The concept of celebrity has greatly evolved since the golden age of the Hollywood studio system. The days of high glamour, when actors were elevated to demi-god status, have long since ceased to exist. Today, thanks to the ubiquity of the paparazzi, the shamelessness of gossip blogs and a culture that gorges on scandal, the mystique of Hollywood stars has practically been eliminated. In The Star Machine (2007, Alfred A. Knopf Publishing, 586 pages, U.S., $35), author Jeanine Basinger (no relation to actress Kim) provides an in-depth look at fame before the Internet put the minutiae of movie stars’ everyday lives on display. The book highlights the differences between the way stars are portrayed in the media today — more or less how they really are — and how they were presented by the studios in the 1930s and ’40s — polished products for public consumption. But although photographs and films depict Hollywood’s golden age as a much classier era, before the advent of bloodthirsty tabloids, The Star Machine suggests that things have never been easy for those in the spotlight. Basinger is the author of several other books on the early days of Hollywood such as Silent Stars and American Cinema: One Hundred Years of Filmmaking, and her knowledge of industry miscellany is staggering. The book is brimming over with case studies about stars, thoughtful analyses of films and detailed explanations of the business side of the movie world. It begins by introducing the studio system. By the mid-1930s, the major studios (MetroGoldwyn-Mayer, Warner Brothers, Twentieth Century Fox, etc.) had movie-making down to a science. A movie studio in the golden era was, according to Basinger, “a well-oiled machine with everything needed to make movies right on the lot.” They churned out dozens of films a year, with an efficiency that is unheard of today. The movie star was vital to this system. Though stars were treated simply as well-paid employees, they were the key to marketing films and selling movie tickets. And because the studios were making such a profusion of films (678 titles were released in 1934 and 477 in 1946), they needed a lot of stars. Hence, the inexact process of the “star machine” was adopted. In the beginning of the book, Basinger attempts to pinpoint what exactly defines a star. “A star has exceptional looks. Outstanding talent. A distinctive voice that can be easily recognized and imitated. A set of mannerisms. Palpable sexual appeal. Energy that comes off the screen. Glamour. Androgyny. Glowing health and radiance. Panache…And of course she has that something.” With such a formula in mind, the studios set out to transform ordinary people into box office legends. The first step was to find able-bodied, enthusiastic youngsters eager to hit it big. From Broadway to small-town beauty pageants, scouts left no stone unturned in their quest for “raw material.” Because studios were confident that acting could be taught and singing could be dubbed, talent was secondary to looks. Once studios heads assessed the potential of each new “property,” the would-be stars were given makeovers. Beauty experts capped crooked teeth, adjusted hairlines and implemented strict diets. Makeovers were just one of the many ways studios stripped individuals of their identities. Name changes were also an important part of the star machine assembly line. Up-and-coming stars had to have names that sounded glamorous but were generically American enough to go over well with the public. Basinger catalogues the most amusing examples of such changes: “The tall and exotic beauty Cyd Charisse had the comedy handle of Tula Finklea. Cary Grant was Archibald Leach — no elegant man of your dreams there — and Robert Taylor, a pretty man always striving to seem more masculine, carried the original name of Spangler Arlington Brugh.” Stars were allowed no say in their new names, and in fact, a contest-winning fan chose the moniker Joan Crawford for celebrity-hopeful Lucille La Sueur. Once stars were coiffed and named to satisfaction, the studio began to try them out in bit roles. If they did well, they were promoted to larger roles, and so on. On the way up the fame ladder, the studios exercised further control by creating new personal back-stories for them and having them printed in fan magazines. Such stories often had no relation to reality. MGM, for instance, made Clark Gable an avid sportsman and hunter, though he had never ridden a horse, and claimed to have discovered Lana Turner sitting on a drug store stool, though she later confessed that she could not recall the meeting. Insider anecdotes like these make up the best portions of the book. However, readers who are not classic movie aficionados may find themselves lost amongst the elaborate discussions of films and stars that have faded into obscurity. Along with the gossipy asides, the parallels Basinger draws to the stars of today are of greatest interest. Despite the hefty paychecks, constant work and having their public images micromanaged by the studios, stars still got into trouble. Lana Turner went through a slew of husbands and was eventually pigeonholed into “harlot” roles. Tyrone Power had a similarly turbulent personal life and died young, and Gail Russell became a notorious alcoholic. Basinger stresses that the studio responses to these star machine “malfunctions” were crass. Studio executives “concentrated only on success and didn’t waste much time trying to explain or analyze failure.” Even in the so-called golden age of Hollywood, stars that seemed to have it all cracked under the pressure of fame. However, unlike today, their dirty laundry could not be displayed on TV and the Internet with moment-tomoment updates for all the world to see. In fact, studios controlled much of the pop-media. What went into the fan magazines was subject to their approval. The book suggests that although the studios were demanding of stars, and often treated them like “properties” rather than people, they also did much to protect them from the public. But as history tells us, the studio system couldn’t last and, neither could the public’s idealized perception of Hollywood glamour. ES V I D E O • A G E AP R I L 2 0 0 8 12 B o o k R e v i e w Star Power In Hollywood’s Golden Age
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTI4OTA5