglyhardtobelievein.Thusthe'dignityof thecommonindi-vidual'strandof thedreamwaslinkedinRogers'simagewiththatof the' sturdy yeoman'atatimewhenfarmersweresufferingfromadeclineintheirpurchasing powerascomparedtoothergroupsintheeconomyandfromtheirgradualin-corporationintoavastmarketeconomy.Therewasconcurrently'governmental corruption,financialgreed,crimeandarevolutioninmorals'(p.60)andthe emergenceof anti-heroes,notably AlCapone: Thus,duringthetwenties,thetimescalledforanembodimentofthedreamofthe worthanddignityof theindividual.During thethirties,whenthegreatfaminecame, citizens cried out for such affirmation. Where were the dignity and worth as the hungry inthecitiesstoodinlineforbreadorsoup;aslonelymenleftfamiliesandwalkedor rodeforthonthequestnotfortheholygrailbutforgainfulemployment -onlytobe lostorfollowedlater by wivesandchildrenwithnowheretogoexcepttolookforthe father. . .asthereseemednoendtothesufferinginthewintersandnowayof coun-tering human misery?(p. 61) Inthefaceof thisexperience,Brownargues,Rogersreaffirmedtherealityand val-idityofthe'sturdyyeoman',andsimilarlywiththeothervaluesoftheAmerican Dream.Onecouldsay thatatatimewhenthe American valuesystemmighthave beenredirected,theoldgoalsappearinginadequate,Rogerswastheretodemon-stratethattherewaslifestillinthetraditionalvaluesandattitudes. Eckert'sarticle,'ShirleyTempleandtheHouseofRockefeller',usesasimilar model,butwithgreaterattentiontothespecificitiesof ideology.Thisleadshimto 25 stressthefunctionof Templefordominantideologyandinterests,ratherthanfor thereassuranceof the audienceasinBrown'sapproach.Eckert links Temple tothe politicalsolutionsofferedbytheRepublicansandDemocratstothepoverty born oftheDepression-theformerstressedtheroleofindividualcharity(givingto thepoor),seeingthefederalrelief programmeproposedbytheDemocratsasan attackontheAmericanidealsofinitiativeandindividualism.By1934,saysEck-ert,therewasadeadlock -federalrelief wasnotreallyworking,yetitsintroduc-tionhad'utterlydemoralisedcharityefforts'.IntothissituationcomesTemple. Theemphasisinherfilmsisonloveasanatural,spontaneousopeningofone's heartsothat' themostimplacablerealitiesalteranddisperse';itisalovethatis notuniversalbutratherelicitedbyneed: Shirley turnslikea lodestonetoward theflintiestcharactersinher films - the wizened wealthy,thedefensiveunloved,figuresof coldauthority likeArmy officers,andtough criminals.She assaults, penetrates and opens them, making it possible for them to give of themselves. All of this returns upon her at times, forcing her into situations where she must decide who needs her most. It is her agon, her calvary, and it brings her to her most despairingmoments.Thisconfluenceofneeding,giving,ofdecidingwhoseneedis greatest, also obviously suggests the relief experience,(p.19) Eckertstressesthatonehastotakeotherelementsintoaccounttounderstand fullyTemple'sstarstatus-e.g.'themitigationof realitythroughfantasy,theexac-erbatedemotionsrelatingtoinsufficientlycaredforchildren,thecommonly stated philosophy of pulling togethertowhiptheDepression', butnonethelessin-siststhat'Shirleyandherburdenof loveappearedatamomentwhentheofficial ideologyof charityhadreachedafinalandunyieldingformandwhenthepublic sourcesof charitablesupport weredryingup'(ibid.).Iwouldgeneralisefromthis thenotionofthestar'simagebeingrelatedtocontradictionsinideology-whetherwithinthedominantideology,orbetweenitandothersubordinated/rev-olutionary ideologies.Therelationmay beoneof displacement(seenextsection, 'Displacementof values'),orofthesuppressionofonehalfofthecontradiction andtheforegroundingoftheother(seeMertononKateSmith,p.29below),or elseitmaybethatthestareffectsa'magic'reconciliationoftheapparentlyin-compatible terms.Thusif itistrue tosay that Americansociety hasseensexuality, especially for women,aswrongand,ineffect, 'extraordinary',and yet hasrequired womentobebothsexyandpureandordinary,thenonecanseeLanaTurner's combinationof sexualityandordinariness,orMarilynMonroe'sblendof sexiness andinnocence,aseffectingamagicalsynthesisof theseopposites.Thiswasposs-iblepartly throughthespecificchainsof meaningintheimagesof thosetwostars, and partly through,onceagain,thefactof theirrealexistenceasindividualsinthe world,sothatthedisunity createdby attachingopposingqualitiestotheirimages wasnonethelessrenderedaunitysimply by virtueof thefactthateachwasonly oneperson.(OnecanseethisprocessinThePostmanAlwaysRingsTwice,where thecharacterof Coraistotally contradictory,endlessly given'inconsistent' motiv-ationbythescript;soadiscussionofCoraasaconstructedcharacterwouldre-vealnothingbutfragmentation,yet,becauseitisplayedbyLanaTurner,aunity imposesitself.SeeDyer,'FourFilmsof LanaTurner'.) 26 Displacement of values SofarIhavebeendiscussingthewaystarsmayreinforceaspectsofideology simplybyrepeating,reproducingorreconcilingthem.However,bothBarryKing andEckert(inhisarticleonShirleyTemple)suggestthatreinforcementmaybe achievednotsomuchbyreiteratingdominantvaluesasbyconcealingprevalent contradictionsorproblems. Kingdiscussesthisingeneralterms.Whathecalls'Hollywoodstudiorealism' isbuiltaround'thecentrifugeofthehero',andis,heclaims,'inescapablysocial commentary' - yetitmustnotoffendtheaudience(forelseit wouldnotsell).The starsolvesthisproblem'becauseheorsheconvertstheopinionexpressedinthe filmtoanexpressionof hisbeing. . .heconvertsthequestion"whydopeoplefeel thisway?"to"howdoesitfeeltohavesuchfeelings?"'Thisworksintermsof the producers:' Thestars. . .easetheproblemof judgement(whichwouldpoliticise media)offtheshouldersof thosecontrollingthemediabythrowingitontothe realmofpersonalexperienceandfeelings.'Equallyitworksfortheaudience, depoliticisingtheirconsciousnessbyindividualisingit,renderingthesocial personal: By embodying and dramatising the flow of information, the stars promote depoliticised modesofattachment(i.e.acceptanceofthestatusquo)initsaudience.Thestars promotea privatisationorpersonalisationof structuraldeterminants,they promotea massconsciousnessintheaudience.Individualswhoperceivetheir worldintermsof personalrelevancealoneareindividualsinaprivatisedmass.Theirpersonaltroubles tend toremain personal troubles. Thestarsservetomaskpeople'sawarenessofthemselvesasclassmembersby reconstitutingsocialdifferencesintheaudience' intoanewpolaritypro-star/ anti-star. . .collectiveexperience isindividualised and losesitscollectiveinsignifi-cance'.Inallthesewaysthenstars,by virtueof beingexperienced(thatistheyare aphenomenonofexperiencenotcognition)andindividuated(embodyinga generalsocial value/normina ' unique'image),andhavinganexistenceinthereal world,servetodefusethepoliticalmeaningsthatformtheinescapablebutpo-tentiallyoffensiveorexplosivepointof departureof allmediamessages.Kinghas notarguedthisthroughinthecaseofaspecificstar,buttheargumentmightrun thatJohn WayneorJaneFonda, bothstarswithobviouspoliticalassociations,act unavoidablytoobscurethepoliticalissuestheyembodysimply bydemonstrating thelifestyleof theirpoliticsanddisplayingthosepoliticalbeliefsasanaspectof theirpersonality.Thismeansthatfilmsandstarsareideologicallysignificantin themostgeneralsenseofcuttingaudiencesofffrompolitics,renderingthem passive(cf.Lowenthal),butnotideologicallysignificantinthenarrowersenseof reinforcingagivenpoliticalstandpoint.Thespecificpoliticsof WayneandFonda wouldthusbeirrelevantindiscussingtheirideologicalfunction,whichisidenti-calwiththatof allstars. WhilstIwouldcertainlyshareKing'sviewasadescriptionofatendency of the starphenomenon,neverthelessIfindithardtodiscountthespecificideological meaning/functionofgivenstars.King'sviewdependsupondismissingaspoliti-callyirrelevantsuchthingsaslifestyles,feelingsand' thepersonal'.Obviously whetherornotoneregardsthesethingsaspoliticaldependsuponone'spolitics. 27 Myownfeelingisthatwearesoshapedandpenetratedbyoursocietythatthe personalisalwayspolitical.Inthisperspectiveitmay betruetosay that Wayneor Fondaarepoliticallyirrelevantintermsof convertingthe'issues'of convention-allyconceivedrightorleftpoliticsrespectively,butpreciselybecausetheyare experiential,individuallivingembodimentsof thosepoliticstheymayconveythe implicationsof thosepoliticsintermsof,forexample,sexroles,everyday life,etc. Underwhatcircumstancesthiscanhappenisdiscussedbelow,pp.77-83. CharlesEckert'sdiscussionof Shirley Templestressestheway in whichTemple's imageboth'assertsanddenies'problemaspectsofDepression-capitalistsociety. Money,intheRepublicanideologicalcomplextowhichTemple'sfilmsbelong, wasa problematic issue: 'asacharitable gift[it]was benevolent, whereas[money] intheformofdolewasdestructive'.Charityandinitiativewerethevaluestobe foregrounded,whilemoneywas'ambivalentandrepressed': InShirleyTemple'sfilmsandbiographies,throughaslightbutveryimportant displacement,charityappearsasloveandinitiativeaswork.Bothloveandworkare abstractedfromallsocialandpsychologicalrealities.Theyhavenocauses;theyare unmotivated. (...) Money is subjected, in keeping with its ambivalent nature, to two op-posingoperations.InShirley'sfilmsandthedepictionsofreallifeattitudestoward money, it is censored out of existence. It is less than destructive. It is nothing. But in an opposingmovement,foundlargelyinShirley'sbiographies,moneybreaksfreeand induces an inebriated fantasy that a Caliban would embrace, a vision of gold descending from the heavens, a treasure produced from a little girl's joy and curls and laughter, (p. 20) Eckert'sanalysisseemstometobeinmanyrespectsexemplaryforitslinkingof theproducedimagetothespecificideologicalrealitiesof itstime.Of course,not allstarswillrequiretheconceptofdisplacementtoaccountfortheirideological functioning,butmany willandTempleisagoodexampleof theusefulnessof the concept,sincesheisthekindofstarsoapparentlywithoutideologicalsignifi-cance.(ItisapityallthesamethatEckertdoesnotdiscusshermoredirect,obvi-ousembodimentofideologicalconceptionsofthefamily,childhoodand feminity,andherrelationshipswithblackcharactersinthefilms.) Compensation Thenotionofstarscompensatingpeopleforqualitieslackingintheirlivesis obviouslyclosetotheconceptofstarsembodyingvaluesthatareunderthreat. Thelatterarepresumablyqualitieswhichpeoplehaveanideaof,butwhichthey donotexperienceintheirday-to-daylives.However,compensationimpliesnot thatanimagemakesonebelievealloveragaininthethreatenedvalue,butthatit shiftsyourattentionfromthatvaluetosomeother,lesser,' compensatory'one. LeoLowenthalseestheshiftasonefromactiveinvolvementinbusiness,poli-tics,theproductivesphere,toactiveinvolvementinleisureandconsumption: Itissomecomfortforthelittleman[sic]whohasbecomeexpelledfromtheHoratio Algerdream,whodespairsof penetratingthethicketof grandstrategy inpoliticsand business,toseehisheroesasalotofguyswholikeordislikehighballs,cigarettes, tomatojuice,golf,andsocialgatherings-justlikehimself.('TheTriumphofMass Idols', p. 135) 28 Lowenthalseesthatthisisaproblemof realstructuralfailuresinsociety,not just acrisisof belief inanideology.ThisperspectivealsoinformsRobertK.Merton's study of KateSmithinhis book Mass Persuasion.Thisisastudy of theenormously successfulwar-bonddriveconducted by KateSmithon21September1943.Many factorscontributedtothissuccess(lengthofbroadcast,itsspecialbuild-up,the contentof whatSmithsaid,etc.),butnonemoresothantheimageof Smithher-self.MertonsuggeststhattherewasacongruencebetweenSmith'simageandthe themesusedtosellthebonds(e.g.partriotism,self-sacrifice,etc.),butaboveall notesthatintervieweesfor hisstudy stressedtimeandagainSmith'ssincerity.The radiobroadcastitself ' corroborated'Smith'simageof sincerity by thefactthatshe wasdoingitfornothingandthatitwentonforsolongandyetsheneverflagged. Equallyherimagehadbeenbuiltupbytheconvergenceof avarietyoffactors: published accounts of her charities;inadvertent and casual radio references to her con-tributions;expressionsofheridentificationwithotherplainpeople;thehalotrans-ferredfromthekindof peopleshetalksabouttoherself -allthesecontributetoher established reputation as a doer of good.(p.100) Smith'simageisthenacondensationof varioustraditional values, ' guaranteed' by theactualexistenceofSmithasaperson,producingherasanincarnationof sincerity. Merton'sintervieweescontrastedSmith'ssinceritywith'thepretenses,decep-tionsanddissembling whichthey observeintheirdaily experience'(p.142).Mer-tonsuggests thattheexperienceof being manipulatedcharacterisescontemporary society,itisoneof ' thepsychologicaleffectsof asociety which,focusedoncapi-talandthemarket,tendstoinstrumentalisehumanrelationships'(p.143): The emotional emphasis placed on Smith's 'really meaning what she says' derivesfrom theassumption thatadvertisers, publicrelationscounsels, salesmen, promoters,script writers, politicians and, in extreme cases, ministers, doctors and teachers are systemati-cally manipulatingsymbolsinorder togain power orprestigeorincome.It isthe ex-pressionofawishtobeconsideredasapersonratherthanapotentialclientor customer. It is a reaction against the feelings of insecurity that stem from the conviction that omers are dissembling and pretending togood-fellowship to gain one's confidence and make one more susceptible to manipulation,(p.144) The Smith following... is no mere aggregate of persons who are entertained by a popu-lar singer.For many, she has become the symbol of a moral leader who 'demonstrates' byherownbehavioursthatmereneedbenodiscrepancybetweenappearanceand reality in the sphereof humanrelationships. That an entertainer should have captured the moral loyalties of so large a following is itself an incisive commentary on prevailing social and political orientations,(p.145) AlthoughonecouldquarrelwithaspectsofMerton'sformulation(thenotion of 'aperson'shouldnotbetakenasagivenoranabsolute,sincenotionsof what itistobehumanareculturallyandhistoricallyspecific;itmaybethatthedis-crepancy betweenappearanceandrealityinhumanrelationshipsisnecessaryand inescapable,Smith'sappealthereforebeingunrealisablyUtopian),atthelevelof descriptionitseemsvery persuasive. MertonalsoexploresotheraspectsofSmith'simage,unfortunatelyinlessde-29 tail.Thushesuggests thatSmithembodiesthefirstof the 'threeprevailing models forthefemininesexrole:thedomesticitypattern,thecareerpattern,andthe glamourpattern'attheexpenseoftheothertwo.Byreinforcingandtherefore legitimatingthedomesticity pattern,she'servestomitigatethestrainandconflict' thesecontradictory roles imposeonwomen. 'Smithistakenasa living testimonial thattheculturalaccentonfeminineattractivenessmaybesafelyabandoned'(p. 147).'She. . .providesemotionalsupportforthosewhoareshutofffromoccu-pationalachievement.'Mertondiscusseshermotherimage,hersuccess(though remaining'justoneof us')andher'unspoiledness'insimilarterms,alwaysrelat-ingittospecificsensesof lackof anxietyinsectorsof theaudience.(Thesincer-ityemphasis,unliketheothers,Mertonfoundinallclassesandbothsexes.) Charisma Merton'sideas,aswellasthoseofEckertandBrown,allrelatetothenotionof 'charisma'asdevelopedbyMaxWeberinthefieldofpoliticaltheory.I'dliketo endPartOnebydiscussingWeber'stheoriesandtheirrelevancetothestar phenomenon,as,inasuitably modifiedform,thenotionof charisma(inthe We-beriansense,not justmeaning' magic' ,etc.)doescombineconceptsof socialfunc-tionwithanunderstandingof ideology. Weberwasinterestedinaccountingforhow politicalorderislegitimated(other thanby sheerforce),andsuggestedthreealternatives:tradition(doing what we've alwaysdone),bureaucracy(doingthingsaccordingtoagreedbutalterable,sup-posedly rationalrules)andcharisma(doingthingsbecausetheleadersuggestsit). Charismaisdefinedas'acertainqualityof anindividualpersonality byyirtueof whichhe[sic]issetapartfromordinarymenandtreatedasendowedwith supernatural,superhumanoratleastsuperficiallyexceptionalqualities'(On CharismaandInstitutionBuilding,p.329). Therearecertainproblemsabouttransferringthenotionof charismafrompol-iticaltofilmtheory.AsAlberonihaspointedout,thestar'sstatusdependsupon her/hisnothavinganyinstitutionalpoliticalpower.Yetthereisclearlysomecor-respondencebetweenpoliticalandstarcharisma,inparticularthequestionof howorwhyagivenpersoncomestohave'charisma'attributedtohim/her.E.A. Shilsin 'Charisma,OrderandStatus'suggeststhat The charismatic quality of anindividual as perceived by others, or himself[sic]lies in whatisthoughttobehisconnection with(including possession by orembedmentin) someverycentralfeatureofman'sexistenceandthecosmosinwhichhelives.The centrality, coupled withintensity, makes it extraordinary. Onedoesnothavetothinkintermsof 'man'sexistence'and'thecosmos',some-whatsuspecteternaluniversals,toacceptthegeneralvalidityofthisstatement, especiallyasitisprobablyveryoftenthecasethatwhatisculturallyandhistori-callyspecificaboutthecharismaticperson'srelationshiptoher/hissocietymay nonethelesspresentitself,orberead,asbeinganeternaluniversalrelationship. S.N.EisenstadtinhisintroductiontoWeber'sCharismaandInstitutionBuild-inghnstakenthisonestagefurtherbysuggesting,onthebasisof asurveyof com-30 municationsresearch,thatcharismaticappealiseffectiveespeciallywhenthe socialorderisuncertain,unstableandambiguousandwhenthecharismaticfig-ureorgroupoffersavalue,orderorstabilitytocounterpoisethis.Linkingastar withthe wholeof asociety may notgetus very farintheseterms, unlessonetakes twentieth-century westernsociety tohave beeninconstantinstability.Rather,one needstothinkintermsof therelationships(of thevariouskindsoutlinedabove) betweenstarsandspecificinstabilities,ambiguitiesandcontradictionsinthecul-ture(whicharereproducedintheactualpracticeof making films, andfilmstars). Thismodelunderlinesoneof theearliestattemptstoanalyseastarimage,Al-istairCooke'sDouglasFairbanks:TheMakingof aScreenCharacter,publishedin 1940.CookeaccountsforFairbanks'sstardomintermsof theappropriatenessof hisAmericanness'tothecontemporarysituationof America: Ata difficult timein American history, whentheUnitedStates was keepinga precari-ousneutralityintheEuropeanwar,DouglasFairbanksappearedtoknowallthe answersandknewthemwithoutpretendingtobeanythingmorethan'anall-round chap, justa regular American'(The American). Theattractionof thisflattering transfer of identity totheaudiencedidnothavetobeobvioustobeenjoyed.Themoviefan's pleasure in Fairbanks might have been expressed in the simple sentence of a later French critic: 'DouglasFairbanksisa tonic.Helaughsand youfeel relieved.' Inthis periodof hisearliestfilmsit was noaccident that his best-liked films should have beenHis Pic-ture in the Papers, Reggie Mixes In, Manhattan Madness, and American Aristocracy. These were respectively about the American mania for publicity; about a society playboy who wasnot above finding his girl in a downtown cabaret and fighting a gangster or twoto keepher;aboutaWesternerappalledattheeffetemannersoftheEast,andabouta Southernerofgoodfamilywhomarriedinto'bean-can'nobility,andwashealthily obliviousof any impliedsnobbery. Herealready was the kernelof apublic heroclose enough, in manner and get-up, to contemporary America to leave his admirers with the feelingthatthey weremanfullyfacingthetimesratherthanescapingfromthem.(pp. 16-17) MarilynMonroeprovidesanotherexample.Herimagehastobesituatedinthe fluxofideasaboutmoralityandsexualitythatcharacterisedthe50sinAmerica andcanherebeindicatedbysuchinstancesasthespreadofFreudianideasin post-war America(registered particularly intheHollywoodmelodrama), theKin-seyreport,BettyFriedan'sTheFeminineMystique,rebelstarssuchasMarlon Brando,lamesDeanandElvisPresley,therelaxationof cinemacensorshipinthe faceofcompetitionfromtelevision,etc.(Inturn,theseinstancesneedtobe situatedinrelationtootherlevelsofthesocialformation,e.g.actualsocialand sexualrelations,therelativeeconomicsituationsof menandwomen,etc.)Mon-roe'scombinationof sexualityandinnocenceispartof thatflux,butonecanalso seeher'charisma'asbeingtheapparentcondensationof allthatwithinher.Thus sheseemedto' be'theverytensionsthatranthroughtheideologicallifeof50s America.Youcouldseethisasheroicallylivingoutthetensionsorpainfullyex-posingthem. Justasstarcharismaneedstobesituatedinthespecificitiesof theideological configurationstowhichitbelongs(aprocessdiscussedinPartTwo),soalsovir-tuallyallsociologicaltheoriesofstarsignorethespecificitiesofanotheraspectof thephenomenon-theaudience.(Assumptionsabouttheaudienceasagener-alised,homogenouscollectivityaboundinthematerialsurveyedabove.)The 31 importanceof contradictionsastheyarelivedbyaudiencemembersinconsider-ingthestar phenomenonissuggested by asidesinJ.P.Mayer, Andrew Tudorand EdgarMorintotheeffectthatparticularlyintensestar/audiencerelationships occuramongadolescentsandwomen.They pointtosomeempiricalevidencefor this.I would alsopoint out theabsolutely central importanceof stars in gay ghetto culture.Thesegroupsallsharea peculiarly intensedegreeof role/identity conflict andpressure,andan(albeitpartial)exclusionfromthedominantarticulacyof, respectively,adult,male,heterosexualculture.If thesestar/audiencerelationships areonlyanintensificationoftheconflictsandexclusionsexperiencedbyevery-one,6itisalsosignificantthat,inthediscussionof 'subversive'starimagesinthe nextpart,starsembodyingadolescent,femaleandgayimagesplayacrucialrole. Notes 1. All reference toKing's work is based on an unpublished manuscript, 'The Social Signifi-cance of Stardom', whichis part of King'songoing researchintothesubject. 2.DavidShipman,TheGreat Stars-theGoldenYears andTheGreat Stars-the Inter-national Years. 3.Quotations from Balazs are taken from the extracts of his work in Gerald Mast and Mar-shall Cohen (eds.), Film Theory and Criticism. 4.The term 'ideological effect' is takenfrom the article by Stuart Hall, 'Culture, the media andthe "IdeologicalEffect"'. 5.'We were essences, you see . . . Garbo was the essence of glamor and tragedy... I was the essence of first love.' lanet Gaynor in an interview with Roy Newquist in Showcase. 6.Idonot know of any researchwhich looksatthedifferencesinstar/audiencerelation-ships according to class and race. 32 PART TWO Stars as Images Lookingatstarsasasocialphenomenonindicatesthat,nomatterwhereone choosestoputtheemphasisintermsof thestars'placeintheproduction/con-sumptiondialecticofthecinema,thatplacecanstillonlybefullyunderstood ideologically.Thequestions,'Whystardom?'and'Whysuch-and-suchastar?', have to be answered in terms of ideology - ideology being, as it were, the terms in which the production/consumptiondialecticisarticulated. With stars, the 'terms' involved are essentially images. By 'image' here I do not understandanexclusivelyvisualsign,butratheracomplexconfigurationof visual, verbal and aura