WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWSNYU’s Daily Student Newspaper

presents

FROM THE EDITORl ttE E

CLIO MCCONNELL

With the rise of hipster culture, ever-present in New York in

general and at NYU in particular, it has become fashionable to

dislike something for being mainstream. Kids have always spurned

their parents’ favorite bands, actors and writers, but nowadays

we are even skeptical of the stars in our own generation.

This trend calls into question the importance of Celebrity. So

much of art depends on the presence of a big name to make or

break a given project. From the stage to the screen, from radio

waves to TV channels, our artistic interests are so often influenced

by the celebrities involved.

The Washington Square News takes a moment out of your regularly

scheduled programming so that the lovely and talented Arts team

can discuss this issue of Celebrity. It is by no means a straightforward

topic — there are many ways in which fame infiltrates our everyday

routines, but it is tricky to dissect whether this force is positive or

negative. Whether we love them or hate them, our strong feelings

about famous people may distract us from searching for real merit.

The capacity to obsess over stars has increased exponentially

with the influx of social media platforms. It is impossible to

form tastes without the intervention of the Internet, which is a

huge change in the art world from generations past. Websites

like Kickstarter allow fans to feel a connection with artists that

transcends the divide between celebrities and us mere mortals.

Without the support of fans, for example, the much-hyped

“Veronica Mars” movie would never have been made.

Equally fun are the collaborations of talented A-list artists, including

power couples like Beyoncé and Jay Z. This type of partnership is

perhaps most common in the music industry, but actors and directors

work together on film and television as well. Ensemble casts on series

like “Game of Thrones” are particularly exciting to watch, although the

sheer number of actors can sometimes be overwhelming.

By working together, celebrities often use their power to help out the

little people, backing projects that otherwise might not see the light of

day. Brad Pitt’s work as a producer on “12 Years A Slave” may have

won him his first Oscar, but more importantly his contribution made

the film much more successful than it otherwise could have been.

These kinds of charitable collaborations not only bypass the industry

bureaucracy but also turn out to be high-quality productions.

Then again, not all pet projects are successful, calling into question

whether we should trust or value the worth of famous opinions. For

instance, J.K. Rowling has released a couple of books since the

end of her “Harry Potter” series, but the new efforts have received

mixed reviews. Readers may begin to wonder whether the author’s

success is based on her writing talent, or simply on a billion-dollar

plot idea. Star power can only carry a production so far, especially

when the celebrity in question is not quite suited for the task.

These and other pitfalls of Celebrity are discussed on the following

pages. Surrounded as we are by the famous and talented, it is

important to consider the influence such people may have. Celebrity

is a concept that is deep-seated in our culture, and fame has become

more far-reaching than ever, for better or for worse. We are all attracted

to the celebrity headlines, but, in reality, what’s in a name?

arts editor

ENTERTAINMENT

oftable

contents

ErFILM

ENTERTAINMENTMUSIC

THEATERBOOKS

46101214

The fanfare that accompanies the birth of a child in Hollywood is a great indicator of the public’s obsession with celebrities. For some reason, people completely lose their cool every time a female celebrity or celebrity couple an-nounces a pregnancy. A media blood-bath ensues to determine who will get the first pictures of the newly minted infant on the cover of their magazine.

Much like royalty, children of celebri-ties are born with silver spoons in their mouths and cameras in their faces whether they like it or not. But what they choose to do with that attention and privilege, especially those born into the entertainment industry, can have mixed results.

There is a long history of famous actors whose children also get lured into show business, resulting in some great performer dynasties — the Barry-mores, the Curtises, the Fondas — and even some director families such as the Cassaveteses and the Coppolas.

Having celebrity parents or grand-parents can nurture youngsters’ tal-ents, but it also puts a fair amount of stress on them to be great at something that is supposedly in their blood, but may not be in their hearts or in the cards.

Today we see a bevy of upcoming stars whose last names and heritage seem to precede their work. This in-cludes people like Jaden Smith, son of Will Smith, who is being forced on us in flops like “After Earth” and “The Karate Kid.” There is also Lenny

Kravitz’s daughter Zoë Kravitz, who has been cast in a number of big budget blockbusters and indepen-dent films despite her generally dis-affected public persona.

The list continues with the likes of Mamie and Grace Gummer, daughters of Meryl Streep, who are carving out careers for themselves on television and in independent films. Jack Quaid, son of Meg Ryan and Dennis Quaid, is an unknown star of the “Hunger Games.” “Parks and Recreation” star Rashida Jones is the daughter of ac-tress Peggy Lipton and Quincy Jones.

The Hollywood film industry is al-ready an insider’s game, but with the number of celebrity blood ties held by some of today’s biggest stars, it is no wonder that struggling actors and en-tertainers find it so hard to break into the business. They have limited con-nections and are outsiders in more ways than one.

While many of these celebrity chil-dren are very talented, their success raises questions of access as op-posed to real talent — would these people still be where they are thanks to hard work and acting capabilities, or are projects offered to them because of their genealogies? And if it’s the lat-ter, is their work still valid?

Since there is no concrete way to an-swer such questions, as media consum-ers the audience remains on the sidelines to watch the lives of the famous and fortu-nate, eagerly anticipating Blue Ivy Carter’s inevitable debut film role.

There comes a point when an A-list celebrity may ask him or herself, “Who is the best direc-tor I can work with?” Sometimes the answer is, “I am.” Projects by actor-directors throughout film history have yielded mixed results, ranging from Oscar wins and financial successes to self-indulgent vanity projects.

“Arrested Development” star Jason Bateman told his agent that his acting career is simply a stepping stone on the way to directing. The result of this effort was “Bad Words,” Bateman’s directorial debut. He helmed it not just to tell an offbeat indie comedy without studio interfer-ence, but also to play a charac-ter opposite to his usual neb-bish pushovers.

In a similar scenario, Joseph Gordon Levitt, known for play-ing the charming nice guy, took on an unlikely role in last year’s critical and commercial success “Don Jon,” a sexy independent comedy with a smart message about modern romance, directed by Gordon Levitt himself.

Yet probably the best example of this directing method is Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven,” which was a revisionist character study of the heroic cowboy stereotype for which Eastwood became fa-mous as a rising actor.

However, not all actors want to showcase their acting in their directorial projects. While “The Town” and “Argo” do not dem-onstrate a huge departure in Ben Affleck’s acting style, view-ers can see his confident direc-tion in those films as well as in “Gone Baby Gone,” the first film

Affleck directed.Similarly, George Clooney has

shown that he has an eye for stylistic flair with films such as “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind” and “Good Night, and Good Luck.”

Keanu Reeves made “The Man of Tai Chi” for genre aficionados to showcase amazingly cho-reographed martial art fights. Though he received help from Evan Goldberg, Seth Rogen made a killer co-directorial de-but last summer with “This is the End,” which is one of the best comedies in recent memory.

We can list great successes, but sometimes a great actor does not always make the best director — self-indulgent style pervades many such failed efforts. James Franco’s experimental films “As I Lay Dying” and “Broken Tower,” the latter of which was made as his NYU graduate thesis, were critically panned.

Before “The Lone Ranger,” Johnny Depp played a Native American in his 1997 directorial debut “The Brave,” a film that has not been released on DVD in the United States thanks to bad press from the Cannes Film Festival that year. Even the afore-mentioned Eastwood fails on oc-casion — the film “Hereafter” felt like a passion project gone hor-ribly wrong.

Yet celebrities continue to dabble in directing. In the next year, Russell Crowe, Ryan Gosling and Angelina Jolie will be joining the ranks of actors-turned-directors. It seems that some celebrities wish to point the limelight rather than simply stand in it.

FAMOUS CHILDREN INHERIT PARENTS’ STARDOM

ilmilmA-LIST ACTORS STEP

BEHIND CAMERA

IFE OLUJOBI

ZACK GRULLON

Household-name actors are usually celebrities who have had careers span-ning several decades. These performers bridge generational gaps between par-ents and children, and their performances are recognized by diverse demographics.

This widespread popularity draws huge crowds to the box office and most likely affects an actor’s choice of projects.

Arguably the most prominent example of this type of actor is America’s darling Tom Hanks. A respected actor, Hanks is incredibly gifted when it comes to attract-ing an audience. From his early days in “Big” to his Oscar-winning performance in “Forrest Gump,” from the heart-wrenching “Saving Private Ryan” all the way to his involvement in the children’s

classic “Toy Story” trilogy, Hanks makes it difficult for audiences to decide on a fa-vorite Tom Hanks film.

Hanks’ box office draw is definitely a factor of his huge fan base. He often seems to choose films that would not be successful starring any other actor. The recent “Captain Phillips,” for example, tells a story that would not necessarily attract many audience members. Yet, thanks to Hanks’ participation, the film was immedi-ately shot into the public’s view, even gain-ing quite a bit of Oscar buzz.

While Hanks uses his powers of celeb-rity to great effect, some actors are not as lucky. Certain famous actors begin to fall off the map late in their careers, failing to appeal to a younger genera-

tion of viewers. Therefore, they work on movies that they believe will appeal to said new audience, rather than being satisfied with their loyal fans.

Will Smith falls into this category. Up until the disastrous “After Earth,” Smith was a highly diverse actor with a giant fan base because of a hit TV show and some pretty incredible films — “The Pursuit of Happyness,” “Men in Black” and “Ali” to name a few.

Unfortunately, Smith is no longer playing to his strengths, especially now that, in his middle age, he takes time to promote the careers of his children. Actors should be challenged to go out-side their comfort zones, but as of late, Smith is solely focused on sequels to

his slightly successful action films.Is Smith’s decline due to a genera-

tion gap and loss of audience? Perhaps Smith fell off the radar during his nearly three-year break from acting. His career choices since then have played to what he seems to believe the majority of audi-ences want — another sequel to “Men in Black” or a science fiction film starring his son Jaden alongside him.

Smith’s choices go to show that some actors compromise their cinematic integrity when attempting to regain bygone fame. Yet other actors, like Tom Hanks, are constantly at work, never suffering from a dwindling au-dience thanks to undeniable talent and the undying admiration that comes with being an industry darling.

What do you get when you cast a bunch of the world’s greatest actors in a single movie?

Some previous results include unrealistic explosions, choppy editing, badly made action films, Taylor Swift as a terrible cheer-leader, confusion and Cameron Diaz getting a little too friendly with a Ferrari.

Hollywood tends to assume that grouping many A-list actors ensures a box-office success. Unfortunately, although several films have employed this formula and succeeded, a great many of them have failed to earn critics’ approval. Such flops include “The Expendables,” “Movie 43,” “The Counselor” and “Valentine’s Day.”

Most of these films consist of randomly ordered scenes that do not make much narrative sense. Sadly, 20 minutes of exposure to a celebrity actor does not make up for a terrible script and bad edit-ing. Audiences may love Ridley Scott, but his film “The Counselor” unnecessarily tainted Javier Bar-dem’s reputation with a ridiculous hairstyle and many scenes filled with pointless dialogue.

Directors of this type of film tend to stumble through a haphazard series of scenes, eventually unify-ing them by one grand gesture into a common theme or aesthetic ele-ment. These disjointed final prod-

ucts imply a disconnect between the cinematographer’s direction and the editor’s assembly.

The cinematic failures of these films can be blamed on one par-ticular issue — casting a bunch of actors to play roles in an attempt to maximize profits. A clear exam-ple is “The Expendables,” starring action stars Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham and Jet Li. The end result was a cluster of actors fighting for screen time and thus a weak story structure.

These kinds of disappointing films ultimately break the trust of their audiences. Viewers may fin-ish watching one of these films with the idea that nothing made any sense.

The magic of cinema has seeped into the sewers and its replacement is a multibillion-dollar franchise that fails to acknowledge that it is slowly driving away its loyal patrons. The actors and actresses in these films also make themselves vulnerable to harsh criticism and the degradation of their careers.

Hollywood is making money with stacked casts, but audiences re-main nonplussed by the lack of plot value and artistic effort put into these films. Perhaps American film critic and historian Leonard Maltin said it best, “It’s the movie itself, not the star, that makes the hit.”

With her subtle femininity, sheer beauty and sincere persona, the “It Girl” — any up-and-coming per-former who charms her way to fame — is idolized by Hollywood and its adoring audience. This archetype has evolved from a periodical phrase to a legitimate distinction in the entertain-ment industry.

Those who hold the “It Girl” title earn this renown in a number of ways. For one, these women have undeniable talent. Oscar-winner Lu-pita Nyong’o, this year’s celebrity icon, did not win over the hearts of millions by simply parading her evi-dent elegance around.

Nyong’o’s raw and honest portrayal of Patsey in Steve McQueen’s “12 Years a Slave” left audiences in awe of her ability to evoke vulnerability on screen. This talent allowed the world to recognize her humble and inspir-ing perspective on acting when she accepted numerous awards for her performance. Though she has only a few roles to her name, she will likely continue to captivate filmgoers with her pronounced passion for the craft.

Other “It Girls” from years past have earned the honorific thanks to a well-received public persona. Jen-nifer Lawrence, an actress with act-ing ability comparable to Nyong’o’s, is prominently recalled for her relat-able and endearing personality.

Whether detailing her love of junk food and laziness or advocating for body acceptance, Lawrence is iden-tifiable because she understands the issues her fans face. This approach-ability makes her seem less like a high-profile celebrity and more like a peer. In an industry dominated by su-perficiality, Lawrence and others like her are praised for their charisma and rejection of insincere motivations.

Boasting the flattering “It Girl” name seems like it would be a road to perpetual stardom. But despite the glowing status of the label, it can also yield petty predicaments.

Just this year, Nyong’o and Law-rence were set against each other in the media because of their similari-ties in both aptitude and popularity. Nyong’o, being the newer actress of the two, received more support from fans, as Lawrence was ousted from her “It Girl” position because of the assumption that she was jealous of her counterpart’s fame.

It is sometimes difficult to concep-tualize a celebrity as being an actual person, but those dubbed “It Girls” can create an avenue where that di-vide seems less daunting — their mag-netic allure only enhances a wonderful presence. Viewers invariably connect to these performers in one way or an-other, rendering their place in many hearts timeless.

HOLLYWOOD ‘IT GIRLS’WIN AUDIENCES OVER

WITH CHARMSTACKED CASTS

DISTRACT FROM PLOTLINE

ESTABLISHED ACTORS DRAW MULTI-GENERATIONAL AUDIENCES

NYUNEWS.COM | SPRING 2014 ARTS ISSUE | WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS 5

NORA BLAKE

MOHAMED HASSAN

LAURA WOLFORD

EEEEEEEEEEE

6 WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS | THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2014 | NYUNEWS.COM

Much has been made of Andy Serkis’ work in films like “The Lord of the Rings” and “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.” Performing in a motion capture suit, Serkis has been her-alded for breathing life into completely com-puter-generated characters, a practice that has long been used in video games. And now, those who participate in projects via motion capture suits are finally receiving their well-deserved time in the spotlight.

As game developers more frequently devote time and resources to improving their plots and characters, the voices and faces behind these characters have become celebrities in their own right. Actors such as Troy Baker, Ashley Johnson and Nolan North have deliv-ered some of the best performances across all entertainment media in recent years, all while performing with nothing but a few mock props and their fellow actors.

Baker, in particular, headlined some of 2013’s biggest titles — he is perhaps the most emblematic of video game actors tak-ing on more public roles. As Joel in “The Last of Us,” Baker impressively disappears into his performance. He voices a father coming to terms with his own emotional guilt, as well as accepting his charge in possibly saving man-kind from a devastating infection.

In “BioShock Infinite,” Baker’s performance as

Booker DeWitt serves as a viable entry point to the game’s world of floating cities and religious devotion to American history. In between these two lead roles, Baker even filled the massive clown shoes of Mark Hamill and successfully took on the role of Batman’s arch nemesis, the Joker, in “Batman: Arkham Origins.”

Baker has established himself as a known quantity in the gaming world not just for those making the games but for players as well. Ti-tles like “The Last of Us” bill their performers up front like a movie’s introductory credits, and it has given actors like Baker and his equally stellar co-star Johnson their proper due.

While performance capture methods vary throughout the video game industry — some actors provide only voice work while some also contribute to a character’s physicality — the industry has enjoyed tremendous growth in its acting talent. Players are rewarding that talent with an increased focus on these ac-tors, who are therefore increasingly sought out for jobs in the industry.

Baker, Johnson and North — North also appeared in “The Last of Us” and first gained fame for his pitch-perfect portrayal of Nathan Drake in the “Uncharted” franchise — have proven that with powerful actors, audiences should watch out. The next big Hollywood stars may have already appeared on gaming con-soles.

VIDEO GAMES PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE PLATFORM FOR

NEW TALENT

JONATHON DORNBUSH

NTERTAINMENTNTERTAINMENT

NYUNEWS.COM | SPRING 2014 ARTS ISSUE | WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS 7

Many A-list directors and producers have recently shifted their attention from the big screen to televi-sion. In 2010, Martin Scorsese became an execu-tive producer of the show “Boardwalk Empire.” Now, Academy Award-winner Alfonso Cuarón, who directed “Gravity,” has helped create the newly premiered se-ries “Believe” on NBC. What is the cause of this sud-den trend, and what can be the possible effects?

At a basic level, celebrities are looking to work on successful projects, and certain ideas fit better on the small screen than in the cinema. For instance, in a 2013 interview on the “Howard Stern Show,” “Breaking Bad” actor Bryan Cranston said television was a perfect medium for the series because it al-lowed for a convincing transformation of his charac-ter Walter White.

The show, Cranston said, would have made a terrible film because there would not have been sufficient time to tell White’s story. Perhaps the overwhelming critical praise and admiration of recent dramas such as “Break-ing Bad” and “Homeland” are influencing film directors to switch media.

While there are always a number of phenomenal films every year, for every good feature released, there are a dozen bad ones solely geared toward breaking records at the box office. For every “Inside Llewyn Da-vis,” there is a “Transformers” sequel. In other words, directors may face difficulties when convincing Holly-wood to release a film based on its merit, rather than based on how many tickets it will sell.

Television is also a business wherein series are often canceled for not bringing in enough viewers. However, there are networks, such as AMC, that will support a show like “Breaking Bad” even after initial ratings are poor — executives recognized the im-portance of keeping a high-quality show on the air.

Perhaps film directors are enticed not only by the freedom television allows for fully developing a sto-ryline, but also by networks’ eager attitude to host well-crafted shows.

Yet there are consequences of these big-shot di-rectors and producers turning their attention toward the small screen. The shift could lead to an increas-ing number of great TV shows, but it is important to remember that these directors do not always produce the best films — “Man of Steel,” directed by Zack Sny-der and produced by veteran superhero expert Chris-topher Nolan, was a travesty at best. As such, there is no guarantee that they will produce amazing TV shows, but television provides more room for improve-ment than film does.

For now, the celebrity interest in developing TV se-ries is an important opportunity for major progression in the industry.

PRODUCERS MAKE CREATIVE LEAP

FROM FILM TO TELEVISION

ALEXANDRA MUJICA

In a sketch last week during his sec-ond hosting gig on “Saturday Night Live,” Louis C.K. had a rough time. Many of his remarks in “Black Jeopardy” as the char-acter Mark were not only offbeat, but also awkwardly racist.

Watching celebrities behave uncharacter-istically has always been one of the main draws for audiences of “SNL,” now in its 39th season on NBC. But the attraction of “SNL” — one of the most discussed and longest-running shows on television — should not be scenes that put famous people in uncomfortable situations.

Even during “Black Jeopardy,” one of the most shared videos from last week’s episode, the laughs come from the writing. Theoretically, any white male — whether celebrity host or cast member — could have played C.K.’s role and it would have been just as funny.

The “SNL” audience seemingly consists of two groups. There are diehard sketch-comedy fans who are lifelong watchers and truly care about the show. On the other hand, there are those watching solely for the celebrity guests.

The first group will argue that sketch writing is a labor-intensive process and that when it works, which it often does on this show, the result is hilarious and seems effortlessly funny. The other group will argue that, for the most part, “SNL” is not all that great, but it is enjoy-

able when stars act silly.But what this second group does not real-

ize is that a sketch with stars acting silly is not inherently funny. Even if Matt Damon puts on a dress and hits on Kenan Thompson, his dia-logue is what makes even the haters laugh — the dress and the man are just there to fulfill the writer’s vision.

For this reason, the seasons’ best epi-sodes are those hosted by former cast members or by celebrities who have hosted multiple times. Stars like Jimmy Fallon, Steve Martin and Justin Timber-lake are either writers themselves or are familiar enough with “SNL” that they end up serving the show, rather than the other way around.

Where the host really comes in, as with the rest of the cast, is the delivery. Co-medic timing cannot be taught, especially in a single week. For the writing to make sense, the host must be a good actor, even when the lines continue to change until the last second and there is little time for memorization or rehearsal.

While “SNL” hosts deserve a share of credit for the success of their episodes, there is a reason why almost every host has come away astonished at the talent and de-termination of the writing staff. While people may watch for the celebrity host, they will laugh mostly for the writers, whether they know it or not.

SNL WRITERS OUTSHINE HOSTS

SEAN HICKEY

NTERTAINMENTNTERTAINMENT

Television used to be a place for aging actors out of their prime, like Alec Baldwin in “30 Rock” or Christian Slater in “My Own Worst Enemy.” But as of late, actors still at an A-list level in Hollywood are pursuing roles in superior TV shows or even helping produce proj-ects that would otherwise go ignored.

The most obvious example would be “True Detective,” which boasts Hollywood actors Woody Harrelson and Matthew McCo-naughey — who also served as executive producers — as well as noted film director Cary Fukunaga directing all eight episodes for the first season. These celebrity presences helped garner attention in the first season, so the show may not need to rely on Hollywood actors to attract viewers in the future.

“House of Cards” is home to stars Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright. Netflix could have cast two unknowns, but to include big-name ac-tors draws a larger audience and brings an air of respectability. “House of Cards” began at a time when Hollywood actors in TV shows were rare and the show essentially broke that barrier for the first time.

Notable actress Jessica Lange has headlined the past three sea-sons of “American Horror Story,” which has a cast of recognizable names rotating every season including Zachary Quinto, James Cromwell, Kathy Bates and Sarah Paulson.

And there will be a plentiful future for TV series featuring celeb-rity actors — people viewers may never have expected to see on the small screen.

Dwayne Johnson is heading over to HBO with the half-hour series “Ballers,” which follows the lives of retired and current football play-ers. Johnson will star in the series and serve as executive producer with “Pain and Gain” co-star Mark Wahlberg.

French actress Eva Green has made a name for herself as a femme fatale and now she is bringing that to the small screen with “Penny Dreadful,” a gothic horror saga that takes place in England at the turn of the 20th century.

Tom Hardy has signed on to a BBC drama series produced by famed movie director Ridley Scott called “Taboo,” with Hardy play-ing a rogue adventurer in the 19th century who builds a trading and shipping empire in competition with the vicious and scandalous East India Company.

Having all of these film celebrities appear on television really does blur the line between the two screen mediums. It was once a nega-tive criticism to refer to someone as a “TV actor,” but that insult is quickly becoming outdated.

CELEBRITY ACTORS LEND POWER TO TELEVISION

ZACK GRULLON

8 WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS | THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2014 | NYUNEWS.COM

With shows like “Game of Thrones” and “Community” winning the hearts of fans and critics alike, it seems like the ensemble cast is all the rage on the small screen these days. Taking full advantage of the current fascination with celebrity culture, these shows cram as many A-listers in one story as possible. However, the trend of ensemble casting is perilous, often jeopardizing the quality of a TV series, not to mention causing interpersonal issues in the entertain-ment industry.

What most people see as the greatest advantage of ensemble casting — providing viewers with a strong dose of all their celebrity needs — is also the greatest weakness. When writers and produc-ers put so many celebrities in front of the camera, they must some-how find a way to give every star enough screen time, and the writ-ing invariably suffers in the process.

“American Horror Story,” for example, went to the extreme in its third season, “Coven” — there were two Academy Award winners and one Academy Award nominee in its principal cast, as well as teen star Emma Roberts.

As the season dragged on, the writing became worse, with the producers struggling to fit the top-billed stars into the storyline. Witches who died were revived at least twice, and additional char-acters — such as Delphine LaLaurie, played by the wonderful Kathy Bates — had few chances to contribute to the plot and were forced to hover in the background. The producers paid big money for these celebrities, but sacrificed a coherent plot in exchange for keeping them on the show. This choice resulted in a largely unsatisfying end-ing to “Coven.”

Behind the scenes, ensemble casts also constantly inspire con-flicts. “Community’s” cast of comedic actors works perfectly on-screen, as each character has a specific role in the group. Yet show creator Dan Harmon had a highly publicized feud with Chevy Chase, the actor who played Pierce Hawthorne. A comedic legend, Chase did not appreciate being cast to the side as a secondary character who was constantly the butt of jokes. Arguments escalated until Harmon was fired and Chase voluntarily left the show.

When so many stars are involved, it is difficult to keep them all happy. Recently, Donald Glover, another star on the show, left the main cast in order to do some soul-searching. The cast changes caused by celebrity members have forced “Community” to change major character arcs.

Of course it is fun to see favorite celebrities together in the same scene, but ultimately, audiences are tuning in for good television, not Celebrity Jeopardy. Ensemble casting may be good fun, but the use of so many stars causes the quality of series to suffer, both on-screen and off.

TV SHOWS SUFFER FROM ENSEMBLE

CASTING

BOB TEOH

Ensemble casts have always been a part of the lives of TV viewers, but recently this trend has multiplied and the results are spectacular. Ensemble shows like “Game of Thrones” and “The Walking Dead” are massive hits with audiences.

Many of these ensemble series have huge casts, turning some view-ers away since they find it difficult to keep track of who’s who. Yet other viewers would argue that ensemble casts only increase a show’s worth. The potential to weave a narrative around the multitude of characters and the standout performances they give are what pushes these shows from good to great.

“Thrones” and “Dead” have a fair amount of celebrities between them — Peter Dinklage and Sean Bean, and Andrew Lincoln and Scott Wilson, respectively. Yet these actors’ celebrity status does not overshadow the story.

On the other hand, some of these actors were unknown before work-ing on “Thrones” and “Dead.” The shows have made them bigger celeb-rities through critical acclaim for their performances, but their newfound fame still has not hurt the show’s purpose of giving its audience interest-ing stories.

The current season of “Dead” has employed character arcs more meaningfully than in years past. The second half of the season explored many of the characters’ personalities in-depth, with many episodes fo-cusing only on a few of the characters. On occasion strategy this re-quired the writers to leave characters like Lincoln’s Rick out for consecu-tive episodes in order to spread the screen time between everyone in the cast and not just the celebrities.

By breaking up into these substories, everyone in the cast is given a character spotlight to show where each character is mentally. The writ-ing became better, since the scenes focused on specific characters and what was at stake for each of them. When under the right direction, both celebrities and newcomers can display grand character arcs.

With a show like “Thrones,” which has over a dozen main characters, it can be difficult to give everyone a scene in each episode. Yet the writers smartly build their plot around the characters, exploring their in-teractions and the resulting consequences — no character is complete without his adversaries and allies.

In the “Thrones” season two episode “Blackwater,” Tyrion (Dinklage) berates Joffrey (Jack Gleeson) for not being the king his soldiers need. Dinklage is the celebrity and he commands the scene, yet the action that Joffrey decides to take in that scene sets off a whole new storyline for many characters. The narrative never feels static because each charac-ter’s actions constantly influence the others in the story.

Celebrity should never be an issue if the writers treat big-name actors the same way as they treat unknown actors, giving everyone character-driven scenes. Ensemble casting gives a series the power to explore many characters, creating storylines in which both stars and new talent can shine.

GREAT WRITING OUTWEIGHS CELEBRITY

OVERLOAD

LAURA WOLFORD

vs.

The music world has recently been buzzing with news of interesting and dynamic forth-coming collaborations. For instance, Cloud Nothings will be releasing a joint album with

lo-fi surf rock band Wavves, and the “Amazing Spider-Man 2” soundtrack includes an opera written by Pharrell Williams and Hans Zimmer.There is plenty of star power in one celebrity

voice, but sometimes the most impactful mo-ments prove that two heads are better than one. Here are some memorable collabora-

tions through the years.

“Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy” David Bowie with Bing Crosby (1982)The short video for this Christmas duet

features David Bowie sporting arguably the world’s most ironic rosary and Bing Crosby

appearing genuinely uncertain of who Bowie is. Nevertheless, the two undeniably sound brilliant together, and the original lyrics of

“Peace on Earth” blend seamlessly with the rhythm of “Little Drummer Boy,” making the

song a Christmas staple for many.

“Say Say Say”Paul McCartney ft. Michael Jackson (1983)

“Say Say Say” marked the first duet be-tween global superstars Paul McCartney and

Michael Jackson — the pair also recorded “The Girl Is Mine” for Jackson’s “Thriller” a

year later. “Say Say Say” is a desperately sad song about lost love and at the same moment

an unbelievably catchy piece of music.

“Where the Wild Roses Grow”Kylie Minogue with Nick Cave and the

Bad Seeds (1996)Though Nick Cave has been a cult favorite

for years, he has never achieved mainstream success — which is why pairing him with

pop star Kylie Minogue was so interesting. In “Where the Wild Roses Grow,” Cave croons in his distinctively deep voice, offering a startling

contrast to Minogue’s soft pop vocals.

“Lady Marmalade”Christina Aguilera, Lil’ Kim,

Mya and Pink (2001)Though originally recorded in 1974 by

the girl group Labelle, “Lady Marmalade” achieved considerable attention in 2001 when

Christina Aguilera, Lil’ Kim, Mya and Pink came together to record a cover of the song for the film “Moulin Rouge.” From Aguilera’s powerful vocals to Lil’ Kim’s innovative rap

verse, the song proved both a creative cover and a well-made record in general.

“Cambridge 1969/2007”

Yoko Ono ft. The Flaming Lips (2007)Over the course of a three-decade-long

career, The Flaming Lips seem to have col-laborated with absolutely everyone. But their relationship with legendary misfit Yoko Ono has produced by far some of their most bi-

zarre and intriguing work to date. “Cambridge 1969/2007” is first and foremost an Ono

track, complete with her trademark shriek-ing. But The Flaming Lips add a considerable psychedelic and whimsical touch to the song,

making for a dynamic recording that show-cases the talent of both acts.

The popular understanding of what makes a diva has evolved over time. The term originated in the opera world, where it referred only to singers with extraordi-nary talent and public appeal. In the 1980s, however, the term began to refer to super-talented female pop vocalists like Aretha Franklin, Whitney Houston, Tina Turner and Celine Dion.

Today, diva status is ubiquitously applied to well-mar-keted pop performers with strong personalities, and, to the ire of many, it is used as a stand-in word for “bossy.” As Sarah Silverman puts it in a YouTube music video for an original song titled “Diva,” “If you call yourself a diva/you better be a singer/and not somebody cutting me in line.”

Silverman’s comments assert that the word diva should not be used lightly, but only in a specific context — when a singer has exhibited outstanding talent, received years of training and amassed a large following.

In a recent interview, living legend Patti LaBelle echoed this sentiment and protested what she said is an over-use of the term.

“That word is used so loosely that I don’t even consider myself a diva,” LaBelle said. “I always considered myself a woman who sings her heart out and who gives 120 percent. ‘Diva’ is a word that I wouldn’t wanna call myself because it’s so loosely used.”

Of the contemporary singers deemed divas today, Be-yoncé, Mary J. Blige and Christina Aguilera approach the original definition — or at least LaBelle’s — most closely.

Pop performers like Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, Katy Perry and Rihanna, however, are not divas in the defini-tion once used for opera singers. They only bring one half of the original equation — celebrity. Charismatic and compelling as their personas may be, the production be-hind their tracks is what makes their music good, not their vocal talent.

With the rising popularity of these so-called divas, there has been a change in how the public conceptualizes the term.

With the advances in music technology, music pro-duction has reached the point where mediocre or even dreadful voices can be made to sound immaculate. Paris Hilton, Tila Tequila and various Real Housewives are by no means comparable to Liberace, but their fame has al-lowed each to release successful over-produced singles.

The second obvious change in decades past is the renewed emphasis on persona that social media has brought. Rihanna continues to spark controversy and con-versation on Instagram and Twitter, though her live singing voice is lackluster. People listen to a Rihanna track with her latest “selfie-with-blunt” in mind, more invested in her weed and party references than her songs.

Unlike the music of LaBelle or Franklin, the work of mod-ern divas places little emphasis on the vocals. Whether one agrees that the term should be used sparingly, it is hard to deny that the current pop culture is very different than that of LaBelle’s heyday. Diva may not mean what it used to, but this change is only natural.

BIG-NAME STARS COLLABORATE

TO MAKE SONGS BUZZWORTHY

DIVA DEFINITION MORPHS AS NEW TALENT TAKES STAGE

HAYLEY SADOFFMALINA GULINO

USICUSICMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Celebrity music producers are the reason for to-day’s greatest hits. While vocal talent is important, it is often the background elements that truly make a track or element stand out.

Perhaps the best example in recent memory is courtesy of the two producers who helped reinvent Miley Cyrus’ musical persona this past year — Mike WiLL Made It and Pharrell Williams.

WiLL produced Cyrus’ most recent album “Bangerz,” including the two hit tracks “23” and “We Can’t Stop.” His expertise with autotune and voice alterations has sculpted tracks like Lil Wayne’s “Love Me,” Ciara’s “Body Party,” Rihanna’s “Pour It Up” and Kanye West’s “Mercy.”

Strangely, unlike the high-profile artists whose ca-reers he shapes, WiLL stays out of the public sphere of hip-hop and rap artists. However, keeping this low profile has only helped his silent success.

WiLL’s collaborator Williams is noted as one of the greatest producers of all time. He worked on three of 2013’s biggest hits — “Blurred Lines,” “Get Lucky” and “Happy.” Recently, Pharrell graced the iconic al-bum “Beyoncé” with his presence, producing “Blow” and “Superpower,” and even making a cameo in the music video for the latter.

Many other well-known stars work behind the scenes as well. For example, David Guetta produced and wrote “Phresh Out the Runway,” Rihanna’s famed Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show track. Guetta also produced and wrote for two of the most antici-pated pop albums of the past year, Britney Spears’ “Britney Jean” and Lady Gaga’s “ARTPOP.” He has collaborated with countless big names in the pop and hip-hop genres in order to define himself as a producer, writer and artist, rather than just a DJ.

Ryan Lewis stepped into the limelight in 2013. While Macklemore raps, Lewis serves as engineer, producing the million-dollar magic in “Thrift Shop,” as well as all of the other tracks on the duo’s in-credibly successful album, “The Heist.” Although Lewis’ work has been confined to making music with Macklemore, many artists have noted his talent and will surely begin collaborating with him.

Timbaland has been the force behind Justin Timber-lake’s success since his first album “Justified,” and any popular artist in today’s industry has at least one or two tracks produced by Timbaland. “The 20/20 Experience,” “Suit & Tie” and “Mirrors” are some of his most successful productions. He also produced “Grown Woman,” the first release and sneak peak of Beyoncé’s self-titled, industry-changing project.

Although the vocalists are ultimately credited and praised for their releases, it is the minds behind the music that have crafted pop culture from the shadows.

Still, modern music fans know the names and works of many producers affiliated with their favor-ite artists. Evidently, as the industry develops, these producers are going to continue to step into the spotlight and claim their recognition as celebrities in their own right.

It was Andy Warhol who famously predicted that, in the future, everyone would have their “15 minutes of fame.” With the advent of reality television, it is hard to deny that Warhol’s statement was prophetic.

As much as it claims to be a catalyst for serious careers, reality television is often only able to provide the fleeting brand of celebrity Warhol described.

In the world of music, the most glaring example of this is “American Idol.” Though it once attracted more viewers than any other show on television, “Idol’s” ability to launch careers has proven to be limited.

Kelly Clarkson, the show’s first winner, is the only contestant to have landed a number-one Billboard Hot 100 single post-“Idol.” Carrie Underwood, who won in the fourth year, earned fame in the coun-try music genre. Other “Idol” artists, such as Chris Daughtry, Jordin Sparks, Adam Lambert and Fan-tasia Barrino have seen success — high-scoring Hot 100 singles and topping niche charts — but they have not reached the heights of Clarkson.

Many “Idol” contestants have reached celebrity in areas other than music. Jennifer Hudson, thanks to her star turn in “Dreamgirls,” won an Oscar and became an entertainment media darling. Barrino, though moderately successful in the music indus-try, had perhaps her greatest post-show visibility

in her reality show, “Fantasia for Real.” Similarly, season-seven finalist Danny Noriega currently ap-pears on the reality show “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” competing as his drag persona Adore Delano.

But for every success story, there is a contestant whose celebrity has proven as short-lived as his re-spective “Idol” season. Winners such as Ruben Stud-dard and Kris Allen were easily forgotten, releasing albums that quickly disappeared from the radio. Not to mention the pool of over 150 top 12 runners-up who have, in most cases, faded into obscurity.

Television has featured shows like “Idol” in decades past — “Star Search,” for instance, brought audience attention to Britney Spears, Drew Carey and Rosie O’Donnell in the 1980s. But since the 2000s, televi-sion has become saturated with “reality,” and the few major success stories have come from “Idol.”

Recent competitions, such as “The Voice” and “The Sing-Off,” have failed to produce superstars. Only “Britain’s Got Talent” has managed to create an “Idol”-sized splash with contestant Susan Boyle.

It is rare, but televised singing competitions can launch the career of an otherwise undiscovered tal-ent. In most cases, however, these shows are typi-cal of reality television — they spark celebrity with fleeting effect.

TV COMPETITIONS ADD DIMENSION TO MUSIC INDUSTRY

MINDS BEHIND MUSIC TO THANK FOR HITS

AICHA FALL

JAKE FOLSOM

USICUSIC

ALEX BERNER-COE

Jay Z and Beyoncé

As the music industry’s royal couple, Jay Z and Beyoncé share a particularly private relationship compared to many of their contemporaries, but their musical collaborations allow listeners the occasional glimpse into their personal lives. From Jay Z’s 2003 hit “03 Bonnie and Clyde” to Beyoncé’s 2013 smash “Drunk In Love,” the most influential duo in the en-tertainment business has released a dozen songs throughout the years of working collectively.

Their professional relationship predates their ro-mantic involvement, but no matter their relationship status, they have always been best friends, and it shows. For example, the couple loves to surprise crowds by bringing each other out on stage during concerts to perform their iconic duets. During these

special instances, Queen Bey cannot help but ex-change her usual fierce facial expressions for warm smiles and loving glances toward her husband.

Dev Hynes and Samantha Urbani

Dev Hynes, the man behind Blood Orange, evi-dently loves to sing with his girlfriend Samantha Urbani of Brooklyn band Friends. She is featured in many songs from his 2013 album “Cupid Deluxe,” including “You’re Not Good Enough,” “It Is What It Is” and “Always Let U Down.” All of the songs on which they collaborate have an affectionate, conversational tone, further demonstrating the authenticity of both their relationship and their artistry. The couple clearly has an amazing on-stage chemistry when Blood Or-ange performs. Hynes and Urbani dance together,

share smiles across the stage and hug while per-forming — much to the delight of their audience.

Win Butler and Régine Chassagne

For almost 10 years, married couple Win Butler and Ré-gine Chassagne has fronted the band Arcade Fire. The pair of artistic geniuses met at McGill University in Mon-treal where Butler eventually convinced Chassagne to join Arcade Fire. Because of variance in the band’s line-up, at one point the two found themselves as the only mem-bers remaining in the group. The pair finally got married in 2003 and has accrued numerous musicians for Arcade Fire in the years since, including Butler’s brother William. In 2011, the band’s 2010 release “The Suburbs” won a Grammy for Album of the Year, and a couple who wins a Grammy together stays together.

POWER COUPLES PROVE TWO VOICES BETTER THAN ONE

TTTTTTTT

Orlando Bloom, James Franco, Zachary Quinto, Bryan Cranston and Carly Rae Jepsen are all celebri-ties who are making or have made their Broadway de-buts this season. For all au-diences know, Miley Cyrus could be next.

In today’s theater age, al-most every show has a big name on the billboard — at-taching famous celebrities to a Broadway show can attract more producers, and there-fore much more money.

While it is expensive to pro-duce a show on Broadway, that does not mean the the-ater has to sell out to the film and music industries. Instead of pulling the biggest names for a show, perhaps directors and producers should begin to focus on the quality of the shows themselves.

Viewers’ need for celebri-ties onstage is making up for a lack of original work — re-vivals and musicals based on movies or books highly out-weigh the amount of original work currently on Broadway.

The popularity of celebri-ties, thanks to social media and tabloids, has led the-atergoers to crave some kind of interaction with these people. They often go to see a Broadway show for the ce-lebrities, failing to appreciate the show for itself.

Furthermore, audiences ap-plaud a celebrity as soon as he or she comes on stage, for no reason other than his or her fame — applauding them

for their career, for their prior accomplishments, which has nothing to do with the world of the play. By clapping at their entrance, audiences di-minish the world of the play. In that moment, the actor onstage becomes more im-portant than the production, and that is not what theater should be about.

By putting these film and music stars up on the Broadway stage, Broadway has become a zoo — people pay admission to see their favorite animal in a cage, not to see the entire zoo.

In the days of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, celebrities trained in theater were multi-talented. There was no pres-sure to bring people in from other media because, at that time, the theater itself was popular as its own separate art form. But, because there is less public interest in the theater today, celebrities are brought in to sell more tickets. In this way, the core principles of Broadway have changed.

Today, Broadway shows are more about who stars in them than what they are. This phenomenon is not too surprising as Broadway ca-ters mostly to tourists and focuses on what will sell tick-ets. But as soon as celebrity stars begin to overpower the shows themselves, theater becomes much less vibrant, depending on the popular-ity of people from other art forms to bring in money.

Broadway bombards audi-ences with display after dis-play of Hollywood celebri-ties taking on theater’s most prestigious roles. There is an easy case in favor of casting celebrities in Broadway shows rather than traditional stage actors — multiple facets jus-tify the increasing popularity of celebrity-led Broadway shows, including economic and artis-tic concerns.

Not every show can be a blockbuster like “Wicked” or “The Lion King,” both of which are wildly success-ful tourist attractions. People across the globe make a bee-line for Broadway when they visit New York because these theater productions are ac-cessible and high-quality.

However, the loftier, more profound and serious plays will not garner that sort of attrac-tion, but they still need to pro-vide for their expenses. With no guarantee that audiences will come out to sit through a play about the existential musings of two old men, no matter how earnest or well-produced it is, it helps to have star power to support that in-surance. Thank goodness for Sirs Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan, who starred in this season’s avant-garde “Waiting For Godot.”

Celebrity is the leading attri-bute to a film’s marketability. It is not particularly odd to see a movie simply because James Franco takes part in it, so why should this year’s “Of Mice and Men” on Broadway, which

stars Franco alongside Irish heartthrob Chris O’Dowd, be any different?

If star casting provides fi-nancial stability, it also allows Broadway productions to take bigger artistic risks. “The Testament of Mary,” starring Fiona Shaw of “Harry Potter” and “True Blood,” was an un-orthodox, overtly unnerving one-woman show typical of Off Broadway’s less commer-cial theater market. Yet there it was, in blinding brilliance, at the prestigious Walter Kerr Theater.

No matter the success of a ce-lebrity on the silver screen, act-ing on Broadway is not merely a hobby to dabble in between films — it is a venue in which actors can inhabit unfamiliar ter-ritories. It is fully within the film actor’s creative abilities to star in a Broadway production.

Zachary Quinto of “Star Trek” starred in “The Glass Menagerie” this past fall and winter, and not only were there no traces of his celeb-rity persona, but he demon-strated an impressive ability to animate his character.

Many film actors, including McKellan, Shaw and even Meryl Streep, started their careers on the stage — for such celebrities, a turn on Broadway is simply a return to their thespian roots. Art-ists from film, television and music have every right to participate in the Broadway culture, and theatergoers’ experiences are made all the better thanks to them.

The presence of celebrities in Off Broadway shows is few and far between. While their Broadway counterparts are taking part in the trend of casting celebrities — and obnoxiously advertising it — Off Broadway generally steers clear of this pattern.

In 2011, Zachary Quinto starred in an Off Broad-way revival of “Angels in America.” Although a well-known celebrity starred in this production, the play’s advertising featured the strengths of the play itself rather than just publicizing the commercial re-wards of casting a Hollywood actor as the lead.

Oftentimes, casts led by high-profile celebrities are over-publicized while the other merits of the play are downplayed. This imbalance leads to the attendance of jittery tourists hoping to catch a glimpse of said celebrities at the stage door rather than people who are actually coming to enjoy the play. Avoiding celeb-rity driven publicity helps maintain a play’s integrity.

Similarly, in the Roundabout Theatre Company’s 2013 Off Broadway revival of “Talley’s Folly,” star-ring Sarah Paulson (“12 Years a Slave,” “American Horror Story”), the fact that a well-known film and TV actress was cast in the show was only subtly advertised, giving due respect to the play.

On the poster, her name, along with the names of her fellow cast members, is in a relatively small font at the bottom, which shows that the priority lies within the staging, rather than the curb appeal. This adver-tising is quite unlike the posters for the Broadway re-vival of “Of Mice and Men,” where James Franco’s and Chris O’Dowd’s names are as large as the title.

One reason for the lack of celebrities Off Broad-way may be the perceived stigma that accompa-nies this smaller theater scene. While Off Broad-way shows are highly respected in the theater world, outsiders might sell them short for not be-

ing high-profile or flashy enough.Popular Hollywood actors are most likely able to

choose from a good selection of stage roles, and they might gravitate toward Broadway roles be-cause they garner more publicity.

While celebrity casting can be a good way to entice non-theatergoers into seeing a show, the commercial aspect of this trend has gotten out of hand over the past few years. It has also resulted in a lack of regard for even Broadway shows, which are not respected as the pieces of theater that they are, but only as a chance to see A-list celebrities up close and personal.

Whether Broadway or Off Broadway, it is impor-tant to find a balance between praising the celebrity and giving due attention to the play — both as-pects are crucial to a successful production, and they each deserve respect.

CELEBRITIES ON BROADWAY OVERPOWER

PRODUCTIONS

OFF BROADWAY SHOWS NEED TO BALANCE STARS, CRAFT

CELEBRITIES MAKE FOR BETTER

THEATER-GOING EXPERIENCE

NIKOLAS REDA-CASTELAOSARAH NICHOLS

JOSEPH MYERS

vs.

TTTTTTTTHEATERHEATER

WSN presents this year’s Broadway stars in an exciting season filled with talent both old and new.

Longtime Broadway favorite Idina Menzel shines in “If/Then.” Menzel, an acclaimed singer, actress and song-writer, recently starred in the Disney-hit “Frozen.” She also won a Tony Award for her performance in “Wicked.”

“Harry Potter” star Daniel Radcliffe returns to the stage in Martin McDonagh’s “The Cripple of Inishmaan,” a dark comedy about a crippled boy trying to escape his small town in Ireland.

“Hedwig and the Angry Inch” welcomes Neil Patrick Harris, a stage veteran best known for playing the be-loved Barney Stinson on “How I Met Your Mother.”

Zach Braff wows the crowd in “Bullets Over Broadway” as David Shayne, an aspiring young playwright in 1920’s New York City. Braff’s previous work includes the movie “Garden State” and a leading role in the long-running sit-com “Scrubs.”

Former Miss America and pop star Vanessa Williams appears in “After Midnight,” a musical loosely based on a fictional jazz club, performing songs by Duke Ellington and company.

Fan favorite James Franco plays George in the revival of “Of Mice and Men.” Franco’s most notable work in-cludes the “Spider-Man” trilogy and “127 Hours,” the lat-ter of which earned him an Academy Award nomination.

“A Raisin in the Sun” welcomes Denzel Washington in the leading role of Walter Younger. Washington’s previous work, mainly on the big screen, includes “Malcolm X,” “He Got Game” and “Flight.”

Returning to Studio 54 for “Cabaret,” Alan Cumming will reprise his role as the emcee in this revival of Kander and Ebb’s eerie tale of a nightclub in Nazi Germany. Cum-ming, known for his role on “The Good Wife,” also recently appeared in a one-man production of “Macbeth.”

The “Cabaret” cast also includes Michelle Williams, who got her start on the teen drama “Dawson’s Creek” and went on to appear in several movies, including “Brokeback Mountain.”

BROADWAY SEES FAMILIAR FACES TAKE CENTER STAGE

CAITLIN DOYLE

SUCCESS OF ‘MORMON’ PROVES STUNT-CASTING UNNECESSARY

JOSEPH MYERS

Broadway’s “The Book of Mormon” celebrated its three-year anniversary on March 24. The hit musical is still going strong with phenomenal ticket sales, a cult following and shows run-ning in Chicago and London, as well as in two national tours.

In terms of celebrity, “Mormon” has not given in to the current trend of casting well-known stars to play the principal roles. This decision can most likely be at-tributed to the show’s ongoing popular-ity. The entire original cast of “Mormon” was relatively unknown at the beginning, but the show has propelled a few actors, such as leads Andrew Rannells and Josh Gad, into relative stardom. This lack of stunt-casting has so far worked in the show’s favor.

Oftentimes, when a show features an A-list cast, it is doomed to a short run after the original star’s contract ends. Celebrity casting creates com-mercial buzz, resulting in audiences who might attend for the celebrity

rather than for the production. When an actor is replaced, the show cannot generate the same buzz and quickly loses popularity.

“Mormon’s” decision to cast lesser-known actors means that recasting when performers leave is not such a tragedy for the public, so the laudatory attention remains on the show itself.

Instead, the only notable celebrity presence connected to “Mormon” is that of the co-creators and co-writers, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, best known for their creation of the infamously ir-reverent animated series “South Park.” This initially attracted many fans of the TV show to “Mormon.”

Advertisements for the Broadway show highlighted the fact that “God’s favorite musical” was written by the creators of “South Park,” and the duo used their celebrity to promote the show via talk show interviews. Three years later, “Mormon” has gained a legitimacy and positive reputation,

standing as a masterpiece on its own, rather than leaning on Parker and Stone’s fame as a crutch.

After nine Tony Awards, one Grammy Award, one Drama Desk Award and a lot of press, “Mormon” is more suc-cessful than ever, without any fa-mous artist’s name branding. Instead, its quality is what makes it stand out among the rest of the Broadway circuit.

Its innovative approach to satire is incredibly appealing to a broad audi-ence, with crude, outlandish humor and a great musical score making for an entertaining and thorough explora-tion of the practices of religion.

Aside from some piggy-backing on “South Park,” “The Book of Mormon” relies on the content of the musical it-self, rather than needing gimmicks such as celebrity casting to propel popularity among audiences. Clever social com-mentary in the form of parody, thankfully, appeals to theatergoers even without fa-mous performers.

Millions of young adult readers across the country are besotted with John Green’s most recent novel, “The Fault in Our Stars.” When seen on Tumblr and Twitter, quotes from the book are usually followed by a string of distressed com-ments lamenting over the tragic story of John Green’s protagonists, two teenagers with terminal cancer.

One part young adult novelist, one part YouTube star, John Green has achieved a certain level of celebrity over the past few years that far outweighs that of most con-temporary writers. In 2007, John Green and his younger brother Hank Green posted videos on their YouTube channel every day for a year. Their channel, Vlog-brothers, is still active today, with nearly 2 million subscribers.

In the early days of YouTube, an entire community called Nerdfighteria sprung up around the Vlogbrothers. This affectionate name for their fan base helps unify teenag-ers across the worldwide web. Their catch phrase, “DFTBA,” or “Don’t Forget to be Awesome,” is so well known that when President Barack Obama participated in a Google hangout with John Green last year, he was familiar with the term.

The brothers post videos on everything from giraffe sex to the current situation in Ukraine, speaking to each other and the Nerdfighter community, trying to educate and entertain. They interact with Nerd-fighters on Tumblr and Twitter, creating a close-knit community through events such

as VidCon, the largest convention devoted to online videos, and the Project for Awe-some, a massive charity drive that collected over $800,000 last year.

Yet, John Green is significantly more fa-mous than Hank Green. He has over 2 million Twitter followers, compared to his brother’s not quite 400,000. This difference can be attributed to John Green’s career as a novelist. His debut novel, “Looking for Alaska,” has long been a favorite among teens, climbing back into the New York Times best seller list seven years after its original publication in 2006. “The Fault in Our Stars,” which also spent weeks at the top of the list, has a movie adaptation com-ing out this summer.

While Hank Green’s career as a scientist and environmentalist is equally interesting, John Green’s books are more marketable and commercial.

John Green’s success as a novelist could be partially attributed to his massive online following, or perhaps many fans of his nov-els have stumbled on the Vlogbrothers after already being aware of the author. It is likely, though, that the two halves of his celebrity presence grew together, rather than one leading to the other.

John Green’s substantial online pres-ence helps his books reach a wider au-dience and vice versa, proving that he is neither a novelist who makes videos nor a YouTube star who writes books, but a person who is highly successful as both a writer and a vlogger.

From her first creation — an abused, magically gifted orphan — to her most recent — a broken but capable detec-tive — J.K. Rowling has come a long way in mainstream fiction writing. She penned her first novel over two de-cades ago when the charm of books was quickly fading from people’s minds after a flood of movies and advance-ments in technology. With the magic of her words, Rowling created a bespec-tacled, skinny boy and announced her-self to the world as she made reading cool once again.

Rowling’s journey to the list of most be-loved authors in the world began when “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” received a modest publication of 500 copies in 1997, and Rowling herself received the suggestion to look for an-other job. But her works were — and still are — appreciated by readers and crit-ics alike, expanding even to an audience of adults who picked up these so-called children’s books.

The movies came along and brought a new medium to Rowling’s storytell-ing. Long lines were seen outside book-stores before the release of a new “Harry Potter” book — a phenomenon unheard of at the time. Rowling herself became a celebrity, constantly doing interviews and interacting with fans across the world. She became as familiar to her readers as the characters themselves.

When the “Harry Potter” book series came to an end in 2007, Rowling kept herself away from the literary world for some time, giving rise to suspicions among readers whether she had ever

planned to go beyond the series. It was hard enough to see their favorite hero fading into the sunset, let alone being abandoned by the author herself.

Rowling’s next work, “The Casual Va-cancy,” sold very well, despite mixed re-views from critics. After that, the author faded back into the shadows.

When “The Cuckoo’s Calling,” a crime novel by Robert Galbraith, was released in April of last year, it took months for anyone to uncover the connection between Rowling and the author. However, it was eventually confirmed that Galbraith was in fact Rowling’s pseudonym.

In a recent interview, when asked why she chose to write under a pseud-onym, Rowling gave a response that was hardly surprising. Rather than viewing her celebrity status as a perk, Rowling saw her fame as a burden that would prevent her from pursuing new frontiers in fiction writing. She said as Galbraith, she would be able to start from the beginning and receive honest feedback without expectations or hype obscuring readers’ opinions.

“The Silkworm,” a sequel to “Cuckoo’s Calling,” will hit bookstores this sum-mer, and with Rowling’s name out in the open, expectations for the mystery se-ries have skyrocketed. However, Rowl-ing has chosen to keep her pseudonym as she journeys with readers into the realm of crime fiction.

While Rowling does not deny her celebrity status, Galbraith may provide a buffer be-tween the well-known “Harry Potter” author and the new series.

JOHN GREEN DOUBLES AS YOUTUBE STAR, CELEBRITY AUTHOR

J.K. ROWLING JOURNEYS FROM ANONYMITY TO FAME

OOKSOOKS

DYLAN JARRETT

SUKRAT GUPTA

OOKSOOKS

WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS

Editor-in-Chief NICOLE BROWN

Managing Editor

MICHAEL DOMANICO

Assistant Managing EditorsTATIANA BAEZ

JONATHAN KESHISHOGLOU

Creative DirectorCICEK EREL

Creative Director, Special EditionsLYANNE NATIVIDAD

Multimedia EditorFELIPE DE LA HOZ

WebBENSON TSAI

LAVYA YALAMANCHI

ADVISING

DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS

NANCI HEALY

EDITORIAL ADVISER

JIM LUTTRELL

EDITORS-AT-LARGE

HANQING CHEN, JONATHONDORNBUSH, RACHEL KAPLAN,

JORDAN MELENDREZ, JONATHAN TAN

ADVERTISINGBUSINESS MANAGERELLEN MCQUEEN

CIRCULATION MANAGERCHLOE COFFMAN

SALES MANAGERALISON LIZZIO

UNIVERSITY AND ALUMNI COORDINATORCLAIRE MAHANY

SALES REPRESENTATIVESARIANA DIVALENTINO

GRAPHIC DESIGNERJILLIAN BRANCHAUD

SALES ASSOCIATESEMMA HOWCROFT, ZACH MICHEL,

ANA SCHULER

CopyTHOMAS DEVLIN PAIGE MANKIN

Arts EditorCLIO MCCONNELL

Film EditorIFE OLUJOBI

Entertainment EditorBOB TEOH

Music EditorJAKE FOLSOM

Books/Theater EditorDYLAN JARRETT

ContributorsALEX BERNER-COE, NORA BLAKE, JONATHON DORNBUSH, CAITLIN DOYLE,

AICHA FALL, ZACK GRULLON, MALINA GULINO, SUKRAT GUPTA, MOHAMED HASSAN, SEAN HICKEY, ALEXANDRA MUJICA, JOSEPH MYERSSARAH NICHOLS, NIKOLAS REDA-CASTELAO, DANIEL RUBIN LIEBERSON

HAYLEY SADOFF, LAURA WOLFORD

LUPITA NYONG’O, JENNIFER LAWRENCE, GEORGE CLOONEY, JOHN GREEN, JAY Z, BEYONCE, PAUL MCCARTNEY, MICHAEL JACKSON, JAMES FRANCO, PATRICK STEWART, IAN MCKELLEN, IDINA MENZEL,

FRED ASTAIRE, DAVID BOWIE, JK ROWLING, DONALD GLOVER, JESSICA LANGE, BRAD PITT, MATTHEW MCCONAUGHEY — VIA WIKIPEDIA.ORG

BRYAN CRANSTON, ZACHARY QUINTO, ANDREW RANNELLS, GINGER ROGERS — VIA FLICKR.COM

HOUSE OF CARDS — COURTESY OF NETFLIX | 12 YEARS A SLAVE — COURTESY OF FOX SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES | VALENTINE’S DAY — COURTESY OF WARNER BROS. PICTURES | THE VOICE — COURTESY OF WARNER BROS. TELEVISION | THE BOOK OF MORMON — VIA BROADWAY.COM | COMMUNITY —

COURTESY OF NBC | THE LAST OF US — COURTESY OF SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT | BIOSHOCK INFINITE — COURTESY OF 2K GAMES | SNL — COURTESY OF NBC

PHOTO CREDITS