Girls on Film: The Hollywood Dollhouse
Filed under: Fandom, Girls on Film
Being an actress can be a real pain in the ass. By definition, the gig is simple. You pretend your someone else; you perform. In reality, however, there's a whole added can of worms -- especially when Hollywood is involved. There's this ridiculous and particular mold an actress has to fit into, and pitfalls she must deal with -- especially in terms of superstardom.
There is literally no way to completely avoid the possible pitfalls of celebrity -- especially if you choose to be involved with any film project. We live in a world where potential blockbusters can tank and the $11k, uber-small Paranormal Activity can become a phenomenon. There's always a chance -- the possibility of being thrust into the ever-scrutinizing public eye, finding any semblance of privacy fly out the window as the paparazzi camp out at your front door and fandom rains down.
Welcome to the Dollhouse.
We need entertainment. It comforts us when we're sad, gives us a sense of camaraderie when we're lonely, and entertains us when we need an escape. We need actors to provide this for us. Yet we don't treat it like a need. We treat it like a right. We demand it, and expect our actors and actresses to deal with any pitfalls our interests might create -- to take their money and shut it.
When did we become a pack of blood-hungry carnivores whose personal entertainment is more important than a performer's ability to have a private life, be safe, and experience security and happiness? It's like Hollywood is our own personal Dollhouse, but without any scruples about how each doll should be handled. We want each actor to walk around happy and content, not minding the fuss around them, always willing to take another job and provide us with more entertainment without complaint or critique. Or, likewise, be content and blank whilst receiving a hurricane of derision.
The more I think about Dollhouse, or Hollywood, the more they melt together -- this idea of innocent and complacent dolls being set up for any scenario, no worry about their safety or their psyche.
If the doll complains about where we've placed them on the spectrum, we hope for another mental wipe, or for the complainer to get sent to the Attic. It would be so handy to be able to slide that immobile set of lips over the real one and cut off any critique. Silence if golden.I see someone like Kristen Stewart (a young girl who hasn't even hit 20 yet) get chastised for thinking Twilight fandom is crazy, or note how hard it is to try and maintain a life while being stalked by the tabloids, and wonder how anyone can complain about her comments.
We all think rabid fandom is a little scary when we're outside it, whether that be screaming fangirls crying at the sight of their sparkly stars or Trekkies descending on a city to give each other the Vulcan salute. It's also not hard to imagine the pains that come from being a tabloid-loved celebrity. Imagine going to the grocery store in grubby clothes and having it immortalized, trying to drive through a horde of people (ever get stopped by picketers?), or hugging a friend and that embrace becoming a secret lovers' tryst that pulls in not only yourself, but your family, your children into the so-called affair.
Of course, the body is up for grabs as well in actress land. We live in a world where Samantha Morton isn't sexy enough for The Brothers Grimm. We'll chastise Ms. Stewart for grubby, post-Jett-mullet hair, Photoshop Kate Winslet thinner, whip up pregnancy rumors for a curve or fold of skin. But it's not just magazines and tabloids. I can't begin to count how many times I've heard moviegoers call an actress fat for the slightest weight gain, even if it still puts her thinner than the "IRL" people they call thin. Or, people calling any number of beautiful actresses ugly, rather than just admitting that they simply don't fit into a certain, preferred look.
It's all a mess, but I wonder how Hollywood can get out of the dollhouse mold -- what it would take to pull the moviegoing public out of this demanding mindset and not play the double-standard game. Is it even possible? What created this whole mess? Young fandom never taught that it is not okay to maul celebs in public spaces? Is this just an earlier embodiment of the Internet phenomenon -- the guts to say terrible things because we're not seeing the person face-to-face? The desire to unleash fury and inappropriateness in a "safe" outlet?
I think we need a hard reboot.
Black Friday Movie Deals: Best Buy
Sex and Nudity Don't Draw You to the Movies?
What Makes a Real Vampire?
Robert Downey Jr. Wants to Retire?
Jaycee Dugard's Horrific Story to Get a Sleazy Adaptation
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-02-2009 @ 10:19PM
Jaded said...
The only way to change any of this would be with stronger laws against the paparazzi, and filmmakers and designers willing to accept that 0 is not a size.
How many reports have I seen in the last year about paparazzi endangering their targets or themselves. The guy who foot Britney Spears ran over is now suing her when he was the one that put his foot under the car. Nicole Ritchie was just recently hit by a couple of paps that were chasing her. I have seen the paps almost run over civilians or children chasing celebs. It's ridiculous and dangerous, but no one in Los Angeles is willing to take a hard stand against them. I believe that it is seriously going to take someone getting killed before the government does something.
Then there is the size patrol. If filmmakers started putting girls that were a size 6 or 8 or even 10 in features as something other than the fat friend, then maybe we could slowly start making non-anorexic girls beautiful. It's gotten to a point where something is going to have to be done as girls are developing eating disorders at younger and younger ages. I can't imagine the damage Christian Louboutin did recently when he asked for Barbie's ankles to be slimmed out because he can not design shoes for a doll with cankles. If Barbie is now considered fat, we should all give up.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 9:09AM
Matthew said...
well put - on both counts!!
11-04-2009 @ 9:30AM
Diane said...
Someone dying from the paparazzi chasing them WASN'T enough.
Remember Princess Diana?
11-03-2009 @ 10:46AM
Felicia said...
I agree with what Jaded said...however, being a movie star is something that many people are working toward and covet and if the the spotlight gets to hot for many of our actors, there is a long line of people just dying to take their place. They can drop out and start a different life--certainly some of their fans will still be interested in them--but it would no longer be so intense. Very few of them choose this option so those of observing have to believe that despite it all, it appears to be worth it to them.
The Twilight phenomen is crazy but the fans were insane about the books and there were signs that the movie would make the whole thing bigger. Maybe it has gotten more giant than anyone saw coming but there were signs pointing to the coming mania and Kristen Stewart could have chosen to not take the job of portraying Bella Swan.
The obsession with weight and a few pounds here or there is dispicable and a sign of a sickness that has taken over society at large. I watch movies from just 20 years ago and see actresses who would have been considered slim then and now would be taken as fatties and it makes me sick but I don't see how that problem can be solved. Start loving ourselves the way we are? Undoubtedly something we should do but how easily is it accomplished?
The papparazzi are out of control but they are also protected by the important 1st Amendment and I don't see how they could work around that. Although when they do things that would be considered endangerment, I would bet that they are ticketed and the website, magazine or newspaper they work for pays those off and consider it a worthy price to pay for what they are going make selling the story.
Reply
11-04-2009 @ 12:47PM
Astrid said...
"Kristen Stewart could have chosen to not take the job of portraying Bella Swan. "
I do want to say that, in her defense, she probably didn't realize just how bad it would get. At the time when she was auditioning for it, Twilight, while popular, was not anywhere near the level where you could mention it to people on the streets and be guaranteed that they knew what it was. I only found out about it a couple of months before they announced she was playing Bella. There may have been some signs but even though I knew it was fairly popular I could not have told you that it would become the juggernaut it has. From what I've gathered from interviews, when she heard Catherine Hardwicke was attached to the film she expected it to be an indie along the lines of Thirteen with vampires (and given the first film's budget she had no reason not to believe this). She hadn't even read the books when she auditioned. The only reason Pattinson came aboard was because both her and Hardwicke were a part of it and he had the same ideas about it that Stewart did. It must be brutal for them now, because not only are they treated this way, but people demand for them to put up with it because they signed onto Twilight, when in reality it seems neither of them expected this, so in effect they are having to pay their dues for something that neither of them really wanted in the first place.
11-04-2009 @ 2:14PM
Felicia said...
That would be true for anyone who jumps into something for an acting job and then it becomes huge but Stephanie Meyer knew it was huge and I remember reading that she warned Pattinson that he was going to take a beating, so there were many clues! If a book--which usually doesn't have the pop culture cache of a movie--can be big, it's at least a 50/50 chance that a movie will be bigger. Especially a popular book series; those fans can be rabid!
11-03-2009 @ 3:02PM
Mike said...
Great post. I agree 100% with everything you said.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 3:28PM
Corey L. Jackson said...
This has to be one of the most intelligent pieces I've read in quite some time. I can totally agree with every point that is presented here.
Reply
11-04-2009 @ 9:01AM
MikeO said...
Felicia's comments illustrate your point so perfectly. Here's a person whose attitude is that they *know* they're going to be treated less than human so it's *okay* to treat them less than human. This sense of entitlement to their lives has become so commonplace that people don't even realize when they're perpetuating it. In fact, as evidenced by Felicia, they'll go to lengths to actually justify it. The same thing is evidenced by blaming it on the paparazzi, and guess what? That's a purely cash-driven business. If *WE* say it's not okay by withholding our dollars, the paparazzi go away. Nobody's going to spend all day chasing stars around if they can't sell the pics because the magazines can't sell the pics. Think about it, take responsibility for your part. If you really are outraged by this, then don't support it, and encourage your friends to do the same.
Reply
11-04-2009 @ 10:20AM
Christina said...
"Here's a person whose attitude is that they *know* they're going to be treated less than human so it's *okay* to treat them less than human."
I don't think that's what Felicia's saying. It's not that it's OK, but setting out to be a Big Star while expecting that people will treat you like just another human being is rather like pursuing a career in sports and expecting to never get injured. It's absolutely NOT okay to treat stars like this, but it DOES happen, and it's something that people need to recognize is a danger if they're going to shoot for that kind of career. There's responsibility to be taken on both sides--the fans need to remember that celebs are human, and the would-be celebs need to bear in mind what they're getting into.
11-04-2009 @ 9:44AM
Natty said...
The massive overuse of airbrushing doesn't help either. I mean, making Cameron Diaz's skin look a bit better is one thing, but inflating someones boobs or narrowing their waistline/arms/legs electronically sends out an even more erroneous image.
That someone like, say, Cameron Diaz who appears, to me, to be a fairly healthy size, (I am naturally skinny so my perceptions often differ from others') can have half an inch taken off her arms/waist *after* the shot is taken and she has gone home presents an image of her that even she would probably disagree with. Some actresses do request not to have their pics airbrushed, but this is rare because, hey, who wants their blemishes put out there for all to see?
A personal example of this is a photoshoot I did a few years ago. I am a size 4-6, with correspondingly small bust. When the shoot was over the computer guy inflated my boobs on screen, in front of me, and shaved half an inch of my upper arm. I am already skinny - why do they need to make me skinnier? I am happy with small boobs, I don't want them to appear bigger, if I did, I would consider surgery! It didn't make me feel bad about myself - self confidence is not my problem - it just made me angry.
"Although when they do things that would be considered endangerment, I would bet that they are ticketed" I think a more stringent punishment than a small fine should be administered to someone who endangers life in the pursuit of a photograph! It should be punished at least as severely as drunk driving, as it is reckless or wilful endangerment. If the law needs to be amended to encompass it, that should be done!
Reply
11-04-2009 @ 11:56AM
Libby said...
There have been a lot of great comments in this post, and it's refreshing to hear the differing views. I just want to say that I have a hard time feeling sorry for actors expressing that they hate the way they are hounded. It goes with the job. However, I think that the extent that they get hounded has gotten out of control! It's is a vicious circle, though...papparazzi wouldn't shadow them so badly if the images didn't sell, so in all honesty the people who watch TMZ, or read US Weekly or the Enquirer are the ones fueling this trend and making it worse. It's our fault that we have to hear actors complain about the papparazzi, and then we complain about them complaining. It's absurd! People who obsess about celebrities lives need to get a life of their own so they don't worry as much about who that celebrity is dating, where that celebrity went on vacation, where that celebrity shops, or goes for a cup of coffee. If it's news relevant to the show they are on, movie they are in, CD they are releasing, great. Otherwise, they are just people like you and me, so I don't care what else they are doing!
As far as the issues of weight go, I think it's kind of the same as when Twiggy became the next big thing during the 60's. Prior to that, women who were more voluptuous were what everyone thought was beautiful. Marilyn Monroe was a size 12 -14 which by media standards today is on the chubby side. Twiggy got popular because she was different. I think that as the average weight of women in America goes up (let's face facts, Americans are getting fatter all the time) the media goes to the extreme in the other direction by finding "size" 0 or 2 models (I use sarcastic quote marks) to put into the magazines. I will always remember a line from The Devil Wears Prada, a very fashion oriented movie, where Anne Hathaway's character says "I'm a size 6" and Stanley Tucci's character remarks "Size 6 is the new 14". Nothing could be more ridiculous! Size 6 would be considered a very nice size by anyone I would think! I'm a size 8, at 5'4" and I work out 5-6 days a week. I'm not "skinny" by any means (to me) but I'm certainly not fat! Even if I could find a healthy way to drop down to a size 2 I wouldn't do it! A 6 would be ideal (to me), but I'm 35 years old, and frankly my body type just doesn't support that! We have shows like "More to Love" which is an overweight version of the Bachelor/Bachelorette, and the promo said that the average reality show girl is a size 2, so they went to the opposite end of the spectrum. Why do we hover at the extreme edges? Why can't we have women ranging from a size 4 to a size 10 and consider them all beautiful? Some people are fit, and attractive when they are a size 10 because their genetics and body type would look ill if they were any thinner! Personally I think that if you are 5'10" and a size 0, something is probably wrong!
We all just need to remember that there are so many more important things we should be focused on, and to get a little perspective. Right?
Reply
11-04-2009 @ 12:34PM
Anemone said...
I agree that paparazzi and airbrushing are part of the problem. I don't think that performers deserved to be stalked by fans or media because of what they do. Also, I'm not sure how much control performers have over how their fans react to them - I don't think you can make yourself a star. The chemistry is either there or not. Some people can't unmake themselves as stars, either - look at Garbo. And people who are emotionally vulnerable seem to attract more media attention - they seem to have a harder time shrugging it off.
There is one thing not mentioned yet, and that is what happens on camera. My experience with acting classes tells me that the Dollhouse starts on camera - that performers are dehumanized (unnecessarily) as part of the job description, and there are no policies in place to prevent this - and I think everything else flows from that. Filmmakers need to remember or learn that performers are always people first, and adjust the job accordingly, instead of treating performers like puppets.
Reply
11-04-2009 @ 2:18PM
Felicia said...
Dude, I don't think it's ok to chase stars around and endanger their lives, nor do I buy those piece of crap magazines. I'm interested in the movies people are in, not what they are doing with their love lives but my job has a downside--all jobs do--my job also doesn't have the perks theirs does. All I'm saying is they did get themselves in, they can get themselves out and if they don't, something must make the crap they go through worth it!
Reply