3rd Article
3rd Article
Hill, J. & Gibson, P. C. (Eds.) 1998. “ The Star System and Hollywood.” The Oxford Guide to Film Studies, (pp. 342-353). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brett, F. (2006) “ Cinema as Textual Form: Editing.” Lecture.
Objective Summary
The article is about how the star system has progressed and transformed over the years. It further discusses about the processes and ideologies of the star system in contemporary culture by its star production, star reception and star semiotics.
Subjective Summary
Stars and Hollywood has always been a topic that everyone is interested in. I thought that the ways that stars are use as part of Hollywood’s strategic measure to sell and promote a movie was very smart. This tactic that Hollywood uses to sell its stars, as a commodity is highly effective, as it causes the public to relate, identify and have the desire to be the star.
Five Quotes/Points and Their Subjective Analysis
1. “Film could be justified as an art from, they argued, because the filmmaker did not just mechanically reproduce reality; he or she actually manipulated reality or even fabricated an entirely new reality.” (pg 342)
This point that the author makes is very credible. In contemporary society, many films are taken from autobiographies. The plot and certain narratives are twisted to make the film more interesting and captivating. Films like “Memoirs of the geisha” and “ Erin Brokovich” are such examples. Other films like “ Oceans Eleven” and “War of the Worlds” are clearly fabricated films, which create a new dimension of society. These films create the effect that they do exist. The public can escape to these “new realities” by watching the movie. Therefore, film really is an art form. It is a technique, a way of entertainment-a form of relaxation. I fully agree with the author’s point. Film must be appreciated. The public buys this art form because they want to escape reality, and experience what they will not get to experience in the reality that they are living in. I can identify with that. That is why film is an art form.
2. “Meaning did not exist in the actor’s performance, but rather in the manipulation of performance through editing.” (pg 342)
According to Stephen Heath (cited in lecture 11), editing is a process of constructions and this process is what makes cinema powerful. The actor’s performance is only there to support the plot, to make the storyline more interesting. But, what really gives the film meaning is the ability to edit it seamlessly. Editing should be unnoticed. The audience should not realise that the film is edited. What was originally made during the film process may not get to appear on the film premiere. The process of editing presents the style and context of the film. Therefore, it is through editing that the actor’s performance is manipulated and thus give meaning.
3. “ The construction of off-screen star identities, of true star images, had a significant economic impact on the cinema…Thus, the Hollywood mode of production quickly absorbed the star as commodity, as a source of product differentiation as significant as narrative-based genres and more powerful than studio identities.” (pg 345)
The point argues that the star off-screen persona became more important and significant to Hollywood’s method of production. The star is seen as a way to promote a movie. Different stars have different identities and this affects which star the movie casts. For example, Will Ferrel is always cast in comedies and Tom Cruise is always cast in action movies. I think it is relatively hard to change the star’s identity to another identity. It is difficult to see Tom Cruise in a romantic comedy. Therefore, the star’s off –screen identity is highly important to the selection of casts and promotion in a film.
see more on Hollywood's star system: http://www.fathom.com/course/21701722/session3.html
4. “Instead, the (many) meanings associated with a star are seen to form a part of the meaning system of that star’s society, the ideology of that particular time and place.” (pg 345)
It was previously seen that the star’s off-screen personality and behaviour is a reflection of what contemporary society has become. However, this point argues that the implications related to the star form the meaning of the star’s environment and situation. It also is part of the star’s beliefs from the star’s society at that specific time. This point is a bit confusing. I would like the author to further elaborate on this point, to make this idea clearer.
5. “ In his own words, ‘From the perspective of ideology, analyses of stars, as images existing in films and other media texts, stress their structured polysemy, that is, the finite multiplicity of meanings and affects they embody and the attempts so as to structure them that some meanings and affects are foregrounded and others are masked or displaced’” (Dyer 179: 3) (pg 350)
The quote is a summary of the third factor of star system, that is star semiotics. Stars have a structured polysemy, meaning that they have many meanings, but these meanings are limited. To further understand this concept, the article provides an article that an individual may believe that Kevin Costner may have originated from space. However, this belief that the individual has is clearly not from contemporary culture, because individuals in contemporary culture would think that this belief is ridiculous and odd. I agree with Dyer’s opinion that stars have a multiplicity of meanings, but these meanings and its consequences are sometimes ignored and ridiculed, such as the Kevin Costner originating from space belief.
Question
What is the purpose of looking at the past films when we should be focusing on films in contemporary culture, since we live in contemporary culture?
Hill, J. & Gibson, P. C. (Eds.) 1998. “ The Star System and Hollywood.” The Oxford Guide to Film Studies, (pp. 342-353). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brett, F. (2006) “ Cinema as Textual Form: Editing.” Lecture.
Objective Summary
The article is about how the star system has progressed and transformed over the years. It further discusses about the processes and ideologies of the star system in contemporary culture by its star production, star reception and star semiotics.
Subjective Summary
Stars and Hollywood has always been a topic that everyone is interested in. I thought that the ways that stars are use as part of Hollywood’s strategic measure to sell and promote a movie was very smart. This tactic that Hollywood uses to sell its stars, as a commodity is highly effective, as it causes the public to relate, identify and have the desire to be the star.
Five Quotes/Points and Their Subjective Analysis
1. “Film could be justified as an art from, they argued, because the filmmaker did not just mechanically reproduce reality; he or she actually manipulated reality or even fabricated an entirely new reality.” (pg 342)
This point that the author makes is very credible. In contemporary society, many films are taken from autobiographies. The plot and certain narratives are twisted to make the film more interesting and captivating. Films like “Memoirs of the geisha” and “ Erin Brokovich” are such examples. Other films like “ Oceans Eleven” and “War of the Worlds” are clearly fabricated films, which create a new dimension of society. These films create the effect that they do exist. The public can escape to these “new realities” by watching the movie. Therefore, film really is an art form. It is a technique, a way of entertainment-a form of relaxation. I fully agree with the author’s point. Film must be appreciated. The public buys this art form because they want to escape reality, and experience what they will not get to experience in the reality that they are living in. I can identify with that. That is why film is an art form.
2. “Meaning did not exist in the actor’s performance, but rather in the manipulation of performance through editing.” (pg 342)
According to Stephen Heath (cited in lecture 11), editing is a process of constructions and this process is what makes cinema powerful. The actor’s performance is only there to support the plot, to make the storyline more interesting. But, what really gives the film meaning is the ability to edit it seamlessly. Editing should be unnoticed. The audience should not realise that the film is edited. What was originally made during the film process may not get to appear on the film premiere. The process of editing presents the style and context of the film. Therefore, it is through editing that the actor’s performance is manipulated and thus give meaning.
3. “ The construction of off-screen star identities, of true star images, had a significant economic impact on the cinema…Thus, the Hollywood mode of production quickly absorbed the star as commodity, as a source of product differentiation as significant as narrative-based genres and more powerful than studio identities.” (pg 345)
The point argues that the star off-screen persona became more important and significant to Hollywood’s method of production. The star is seen as a way to promote a movie. Different stars have different identities and this affects which star the movie casts. For example, Will Ferrel is always cast in comedies and Tom Cruise is always cast in action movies. I think it is relatively hard to change the star’s identity to another identity. It is difficult to see Tom Cruise in a romantic comedy. Therefore, the star’s off –screen identity is highly important to the selection of casts and promotion in a film.
see more on Hollywood's star system: http://www.fathom.com/course/21701722/session3.html
4. “Instead, the (many) meanings associated with a star are seen to form a part of the meaning system of that star’s society, the ideology of that particular time and place.” (pg 345)
It was previously seen that the star’s off-screen personality and behaviour is a reflection of what contemporary society has become. However, this point argues that the implications related to the star form the meaning of the star’s environment and situation. It also is part of the star’s beliefs from the star’s society at that specific time. This point is a bit confusing. I would like the author to further elaborate on this point, to make this idea clearer.
5. “ In his own words, ‘From the perspective of ideology, analyses of stars, as images existing in films and other media texts, stress their structured polysemy, that is, the finite multiplicity of meanings and affects they embody and the attempts so as to structure them that some meanings and affects are foregrounded and others are masked or displaced’” (Dyer 179: 3) (pg 350)
The quote is a summary of the third factor of star system, that is star semiotics. Stars have a structured polysemy, meaning that they have many meanings, but these meanings are limited. To further understand this concept, the article provides an article that an individual may believe that Kevin Costner may have originated from space. However, this belief that the individual has is clearly not from contemporary culture, because individuals in contemporary culture would think that this belief is ridiculous and odd. I agree with Dyer’s opinion that stars have a multiplicity of meanings, but these meanings and its consequences are sometimes ignored and ridiculed, such as the Kevin Costner originating from space belief.
Question
What is the purpose of looking at the past films when we should be focusing on films in contemporary culture, since we live in contemporary culture?
posted by jolene at 12:49 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home