Post a question on one of the readings for today (your choice!)
14 thoughts on “Reading Questions: Stacey or vidding essays, you pick!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Post a question on one of the readings for today (your choice!)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Stacey seems to draw no distinction between identifying with characters and identifying with stars, yet the examples of identification mention celebrities by name, rather than their characters. Is there room for identification with simply the character, or do we automatically transfer our admirations to the one who portrays the character?
How can you say that someone “identifies” with a character if he or she have a “desire to become” that character? How can the gap that separates their two lives (realistic or not) be classified as identification? should this be defined as something completely different? Is stacey even saying that this is a form of identification? IM SORRY FOR ASKING SO MANY QUESTIONS!
What about a character, or a star, makes us identify with them or imitate them? Are there certain characters we are attracted to more than others, and how does this affect consumption? Is it safe to say films like Harry Potter and Twilight are made merely for consumption purposes?
Why does Stacey focus on cosmetics, hats and hairstyles in her article on female spectatorship? We never talked about boys buying John Wayne hats or wearing their hair like Cary Grant. Does Stacey’s narrow focus on consumerist female stereotypes muddle her argument and/or render it somewhat non-feminist?
Stacey claims that she is using the term ‘spectatorship’ in a different way to refer to members of the cinema audience. Yet, she presents one of the two ways feminists write on the subject of identifications to gender identity as a la Mulvey-an article based on a textually constructed spectator. How does this affect her argument?
If “productive” reworking of original material does not threaten the marketability of its source, surely all parties benefit. Yet how far can one argue that fans in posting online cross the line where they do not adapt but distort the medium, which they manipulate? At what point is manipulating someone else art wrong? Or is it never wrong? Surely copious amounts of infringement cases suggest that we do not all back this new discourse and more importantly producers/directors of certain films/mediums do not support this female gaze.
Stacey’s article discusses the female fan base that celebrity female stars accumulate, however Stacey seems to ignore, or at least does not acknowledge neither the male spectator’s identification with these female stars, nor the female fans of the male star on screen, a huge part of identification that takes place along gender lines. Why has such a significant part of the viewer’s engagement with the female been left unrecognized?
Jackie Stacey asks:
“Taking audiences as a starting point can present problems for a feminist analysis: how can remain critical of the dominant meanings of gender produced by Hollywood, whilst at the same time taking seriously the pleasures female spectators articulate about their favorite stars?”
In class we discussed negotiations with the text between the spectator and the text and the social audience and the text? How can the spectator negotiate with the social audience on the meaning behind the text?
Jackie Stacey describes the pleasures that female spectators have in identifying with certain female characters on screen while simultaneously feminists critique “the patriarchal constructions of femininity in Hollywood.” As female spectators are identifying with a female movie star whose role was most likely written by a male, how does this complicate the notion of pleasure that female spectators get from their identification or idealization with the femininity of the stars on screen? And if female viewers mimic these female stars, are they only unwittingly giving in to patriarchal constructions of femininity?
On the vidding essays:
Do fan-made videos fabricate the female gaze or just enhance it? Does the idea that most are made by women attest to the fact that there is a female gaze at play in film already? Or are they creating the female gaze through their work? Are most vids created to send cultural messages or are they simply made to commend the media subjects? Is this sending a message in itself?
Stacey states that the difference between femininities between the star and the spectator creates a source of fascination. When spectators come out of a film they start closing the gap between the star and themselves, focusing on or creating similarities between them. Is the difference between a male star and a female specator too big to allow identification? Do spectators need to be similar enough to the star so that they can become more like her, in order to identify? Is the closing of the gap what causes the identification? Is it possible that a woman identifies with a male star while acknowledging she will never become like him? Can she identify through “the desire to become”?
In Jackie Stacey’s essay, the section about fans’ devotion to the female star is particularly interesting, as I find this admiration and envy a little disturbing. As Stacey points out, “the ‘otherness’ of the stars” is clear, and they are “not considered part of the mortal world of the spectator”. So why do female fans become so obsessed with these women? Yes, it’s great that these women are liberalized and offer positive representations of women in many cases. However, the saddest part is the subtitle that includes the word “escapism”. Are women audiences suffering from a lack of their own identity? If so, why? And what makes things better by living your life through someone else’s?
“The female spectators in these examples produce particular images of femininity which remind them of their favorite stars. In so doing they produce a new feminine identity, one which combines aspects of the star with their own appearance.” Aren’t the stars and the femininity they are promoting in some sense limiting? Just as constructed masculinity became a culture of violence, strength and power, aren’t these stars constructing a specific type of femininity–one which devotes much of its time with appearances?
On Stacey:
Stacey seems to be congratulating herself on analyzing the female audience, as there may be a “reluctance by feminists to analyze female audiences and their relationship to dominant idealized feminine images, such as Hollywood stars.” Yet Stacey’s analysis of the female audience falls short. How can she write an article on the “active and productive process” of female consumption of media and ignore the desire that women have for men (or gay women for other women)? Isn’t she ignoring the most “active and productive” part of consumption? Identification with the female star may be interesting, but why does every article about male spectatorship focus on sexual desire, yet the female’s desire is ignored?