Stars are contradictory examples of how to be a person—an individual—in a modern society. Or, in the words of one Hollywood character, how to “be somebody”. Discuss this aspect of stardom in relation to ONE film studied in the unit. Introduction

The phenomenon of ‘stars’ comprises all elements of a celebrity the masses are familiar with. The image of actors or actresses doesn’t merely hinge on the movies they make; rather, their image is the sum total of movie and actor/ actress promotion events, public appearances, pin- ups, biographies, hand- outs from the production studio, media coverage of the private lives of stars, and media interviews. Additionally, their image stems from what society, especially criticizers and reporters report on them, and how their image is utilized in areas like pop culture, ads, fiction, etc. Lastly, their image is grounded in how they are included in daily speech coinage (BRAUDY 1989). The image of a celebrity is invariably inter- textual, far- reaching, and multimedia; however, every representation will not essentially be equal.

A celebrity’s image has a history which usually lasts longer than the celebrity him/ herself. An image needs to be established. The media sector creates stars, and movie actors and actresses, in particular, are made by Hollywood (in the case of America) and its counterparts within other nations. Besides Hollywood, other allied organizations having different levels of influence shape celebrity images in a number of ways (Dyer 2004, 4). In specific, Hollywood has control over movies made as well as movie and celeb promotion, pin- ups, media statements, glamor photographs, and fan clubs (to a considerable degree). Successively, the link Hollywood has to other media arenas implies it largely governs press content, TV clips, those allowed to organize interviews with celebrities, etc. This, however, would be exhibiting the celeb creation process as being of a one- way, homogenous nature. Even confined to its own limits, Hollywood actually depicts greater complexity and contradiction as compared to this.

Nevertheless, what society makes of the abovementioned process and efforts is an entirely different thing, owing to the fact that viewers are involved in the image creation process as well. While viewers are unable to make images by the press imply whatever they desire it to, they are able to choose those outlooks, meanings, nuances, inconsistencies and disparities from the intricacies of star images which work out for them (Dyer 2004, 5). Furthermore, fan clubs, magazine companies, viewer studies and box office acceptance imply that what attitude society holds with regard to any celebrity may be able to reciprocally act on press producers’ image of the celeb. However, this is no equivalent back and forth – viewers are more dissimilar and disjointed than we think. Further, they don’t, themselves, create the extensively circulated, unified press image of celebrities. Then again, press agencies and Hollywood don’t comprehensively control viewers either.

Even celebrities take part in the process of ‘commoditizing’ themselves. One can state that they represent labor as well as what it creates. However, they are not unaided in this production process. It is possible to identify a couple of rationally distinct phases. Firstly, individuals represent entities, an outlook, and a skill set combined, mined and directed towards creating the image of the celebrity. The above endeavor of molding celebrities from the aforementioned raw material differs in the regard it holds for the material’s intrinsic characteristics. Hairdos, outfits, body- building, slimming, and cosmetics may shape their body features, acting and socializing capability may be learned, and personality is a rather flexible thing (Dyer 2004, 5). Those involved in this endeavor include both the celebrity and other associated individuals like hairstylists, outfit designers,...

While movies also play a role in shaping a celebrity’s image (with efforts made on the part of every employee of the studio), movies may be considered the second phase.
Rita Hayworth stardom: a review

Hearing the name of 40’s erotic star, Rita Hayworth (nee Margarita Carmen Cansino), conjures up the following image in one’s mind: a Life magazine pin- up of her clad in a lace- and- satin dark nightdress, kneeling upon a crumpled bed, looking, over her shoulder, towards the camera. This picture makes for an interesting experimentation with contradiction (BRAUDY 1989). Apparently offering herself up, the actress seems to maintain her actual self mysteriously aloof.

Rita Hayworth’s most popular role was that of ‘Gilda’, calling to mind the image of her peeling off black gloves during a self- centered striptease (Movie Documentary 2013). The famous celebrity faced an appalling childhood: she was the victim of sexual exploitation, the perpetrator being none other than her own father (BRAUDY 1989).

Rita Hayworth as an example of contradiction

Human appeal and desirability standards, the bases for which are a person’s face and body denoting indexical representation (though one that is usually 'improved upon' by means of cosmetic surgery or applying cosmetics, digitized 'retouching', and airbrushing), form one common element of the celebrity. Rita Hayworth was persuaded by her husband, Edward Charles Judson, into transforming her looks from her typical dark, young Latin appearance into a sophisticated red- head. She also underwent electrolysis for her eyebrows and hairline, and altered her name (Austin 2003, 25). Though ‘beauty’ standards evidently inform her constructions, Rita Hayworth continued to be different from the indexical representation of feminine beauty.

In the same way, celebrities possess agency (commonly celebrated within celeb discussions) which involves leading a 'private life' outside of the movies (and invariably vulnerable to being partly revealed and rewritten in journalist articles, biographies, gossip columns, and promotional articles); a set of exigencies, experiences, and results narrated and interpreted as their ‘career’; and the application of decisions and performance strategies (Balio 1996). In contrast, these agency representations cannot be seen in ‘cyber- stars’. Judson’s swift drive for making his wife the “glamour girl” of Columbia Studios involved ensuring she was the cover girl of a majority of fan magazines, besides Look and Life magazines. Her ‘press- friendly’ nature ensured Rita Hayworth became Hollywood’s most extensively photographed female star (McLean 2004, 36).

A 'virtual stardom' shift necessitates reverting to the idea that celebrity is comprised, partially, of 'subsidiary forms' flowing about and further than appearances in movies. Evidently, Rita Hayworth’s promotional pictures (e.g., that of Gilda) have a familiar business role to play. However, these appearance’s nature is, interestingly, unlike human stars’ nature. Digitally- produced characters are identifiable, pictorially distinct, and can easily be transferred, akin to human celebrities’ character images (Dyer 2004, 7). Being identity figures, movie stars, at all times, present the issue of genuineness – who is speaking in this instance, what personal capacity is in play, and what ethical authority is entailed. A few scholars contend that celebrities can be actual persons, as they authored their own speech (King 2003, 46). Bias against acting is grounded deeply in religious and moral argument. However, its historic replication employs, perhaps, the simple element of occupation — an actor is a pretender. This, tough,…