“The Building of Popular Image” is an article written by Thomas Harris. The article is brief however it discusses many techniques that go into making the most famous stars such as Marilyn Monroe and Grace Kelly famous.

It’s interesting that the author chose these two stars to focus on mainly because they couldn’t be more different in their public appeal. Monroe was advertised to “illicit male sexual desire”. However, Kelly was a “respectable” lady. She had strong family ties and an “elegant” and “reserved” way about her.

Harris used these actors to highlight key ways that studios create stars and what kind of publicity they use. They like to take the stereotype that they believe the stars fit into and emphasize those traits to the public. The “star system” is based on the idea that a star is only accepted by the public for a certain set of traits that commonly make up a stereotype. To keep the star and the public happy, they focus in on these stereotypical traits and try to avoid publicizing behaviors that don’t fit within the chosen stereotype.

So when it comes to Marylin Monroe, they would focus more on her pin-up girl history than say her family ties. When it comes to Grace Kelly, however, they would emphasize her happy marriage and try to avoid any publicity that suggests affairs the star has had. It all depends on what the star-accepted image is. This is also reflected in movies and tv show roles. The star will be encouraged to partake and either more sensual roles when it comes to Marilyn or more matronly roles when it comes to Grace.

This rigid structure of only allowing certain publicity into the light shocked me, to be honest. It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with who the actor or actress really is. In fact, keeping a star’s truth just outside of public reach is something Harris discusses. The more we see about them publicly, the further our knowledge of the truth becomes. This idea of a star being unreachable or untouchable by the public is something that keeps everyone on the edge of their seat. They go to the movies with the hope of discovering something real about the star.

I do wonder how much of a say the actors get in all of this planning. At the time, Kelly and Monroe seem to emphasize two sides of society’s expectations of women. On one hand, Marylin is sexual and wants to please men, and is pleasing to the eye. Kelly is the same except it’s from a matronly standpoint. She wants to be a good wife and mother. But they both seem to be at the whim of what men at the time wanted to see. Although in Monroe’s movie “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” Marylin is depicted as charming and somewhat witty in the ways she can get out of trouble, she plays into being stupid specifically when men are around. I haven’t seen any of Grace Kelly’s movies but I expect that her behavior on her own and in the eyes of men is probably different as well.

In regards to female inspiration, I don’t find a lot of it in either of them. Certain parts of me relate to them but not as a whole. I think that the perpetuation of these two-dimensional female roles might have been bad for women in the long run. Expected by men to be either easy or not. Yes, or no, children or no children. That’s not how real people or real women are. I know that this preserves them as a star and that they probably can’t help what their publicists do but I wonder if they were uncomfortable with what the headlines said.

I did enjoy Monroe in “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” and felt some inspiration in her charm and ability to gain what she wanted. Her acting skills are amazing and yet funny in the way she would change her voice when a man was around. This sort of soft-spoken child voice left men speechless. There is power in getting any man you want. Until it’s reality and most women don’t enjoy that kind of attention. The emphasis on Loreli and her undying friendship with Dorothy (Jane Russell) inspired me a bit. Even though they are different women with different goals, they stand by each other no matter what. I felt this display of Monroe encouraging female support was important and a good addition to the film. Women overall should support each other regardless of our prospects for men. That’s the real takeaway.

 

The article “Bette Davis: Actor/Star” written by Martin Shingler and Christine Gledhill discusses several films staring Bette Davis and how her performance appealed to her viewers.

If ya’ll don’t know who Bette Davis is here’s a recap. She was a famous movie actress from the 1940s most commonly playing the role of an actress. She also was very dramatic and passionate in the roles she played. She had aggressive eyes and threatening mannerisms that could scare the pants off any man. Some of the films the writers discuss include: “Of Human Bondage”, “Marked Women”, “The Letter” and “We Make The Movies”. I have personally only seen “All About Eve” so most of my commentary will be in comparison to her performance in that particular film.

Bette Davis was one of the first stars to be considered mostly for her acting. Her acting was her main grab because she was very talented. Shingler and Gledhill mention that Davis was not particularly “glamourous” and didn’t appeal much to men. I personally thought she was pretty. Not in the way Marilyn Monroe is- Bonde, dumb, and loose, but attractive in a real-life way. Her mannerisms and behaviors made her impressive and lovely.  The writers think that Davis was highly “relatable” to audiences because she looked like a normal person. This trait contributed to her popularity.

The writers refer to her more aggressive roles (like the one in “All About Eve”) as “cold-hearted calculating bitches”. I do agree that she comes off as intelligent and perhaps even emotionally distant. I haven’t seen the main films they use in reference to this so I could be wrong but I found Davis inspiring. She isn’t afraid to show her voice and stand up for herself. She fully represents her entire opinion and doesn’t allow people to walk all over her.

It is mentioned in the text that Davis often plays a woman that lies a lot. They claim that she is relatable to those who feel they are “performing” regularly in their daily lives. I agree with this. Everyone performs at least a little bit. This could be said to show how Davis appeals to women who tell lies to their husbands and their friends about how they feel. At the time the “traditional” family was very much a part of people’s lives. Women stayed home more while men worked. They took care of children that they may not have necessarily wanted in a home that they probably didn’t get much of a say in. I imagine that they weren’t necessarily happy all of the time but they had to lie and pretend they were out of social expectations. Davis is relatable to these women in her deceptive roles because that was a role they had to play every day. She was also inspiring in her firey roles because she showed women that they had the power to change things.

Attention is also drawn to the idea that Davis was an independent woman. She often was shown rejecting social expectations like waiting for a man and getting married. I imagine this must have appealed to the younger generation who had dreams and wanted to accomplish those dreams before marriage. There is also a suggestion that this rejection of the social norms appealed to the LGBT community.

Davis’s mannerisms and ability to act were impressive. She had excellent talent and allowed the audience to know the tone of the room just based on her movements. I bet if I watched her whole movie with no sound I could probably understand what was happening based on how many chairs she threw herself onto. Her identity was “constructed” by her and affirmed social value (Gledhill, Shingler 2008). Davis inspired a new role for women and people in show business.

You didn’t have to be a hypersexualized woman to be considered a good actress. You didn’t have to be a model first either. Davis used female hysteria as a comedic effect and an inspirational one. Her progression throughout show business promoted the mystery behind her true self. The more roles she did-and did well- the more people wondered about who she truly was. Was she emotional? Happy? aggressive? Crazy? She was all of those things and more. That is what makes up a great actress. That is who Bette Davis was.

Her star image was reinforced by the roles she played. It was her skill and her wits that got her to where she was. She because a star by challenging social norms and showing people what they didn’t know they needed. Bette changed Hollywood for the better with her “glaring eyes and her fidgeting fingers”(Gledhill, Shingler 2008).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My name is Jessica Sproul and these are my blog responses for CINE 345

Live Laugh Love it or whatever