The cinetrix has much to share from the vales of academe. But allow her to indulge in some base celebrity gossip-mongering first.
See, just yesterday I was reading "Stars as Images" from Richard Dyer's Stars, which is basically the Ur-text for star theory in cinema studies. Dyer draws from the fan magazines of Hollywood's golden era to craft his argument, but I'll be damned if it wasn't just like reading about OKUsLifeStar&StyleWeekly.
To wit:
- The success myth tries to orchestrate several contradictory elements: [i] that ordinariness is the hallmark of the star; [ii] that the system rewards talent and 'specialness'; [iii] that luck, 'breaks,' which may happen to anyone typify the career of the star; and [iv] that hard work and professionalism are necessary for stardom.
- A central theme in all the fan magazines is love. This is achieved partly by the suppression of film-making as work and partly by the over-riding sense of a world in which material problems have been settled and all that is left is relationships. These relationships are invariably heterosexual emotional/erotic ones --'love'--and the magazines carry the implication that these are the only kinds of relationship of interest to anyone--not relationships of, for instance, work, friendship, political comradeship or, surprisingly enough, parents and children. (Births are featured, it is true, but seldom the developing relationship of a star and her/his child.)
Or, more simply put: Stars, they're just like us! It's all bump watches and booty calls.
And then there's John K. The Ren and Stimpy creator launched a blog earlier this week with some particularly wicked [which is to say, apt] celebrity caricatures. See for yourself here, and wonder no more why Nicole Richie looks more and more like a chihuahua with each pound she loses.
[Indulge me--it's been a rough day. Back to film stuff in a moment.]
