HOWARD STERN: The Making of "Howard Stern":
An Analysis of the Duality of the Star
Diplomarbeit
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Magisters der Philosophie
an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
vorgelegt von
Roland HABERSACK
am Institut für Amerikanistik Begutachter: Ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr.phil Klaus Rieser
Graz, 2011
Abstract
The purpose of this thesis is to examine how the image of the controversial media personality Howard Stern is constructed. His omnipresence in the media including radio, publishing and cinema represents the main reason for this study. Stern‘s secret of success appears to be his urge to expose everything to the public including his own private life. For this study, both his public and his ostensible private persona are taken into account. This duality is necessary to shape our understanding of Howard Stern.
As far as the methods are concerned the analysis is based around Richard Dyer‘s four categories that are essential to construct a star image: Promotion, publicity, film and criticism. A semiotic analysis seems to be most appropriate to observe the ideological values as well as the notion of cultural identity evoked by the signs of the star‘s public and private image. In order to compare the two personas and their representations Stern‘s biographical movie Private Parts and various articles and interviews in other visual media are used as reference purposes. Both entities extensively use manipulative means to create the preferred image. The difference lies in the highlighted features. Whereas the media confirms his notorious image, the movie attempts to revert it. Despite the difference of the preferred images, the movie and the media highlight Stern‘s authenticity and honesty in equal measure. In closing, it can be argued that Stern himself has far more control over his image than anything else around him.
This study primarily focuses on Howard Stern during the 80s and 90s representing the most successful period of his career. Stern‘s life past 1997 is not taken into account. Therefore, future research regarding the evolution of talk radio and the internet, including social networks should deliver further fertile results in terms of Stern‘s persona. Other limitations exist in the fields of fandom, gender or politics which are only addressed marginally.
2
LIST OF IMAGES
Image 1: Private Parts movie poster 58
Image 2: Howard Stern at the MTV Video Music Awards in 1992 61
Image 3: Luke Perry and Howard Stern at the MTV Video Music Awards 61
Image 4: Howard Stern at the age of 12 64
Image 5: Howard Stern‘s first appearance as himself during his time at Boston University 65
Image 6: Howard Stern is stimulating a woman over the radio at DC-101 in Washington 74
Image 7: Howard Stern advertisement on a bus in Washington 75
Image 8: Howard Stern is introduced to Kenny Rushton 79
Image 9: Howard Stern as the most listened disc jockey in New York in 1985 83
Image 10: Gary Dell‘Abate together with a woman announcing Stern‘s arrival in Westchester,
New York 85
Image 11: A cartoon of Howard Stern and his wife Alison as the perfect couple 94
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 6
2 THE ORIGIN OF CELEBRITIES ...... 8
3 STARS IN CINEMA ...... 14
3.1 Star Production ...... 14
3.2 Independence of the Stars ...... 15
3.3 Defining ‗Star‘ ...... 18
3.4 Identity ...... 20
3.5 From Classic Hollywood to Modern Day Celebrities ...... 21
3.6 Star Types ...... 22
4 STARS ON TELEVISION ...... 25
4.1 Television as a Discursive Medium ...... 25 4.1.1 Talk Shows ...... 29
5 STARS AND SEMIOTICS ...... 32
5.1 Ideological Values ...... 32
5.2 Charisma ...... 34
5.3 Authenticity ...... 35
5.4 Intertextuality ...... 36
6 THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STAR IMAGE ...... 40
6.1 The Search for the ―Right‖ Image ...... 41
6.2 The Categories of the Star Image ...... 44 6.2.1 Promotion ...... 44 6.2.2 Publicity ...... 45 6.2.3 Films ...... 45 6.2.4 Criticism and Commentary ...... 46
7 AUDIENCE AND FANDOM ...... 47
8 CASE STUDY: HOWARD STERN ...... 51
8.1 The Instability of the Image in Postmodernism ...... 53
4
8.2 The Image of Howard Stern ...... 54
8.3 Autobiographical Film vs. Biographical Film ...... 56
8.4 Private Parts ...... 57 8.4.1 Semiotics of the Movie Poster ...... 57 8.4.2 Introduction of the Movie ...... 60 8.4.3 The Early Years ...... 64 8.4.4 Radio and Private Life ...... 66 8.4.5 Authenticity – Developing His Radio Persona ...... 67 8.4.6 Becoming the Radio Rebel ...... 69 8.4.7 Stern‘s Public Persona as the ‗Real‘ Self ...... 70 8.4.8 Stern and Authority ...... 73 8.4.9 Censorship ...... 73 8.4.10 Reversion of the Image: Howard Stern and His Role as the Husband ...... 76 8.4.11 The Triumph of the Anti-Hero ...... 78 8.4.12 Filmic Means for Authenticity ...... 84 8.4.13 Outcome of the Movie Analysis ...... 85 8.5 The Image of Howard Stern in Other Visual Media ...... 87 8.5.1 Howard Stern - Rebel, Outcast and Freak ...... 87 8.5.2 Howard Stern, Reversed Image – the Family Man ...... 93 8.5.3 The King of all Media as an American Icon ...... 95 8.5.4 The Rebel, the Family Man and the Icon in the Context of Authenticity...... 97
9 OVERALL CONCLUSION ...... 100
10 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 102
10.1 Online Resources ...... 104
10.2 Film ...... 107
10.3 Radio ...... 108
10.4 Images ...... 108
5
1 INTRODUCTION
For more than three decades Howard Stern has played an integral part in American society. His success has its roots in his honesty in combination with the most basic form of humour. Consequently, this combination entails a huge cultural impact on an entire nation. The constant debate about Stern has not only turned him into a radio legend but a cultural legend.
A public personality has to establish a certain image in order to enable the public to relate to the star in a social and ideological context. The aim of this study is to analyse how the image of the American media personality Howard Stern is constructed, extended, maintained and reversed. I refer to Dyer‘s four categories that are necessary to construct an image. These are publicity, promotion, films and criticism.
The purpose of the theoretical part of the study is to define celebrities and stars. Thus, the second chapter discusses the origin and the evolution of the term ‘celebrity‘. Chapter three, with a special focus on film star, elaborates the differences between a star‘s public and private persona. Because of Howard Stern‘s apparently omniscient presence in any media- related area chapter four also investigates celebrities on television. The main purpose of this chapter is to provide a basis in order to understand how his image comes across on television (especially talk shows). Various features shared by Stern and a television personality such as Oprah Winfrey provide another reason to discuss this topic in more detail. Chapter five is based around the semiotics of the star. Through signs the relationship between the star and the audience can be observed in the context of ideological values and cultural identity. Furthermore, chapter six focuses on the construction of the star image and thus, along with chapter five, represents the most crucial component of this study. Even though the audience only plays a marginal part in my study chapter seven briefly discusses the role of the audience and fans in terms of becoming and remaining a star. The majority of prior research in the field of celebrity and star studies has dealt with film stars. Howard Stern does not represent a film star in the traditional sense. Nonetheless, a large amount of theories and findings based on film stars can also be applied to Stern due to the duality of his star image.
The first part of the empirical study provides a general insight into Stern‘s persona and the image that has been constructed over the years. Stern‘s biographical movie Private Parts represents the main part of the study. The purpose is to illustrate the construction and maintenance of an image based on filmic signs and Stern‘s iconography without the impact of
6 other media. Before analysing the image of Stern in the movie I make use of the semiotic analysis according to Barthes to discuss the iconography of the movie poster. The observation of Howard Stern‘s development of his personality is carried out chronologically. It begins with the roles as a nerd and outsider assigned to Stern during his childhood and college years. It continues with Stern discovering his radio persona which further leads to his reputation as a radio rebel. Finally, everything results in the creation of a media phenomenon and cultural icon. The study not only seeks to provide an insight into various facets of Stern‘s image but also attempts to provide additional information to comprehend the evolution of his persona.
In the second part I investigate in more detail how Stern‘s image is depicted when the media is involved. The purpose of this section is to illustrate the three remaining categories of the construction of Stern‘s star image especially in terms of his authenticity. Therefore, I have chosen several articles and interviews in magazines as well as television appearances in order to discuss how media representatives choose to portray and mediate Stern‘s public and private persona. Articles refer to his role in the movie as well as to his radio persona. Moreover, I would like to indicate how Stern himself reflects his image through factors such as comments, appearance and behavior.
7
2 THE ORIGIN OF CELEBRITIES
“Two centuries ago when a great man appeared, people looked for God’s purpose in him; today we look for his press agent.” (Boorstin, 1992)
According to Daniel Boorstin one might assume that the existence of celebrities as we know them in contemporary society is based on people‘s great expectations and ―the demand for the illusions which flood our experience‖ (1992: 3). Even though this thought refers to Americans, it can be argued that this understanding of ―celebrity‖ might as well be a global one, for the most part at least. Things we expect range from ―new heroes every season, a literary masterpiece every month‖ over ―a dramatic spectacular every week‖ to ―a rare sensation every night (ibid. 4).
Boorstin comes up with two types of what we expect from the world:
1. What the world holds: This includes the amount of things (news, heroes, places) available for us
2. Our power to shape the world: This describes our ability to create news, heroes, places and events when there are none and our ability to change and transform events ―to suit our convenience‖ (ibid. 5).
In other words, the world provides us with resources to satisfy our needs. Consequently ―we tyrannize and frustrate ourselves‖ because what the world has to offer cannot live up to our expectations. Things people cannot have are the things people crave the most. Boorstin believes that in order to achieve something you need to have more faith and the will ―to discover our illusions‖ to get a clearer vision of the world (ibid. 6).
Boorstin points out that William Shakespeare classified ―great men‖ into three categories: the ones who were born great, the ones who achieved greatness and the ones ―who had greatness thrust upon them‖ (1992: 45f.). There has once been a time when the ―Hall of Fame‖ only accepted members selected by the ―processes of history‖ and not by a committee. In the past the line between famous men and great men was very thin and according to Boorstin, greatness and fame have never been exactly the same. In order to be able to talk about being a celebrity we have to find out where this term is rooted in. Prior to the graphic
8 revolution (when the quantity of images available to the public has risen to a great extend) a man had to be heroic ―admired for his courage, nobility, or exploits‖ (ibid. 46).
Usually the war hero was considered the prototypical hero. Not instant ―greatness‖ was the usual way to become well known. It was a slow process by which ―the past became a natural habitat of great men‖ (ibid. 46). By citing Thomas Carlyle and Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. about the loss of great men and real heroes Boorstin simultaneously refers to the beginning of equating greatness with fame. Because of the Graphic Revolution people are nowadays able to become famous over night and to fabricate ―well-knownness‖. Due to this ability to make somebody famous people wrongly believe that fame is a trademark for greatness. This brings us back to the people‘s extravagant expectations and the illusions connected with them. The increasing amount of ―big names‖ creates a higher demand for big names, thus also the ―willingness to confuse the Big Name with the Big Man‖ resulting in artificial fame (ibid. 47).
The search for heroes goes on but ―heroes themselves dissolve‖. What do you do, if you run out of heroes? You look for a replacement. You create new heroes but, as Boorstin alludes, those heroes are not really heroes. They are an ―artificial new product.‖ What we can do is make people famous and well known but not great. ―We can make a celebrity, but we can never make a hero.‖ But is this really true? Boorstin explains that people tend to confuse worshipping celebrities with worshipping heroes. Therefore we risk to not being able to distinguish between people who are famous because they are great and people who are great because they are famous (ibid. 48).
The word ―celebrity‖, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, ―originally meant not a person but a condition – the condition of being much talked about; famousness, notoriety‖ (Boorstin 1992: 57). For us though, a celebrity is primarily a person. Boorstin states its first usage goes back to the Graphic Revolution when ―Emerson spoke of the celebrities of wealth and fashion‖ in 1848. The definition of contemporary American dictionaries describes celebrities as ―famous or well-publicized‖ persons. Furthermore, he defines a celebrity as ―a person who is known for his well-knownness‖, ―the human pseudo- event‖ which has been manufactured for us to satisfy our demand for human greatness but is not real. (ibid. 57f.).
9
As Boorstin points out celebrities are the perfect salesmen because of their ―big names‖. ―Anything that makes a well-known name still better know automatically raises its status as a celebrity‖ (ibid. 58). It is said that editors of magazines as well as their readers have become more interested in ―new-fashioned‖ celebrities rather than ―old-fashioned‖ heroes (ibid. 59). Most biographical articles from 1901 until 1917 have been about politics, business and professions whereas from 1922 on ―over half of them came from the world of entertainment‖. Starting off with literature, fine arts and music the focus later turned from serious arts to ―fields of light entertainment, sports and the night club circuit.‖ The celebrity was the new substitute for the hero created by the ―information machinery‖. Boorstin claims that we fill ―experience with so much emptiness‖. There is nothing fantastic about those other experiences. It just gets repeated ―in different words and images‖. Ordinary contents become extraordinary by using superlatives. ―They are nothing but ourselves seen in a magnifying mirror.‖ According to Celebrity Register cited by Boorstin ―celebrities are the names who, once made by news, now make news themselves.‖ Celebrity is rooted in familiarity caused and emphasized by ―public means‖ and therefore is tautologous: ―the most familiar is the most familiar‖ (ibid. 61).
Boorstin states that whereas heroes were distinguished by achievement celebrities relied on their image (cf. 1992: 61). However, it can be argued that Boorstin‘s claim that only celebrities are created by the media is not entirely true, since this can also be applied to heroes, at least in modern society. Certainly the media does not make a hero great but it makes people aware that somebody has done something heroic. No one really sees himself as a hero unless it is publicly announced by the media. Thus, the process of becoming a hero is introduced through achievement but the creation itself mainly depends on the impact of the media. Also, through media exposure a person does not only become a hero but simultaneously turns into a celebrity.
The traditional hero was said to despise publicity. ―The old-fashioned hero was romanticized‖ (ibid. 62). Boorstin describes Robert E. Lee, the Confederate General, as one of the last true American heroic figures. By refusing to give interviews or to write his memoirs he remained hidden from the public eye which was especially admired by his ―Southern compatriots‖. The case of General George C. Marshall a few generations after Lee was different. He as well avoided publicity but in contrast to Lee, Marshall‘s attitude was no
10 longer seen as a virtue. It made him become ―a victim of the slanders of Senator Joseph McCarthy and others‖ (ibid. 62).
Boorstin also distinguishes heroes and celebrities in terms of that a hero is made by the ―passage of time‖ whereas the celebrity will be destroyed through time. ―No one is more forgotten than the last generation‘s celebrity‖ (ibid. 63). In my opinion, this refers to the ephemerality of a celebrity and the longevity of a traditional hero. However, modern day celebrities such as Madonna, Elvis, Michael Jackson and Arnold Schwarzenegger are very well circulating in the media for a longer period than one or two generations, even after their prime or death. In the case of the people mentioned before we cannot talk about normal celebrities anymore but iconic figures. Thus, Boorstin‘s statement that dead heroes become immortal but celebrities tend to be forgotten during their lifetime is also not entirely true. Although he has a point when he claims that in times of radio and television celebrities are being made ―more quickly than ever before‖, but also ―die more quickly than ever‖ (ibid. 64). 20 years later, in the age of internet with its numerous social networks this ‗coming and going‘ is even faster and more prevalent. Peter Ludes mentions that reproducing extraordinariness, charisma and stardom day after day is a general problem. Every star has to face the paradox of routinization of extraordinariness (cf. 1997: 91). Stars can overcome or avoid this routinization by conquering new stages or try to ―shine‖ in other areas within show business. Ludes also points out that those features which make someone special (looks, talent or an extraordinary voice) also involve the downfall of the star. Thus, livelong stars still remain an exception (ibid. 91). Boorstin refers to another difference between heroes and celebrities. Heroes representing greatness are likely ―to become colorless and cliché‖ and stop representing individuality. In contrast, contemporary celebrities are said to be ―too vivid, too individual to be polished into a symmetrical Greek statue‖ (1992: 64). If someone is known by the virtues of the person‘s character‖ we talk about a hero. The celebrity comes into play when the main reason for being well-known is personality. Even though the difference between celebrities and heroes seems to be eminent, Ludes claims personalized extraordinariness to be one important aspect both groups have in common (cf. 1997: 88).
Celebrities have the ability to distinguish ―themselves from others essentially like them‖ (Boorstin 1992: 65). They increase their ―well-knownness‖ through networking among themselves and thus, ―live off one another‖. This happens by using other celebrities for your
11 jokes, being the former life partner of another celebrity (i.e. Elizabeth Taylor, Arthur Miller) or being the subject of gossip among other celebrities. By reading, talking and writing about their different relationships and ―sexual habits‖, tastes and other everyday things we ―distinguish among the indistinguishable‖ resulting in the question how somebody who does not appear like us is so similar to us (or the other way round) (ibid. 65).
In Boorstin‘s point of view, celebrities tend to overshadow the hero since the Graphic Revolution. Heroes are gone and celebrities appear to cover the lack of heroes. ―We still try to make our celebrities stand in for the heroes we no longer have […]. And we imitate them as if they were cast in the mold of greatness‖. He adds that by trying to be like celebrities we are only trying to imitate a ―more-publicized version of us‖ (ibid. 74). Yet, we are not really imitating them but rather trying to get what they already have, which is fame. If we really look into a mirror we do not see ―our own image‖ as Boorstin claims, but a blurred vision of us. The stars‘ or celebrity‘s abilities are neither bound to the family nor to occupation or education. Ludes sees this as the reason why celebrities seem to represent ideal means for identification which are not available in other positions or functions. Eventually stars became a leading integrational force across all kinds of classes and tribes (ibid. 89).
―The Star is tantalizingly close and similar, yet at the same time remote and dissimilar‖ (Ellis 2004: 602). The star is somewhat like the viewer (of an image or film) but at the same time unlike the viewer because of his extraordinariness (cf. ibid 602). People stopped struggling for existence, trying to fulfil superimposed tasks and follow God‘s commandments. Instead, they started looking for diversity, change and interesting adventures, at least according to Ludes (1997: 89). He points out that consumption and communication are the main aspects in the new quest for identity and self-realization; desires only celebrities and stars seem to be able to offer. The evolution of society related to the evolution of the media helps us understand the increasing generalization of extraordinariness of heroes (cf. Ibid. 89). With the beginning of audio-visualization and the mass circulation of graphic and audio material people were able to follow and experience how those important and special people live their lives.
Ludes states that this new complexity and fusion of societies with their contradicting norms and lifestyles require a simplifying concept or model. Heroes in contemporary American society are seldom seen as ―sophisticated adults‖ (ibid. 89). This is not about heroes
12 in the sense of greatness. With numerous award shows, contests and halls of fame Americans make themselves believe that they ―admire the admirable and honor the meritorious‖ (Boorstin 1992: 75). However, their search for new heroes in the end only results in creating more celebrities. ―Vainly do we make scores of artificial celebrities grow where nature planted only a single hero‖ (ibid. 76). True heroes that happen to walk the earth these days are not celebrities. True heroes remain in the dark, outside the public view. By doing so their ―anonymity protects them from the flashy empheral celebrity life‖ (ibid. 76).
Boorstin‘s approach concerning the decline of real heroes and the rise of artificial heroes seems to be more dramatic than it actually is. Of course, it seems to be easier to become a celebrity nowadays but that does not go hand in hand with the claim that celebrities have not achieved anything that paved their way to fame. Ludes summarizes that the rise and fall of stars can be explained with the synopsis of social changes within most people‘s social environment and media requirements for the circulation of personal and extraordinary talent or looks (cf. 1997: 94).
13
3 STARS IN CINEMA
Paul McDonald explains that the purpose of star studies was to investigate ―the organization of the industry, the properties of individual texts, and the experiences of the audience, and to relate all three within a small and coherent focus‖ (1995: 80). According to John Ellis, stars in the film industry are ―incomplete images‖ and as soon as the performance of the movie begins those images supported by magazines and other circulating media outlets become complete. The paradox ―presence-yet-absence‖ describes that a star is ―at once ordinary and extraordinary, available for desire and unattainable‖ (2004: 598). Ellis defines a star as someone who performs in a certain medium and later circulates in other subsidiary forms just to return to future performances (cf. ibid. 598). To see an actor perform in a movie is a pleasurable experience for the viewer as Jeremy Butler points out (1998: 342). Only because we see an actor perform in a movie it does not automatically turn him or her into a star. Distinguishing between an actor and a star contributes to ―reject popular tastes and privilege the tastes of more dominant groups‖ (cf. McDonald: 80).
3.1 Star Production
In the early years of cinema producers relied on the cinema alone without paying attention to the names of the actors. They found out that some performers were of greater importance than others even though ―all films were treated as fundamentally similar‖ (Ellis 2004: 598). Producers then gave the roles the names of the stars they wanted resulting in the star becoming ―a standard item in marketing‖. Those stars were equally important to a gripping story, stunning scenery as well as a popular director.
With the arrival of stars as marketing strategies cinema began to expand as well as the urge to make films different to others became stronger. Particular films for a particular audience were of great importance. Most importantly, the performer‘s personality was used to describe a certain film even if the movie did not really have anything to do with the performer‘s personality. The image of the star contributed to the circulation of the film in other media and thus became an integral ―part of the creation of narrative images‖ (ibid. 599).
People tend to have a misconception of the star image. Instead of fixed and complete meanings, star images only consist of hints of a complete image. Stars are shown ―as an 14 ordinary and as an extraordinary person‖ and thus are paradoxical. In order to complete these incomplete images we need the cinema to create a ―synthesis of voice, body, and motion‖ (ibid. 599).
The cinematic image (and the film performance) rests on the photo effect, the paradox that the photograph presents an absence that is present. […] The star image is incomplete and paradoxical. It has a double relationship to the film performance: it proposes that the film performance will be more complete that the star image; and it echoes and promotes the photo effect which is fundamental to cinema as a regime of representation. (Ellis, 599)
3.2 Independence of the Stars
The primary function of an agent that represents a star or an actor is to separate ―the private and public realms of the movie industry‖ (Marshall 2006: 84). The emphasis lies on the relationship between the actor and the audience rather than on the relationship the actor has to the studio or the movie. The aim is to point out the ―public construction of the star‖ distancing itself from the studio‘s construction of the star‘s persona. Financing a movie is likely to be easier with an actor such as Mel Gibson. In order to live up to the expectations of an audience ―the character and the star‘s public personality may be coordinated‖ and the story might be adjusted in favor of the star‘s public representation and continuity (ibid. 84).
According to Barry King the origin of stardom lies in the competition between the film studios. The success of a movie at the box office often depends on the star‘s image or personality that goes beyond one single movie (cf. 1986: 155). ―The activity of creating a celebrity from film involves coordinating the reading of the star by the audience outside of the film‖ (Marshall 2004a: 85). The heroic character of a film represents only one feature of the star. It is ―the relationship to the real person behind the image‖ (ibid. 85) that is crucial to completely construct the celebrity.
When it comes to the circulation of the star images not much has changed between the form of classic Hollywood (studio agency) and contemporary methods (specialized enterprises). Stars appear in newspapers, magazines, fanzines, radio, advertisements and as ―merchandise effects‖. Ellis claims Mickey Mouse to be the first star appearing in all of these media outlets just mentioned. ―The star appears directly as face, body, and voice; and as a figure constructed in writing‖ (2004: 600). Unlike the sound cinema which presents the star as
15 a moving and talking picture, the photo or writing in a magazine and the voice on the radio offer only bits of the image. ―The film performance will present the completeness of the star‖ (ibid. 600). Through photos and broadcasts stars do not only present themselves as extraordinary people but also as normal people like you and me. Both sides are being revealed. The purpose of these photos is to show stars in everyday situations as well as in situations which are far from usual. Ellis describes these two aspects as the ―ordinariness of the star‖ and the ―exceptional nature of the star, endowed with some special talent and position‖ (ibid. 600).
Sommer argues that the visual and audio-visual media in the 20th century really pushed the star-phenomenon to a new level. It was not only because of the ‗larger than life‘ depiction and presentation of the stars but also because of the particular way to construct familiarity and distance. All the characteristics of stars are treated differently by the various publication forms. Whereas daily newspapers regard stars as a ―moral barometer‖, fanzines present them as hard-working people on the set accompanied by pictures of a flawless, exceptionally talented person. Mass newspapers on the other hand use stars for their own good, whereat scandals come in handy (1997: 119). ―By being news only in so far as they are persons‖ stars keep the public and the intimate together (Ellis 2004: 601).
Ellis claims the photo effect to present something that is absent, is the basis for stardom because it articulates ―the relationship between the photographic and the realm of desire‖. In a film ―fiction always exceeds the star‘s image and the star‘s presence in a film‖, except for the ―fetishistic moment‖ when the performance of the star is most prominent. There was a special relationship between the circulating image of the star and the star‘s performance in a film in classic Hollywood. Whereas the ―subsidiary circulation‖ was a common thing, the performance in a film was a special occasion. ―The film performance of a star involved a large degree of overt fiction‖ (ibid. 602). Stars outside the field of cinema did not involve such fiction. Ellis mentions two features of the film performance: its comparative rarity and its explicit use of fiction. What has formerly only circulated as an image or a voice on the radio can finally be observed as a ―physical figure‖ including ―small gestures, particular aspects of movement and expression, unexpected similarities to acquaintances or even to self‖ (ibid. 603).
The lines between performing and being tend to blur. The spectator turns into a voyeur
16 in terms of ―overlooking something which is not designed for the onlooker‖, unlike pictures in a fanzine which are ―constructed for the look‖ (ibid. 603).
According to Ellis the process of overlooking results in two consequences escaping the ―film-as-fiction‖. First, the photo effect reaches its limits, even more so with a star that is dead (Judy Garland, Marilyn Monroe). As soon Monroe can be seen on the screen the spectator is reminded of their apparent tragic lives. ―The combination of extra-filmic circulation of a star‘s tragic story with their film performance promotes a voyeuristic relation to the performance‖ (ibid. 603) Not the fiction is important but ―incidental moments‖ become the center of attention. Ellis states that these moments lead the way to the true personality of the star.
The star image can be linked to its subsidiary circulation in different ways. Dyer lists three possibilities to fit the image (once established) of a star (Dyer 1979: 142-9 mentioned in Butler 1998: 351):
Selective use Perfect fit Problematic fit
First, selective use describes the method when characters emphasize particular characteristics of the polysemic meanings of the star. Fiction corresponds to ―one side of the star‘s general image‖ (ibid. 351). Butler uses the example of Ingrid Bergman as being spiritual on the one hand and sexual on the other. In the movie Joan of Arc the character emphasized her ―spiritual purity‖ whereas in the movie Voyage to Italy her sexual features were on display.
The perfect fit represents the completely matching polysemy of a star and the character he or she portrays. Fiction can include itself in the performance of the stable image of the star outside of the cinema defined by their activities. To exemplify this Butler mentions Hugh Grant and his role as Samuel Faulkner in Nine Months. In the movie Grant played ―an irresponsible playboy who was unable to commit to marriage‖ (1998: 351). Only months before the movie came out Grant had been arrested with a prostitute, which closely fit his role in the movie. Their identities were blending (cf. ibid. 351).
17
In terms of the problematic fit the star image and the character do not match in any aspect but the opposite. According to Butler, Mary Tyler Moore has usually played the roles of a loving and lovable woman, but in the case of Ordinary People (1980) she chose a role against this type, cold and remote. The fiction breaks out of the circulating image. The star appears in a role we, the audience, do not expect. Dyer explains the problematic fit as a means for the star to mediate social tensions (cf. ibid. 351).
The film uses certain elements, refuses others and adds further elements. In other words, the fictional character either is largely alike the general star image, the complete opposite or one-sidedly similar to the image. Under the voyeuristic control of the spectators stars have two options of performing. On the one hand they can ―underperform‖ compared to the rest of the cast and on the other hand, they can ―overperform in order to emphasise the work of acting‖ (Ellis 605). The former describes the ―effect of behaving rather than performing‖ through which the star‘s few gestures or anything else the star does gains more significance. Some stars, however, emphasize the ―performance‖ with the result of overacting becoming a ―characteristic of certain stars‖. After all, stars also feel the need to demonstrate their ability to perform.
3.3 Defining „Star‟
In the preceding chapters I have already discussed celebrities and stars in a way. The question is, however, where to draw the line between a celebrity and a star. (Stars are more likely to be connected with the field of performing arts.) Even though celebrities and stars are not the same we have to find out what a star really is, since the term ―star‖ as become rather meaningless due to its over usage. Lowry describes the star as a part of a movie. The star is an intertextually as well as intermedialy constructed image. He or she is subject of gossip and rumors in the tabloid press and among fans. Furthermore, the star is an element of cultural knowledge, a product of the film industry and part of its marketing strategies. Not only is the star a social phenomenon or cultural stereotype but also a catalyst for psychological processes like identification and projection. In this context, Lowry divides the star phenomenon into four dimensions: the star as image, the star as economic and production element, the star in reception and the sociocultural aspect of the star (cf. Lowry 1997: 12f).
18
Robert C. Allen raises the question how stars happened to become social phenomena. Phenomena people cannot seem to get enough of. According to Allen in the film industry stardom is marked by the ―duality between actor and character‖ (2004: 606). For the sociologist Edgar Molin, as Allen states, a star consists of the screen role (filmic persona) and the actor (off-screen personality). ―Stars are actors with biographies‖ (ibid. 607). Basically, this means that if we do not know anything about the private lives of the actors we cannot yet speak of stardom. Only if we get to know the actor privately, at least representations of it, stardom falls into place. However, there are still a number of stars that only provide little or no access to their private lives and yet, they can be seen as stars. Molin‘s statement is only partly correct because the term ―actors with biographies‖ does not refer to stars but the duality of stars.
Carlo Michael Sommer speaks of the essential elements which are necessary to become a star are. On the one hand, there is the private persona, the ―picture personality‖ and on the other hand, the image of the professional performer that is situated between the biographical and the onscreen image. Sommer also points out that it is of great importance that the private person is not more ―real‖ than the other components of the image. All elements have to be constructed. The balance between all these aspects has to build a coherent and authentic star image (cf. 1997: 114).
Multiple meanings form a complex image that is a star. Lowry sees all components of the image as publicly accessible signs and statements about the star as a person and an onscreen figure. These signs consist of elements that belong to different semiotic systems such as iconography, acting conventions, narrative structure and verbal or non-verbal communication. They deliver information about various aspects of the star including lifestyle, private life, onscreen performance and personality. What people then see in those images differs from one to another (cf. 1997: 16). In order to find out how this ―structured polysemy‖ comes into being and how many different meanings can be applied to the image film historians investigate ―texts that collectively embody that image‖ (Butler 1998: 343).
As reported by Dyer, stars are a construction of signs communicating meaning to the viewer. These signs originate ―in the lives of real human beings‖ (ibid. 343). Certainly, people we consider stars really do exist but their images are being generated by the stars‘ work and their representatives as well as other workers involved in the media. Allen states that a
19 number of theorists feel the existence of stars to be based on the ―needs, dreams, fantasies, and obsessions‖ of society. However, the assumption that the change of the collective has resulted in the change of star-types has not yet been confirmed.
3.4 Identity
Sommer refers to the theory of social identity by Hogg and Abrams when he argues that the self-conception of an individual is based on two aspects. First, it depends on the individual‘s idea of his or her exceptionalism, the personal identity. Secondly, it relies on his or her affiliation to a certain group, the social identity. In order to find the way in the social reality and to determine one‘s position within society the individual is supposed to divide the social world into sub-categories. The category of the group to which the individual belongs to is called ―ingroup‖. The personal identity results from the individual combination and the emphasis of affiliations to different categories such as nationality, occupation or religion (cf. 1997: 116).
Values, norms and attitudes characteristic for a certain group arise from a common categorization of different individuals. Other groups and categories, which are referred to as ―outgroups‖, then will be measured, compared and devalued according to one‘s own group. Additionally, Sommer points out that common categorizations and value orientation require the right representation or symbolization. Objects, institutions and activities need to be hypostatized and become symbols. These symbols do not only stand for group values but also stand for the solidarity of the group and for the identity of the group as well as for the individual. This symbolization allows the group to identify with members of the own group (ingroup) as well as with members from other groups (outgroup) in terms of behavior, activities and social places (ibid. 116).
Not only institutions or objects can represent the values and norms of one‘s group, also persons are able to do so, as we can see in the field of stardom. Sommer claims that stars embody the ideal values of their followers, their fans. Stars represent the ideal leader, the paradigm within a certain group. Leadership has become an ability that no longer seemed to be an innate and individual quality (ibid. 117). Instead, leadership is said to be the result of interaction among individual qualities and contextual requirements (cf. Hogg and Abrams 1988: 17 cited in Sommer 1997: 117). The image of perfection is indicatory and offers 20 prospects to create an identity. Members of a group recognize themselves in the star. Sommer emphasizes that once a fan club is involved, the replacement of the star (at least within the fan club) is not possible anymore.
Andrew Tudor attempted to define identification by distinguishing four categories: ―self-identification‖, ―projection‖, ―emotional affinity‖ and ―imitation‖ (1974: 80ff.). Later on, Jackie Stacey, as Lowry mentions in his article, investigated the process of identification with the relation to define one‘s own identity. She distinguishes between ―devotion‖, ―adoration‖, ―worship‖, ―transcendence‖, ―aspiration and inspiration‖ connected with the film experience as well as the processes of ―pretending‖, ―resembling‖, ―imitating‖ and ―copying‖ (cited in Lowry 1997: 26).
According to Judith Mayne, star images are instable due to constantly reinventing themselves and dissolving contraries (Mayne 1993 cited in Christine Geraghty 2002: 185). Consequently, this raises the question of identity and how fans make different meanings for themselves. The fan obtains his or her knowledge through various sources facing ―contradictory questions of identity‖ (ibid. 185). The duality of the film star cannot only be applied to film studies but also to other fields within popular culture such as music, sports and television. The relationship of the public sphere of performance and the private sphere of personal lives is always present through the media, as Geraghty notes (cf. 2002: 185).
3.5 From Classic Hollywood to Modern Day Celebrities
Sue Holmes‘ study Starring…Dyer? in 2006 observes that there has been a remarkable change between stars of classic Hollywood and modern day celebrities. However, arguments of the past are still valid in modern day society. As far as the discourse encompassing the production and consumption of a celebrity is concerned, Holmes claims ―it is not that media distinctions are rendered redundant‖ (2006: 10) but the fact that different classifications have developed. What has changed over the years is that researchers have begun to put more emphasis on ―spheres such as political economy, screen acting/ performance, and empirical audience research‖ including a greater importance of the change in ―technological and media contexts‖ (ibid. 9).
Certainly, nowadays the focus has shifted away from classic Hollywood celebrities to 21 various other areas of the contemporary media landscape, a shift that according to Barker has ―undermined the exclusivity of cinematic stardom‖ (Barker 2003: 11 cited in Holmes 2006: 9). Holmes then states that when it comes to the term star studies there has always been a ―conceptual division‖ that contemporary celebrity texts seem to lack. Whereas ‗stardom‘ referred to the discourse of a stars performance on and off screen, ‗celebrity‘ has been used when fame was rather based on the private sphere of a person rather than on his or her public performance. However, ―the actor may perform as a celebrity when they guest on a game show, whereas the celebrity may act in a dramatic fiction. On top of this […] the personality is always in some sense ‗acting‘‖ (Lury cited in Bennett 2008: 35).
Chris Rojek makes three distinctions when classifying a celebrity. The first type is the ―ascribed‖ celebrity, someone who is - in a broader sense – born famous. The second category is the ―achieved‖ celebrity whose fame is based on the actual skills or talent of a person. Lastly, there is the ―attributed‖ celebrity, a person that becomes famous through the means of ―media representation‖ (Rojek 2001: 17 mentioned in Holmes 2006: 10).
Holmes asks whether the best explanation for the popularity of certain celebrities such as Princess Diana and David Beckham is the steady bond to ―the ideological contexts of their time‖ in terms of gender, nation or sexuality. Furthermore, she points out that neither of these two celebrities stands for an example for national ideologies and identity but for global impact. Moreover, we can only talk about an ―exceptional‖ but not ―the typical‖ case. This brings me back to different ways of consuming a celebrity depending a lot on the ―mode of engagement‖ within celebrity culture such as a celebrity porn site, a celebrity magazine and going to the cinema (cf. 2006: 12).
3.6 Star Types
In Stars Dyer links stars to ―social types of a society‖ (1979: 47). He refers to the definition by O. E. Klapp who explains a social type as ―a collective norm of role behavior formed and used by the group: an idealized concept of how people are expected to be or to act‖ (Klapp cited in Dyer 1979: 47). According to Klapp, we can distinguish between common social types and alternative types. The common types can consist of the following categories: the Good Joe, the Tough Guy and the Pin-up. Since the last category is not of importance for my thesis I will only discuss the first two types in more detail. Concerning alternative types one
22 might speak of the rebel or the independent woman. Again, for my thesis, I will only elaborate on the rebel type.
The Good Joe
The good Joe stands for everything that is good or ideal. His features consist of friendliness, an easy going mentality, conformity, equality or trustworthiness. Dyer lists John Wayne as a typical good Joe. Wayne‘s films are thus being analyzed according to ―(a) differentiating him from other characters (including women, villains and other men who don‘t ‗fit‘ […] and (b) dissolving ideological tensions in the ‗unanswerable‘ good Joe normalcy of his presence […]‖ (Klapp cited in Dyer 1979: 48). Films that can be analyzed only include the ones in which Wayne really portrays the good Joe and do not include the ones in which he was cast against type.
The Tough Guy
Klapp does not refer to the existence of this type but to ―its ambivalence‖ created by the hero displaying violent and aggressive actions. ―As a result he confuses boundaries between good and bad behavior, presses the antisocial into the service of the social and vice versa‖ (cited in Dyer 1979: 49). Therefore, the type causes confusion and ambiguity. Dyer furthermore states that by playing traditional types such a cowboys or war heroes all these contradictions remain hidden.
The Rebel
According to Dyer actors or stars that represent the rebel hero include Paul Newman, Marlon Brando or James Dean. Dyer refers to Sheila Whitaker who divides this type in different categories such as ―the immigrant (Garfield), the rebel against his own class (Clift), generation gap rebels (Brando, Dean), the anti-hero (Newman, McQueen, Finney) and the politically conscious rebel (Fonda)‖ (1979: 52). To investigate these types more closely Dyer asks whether these oppositional views are ―informed by concepts of anomie or alienation‖ or whether they ―are grounded in material categories or in a generalized Angst‖ (ibid. 52).
Whereas Dyer describes Brando and Dean as examples for rebels caused by alienation,
23
John Garfield‘s movies deal with oppressed immigrants. By investigating how these stars portray rebellion one can observe whether a certain rebellion can be considered as legitimate or inadequate. In Dyer‘s point of view it rather stands for its inadequacy because of the type‘s characteristics, those of an outlaw, and the film narratives. Dyer further illustrates that ―the heavy emphasis on youth in the type carries with it the notion of the ‗passing phase‘, the ‗inevitable, ‗natural rebellion‘ […]‖ (ibid. 53). Thus, being young seems to be a simple explanation or excuse for rebellion.
24
4 STARS ON TELEVISION
In her essay ―Re-examining stardom‖, Geraghty investigates the shift of stardom away from film studies to other areas such as music, sports and television. Sommer divides the overall ―star‖ term into two categories, the star in a specific sense and the idol. Both distinguish themselves in terms of their relationship between the biographical persona and the picture personality, as well as their relationship to the audience. Stars in a specific sense usually refer to film stars or pop stars. Both are capable of portraying various roles through incorporating their own personality. Sommer adds that the biographical person can be a normal father. His performance is the center of his image. In contrast to the film star, the idol is mostly represented through his role image. He or she does not play a role, the star is the role. The secret of the idol is not characterized by the star‘s talent, but by the embodiment of a particular myth (cf. 1997: 115).
In film studies stars have been a crucial element in order to find meaning within a film text. Geraghty lists three overlapping theoretical developments. First, there is the relationship between film and the real based on semiotics. The second development refers to the intertextuality between stars and ideology and thus links film studies with cultural studies. The third relationship deals with the audience and what it does with star images (cf. 2002: 183f.)
4.1 Television as a Discursive Medium
In this chapter I basically deal with television newscasts and programs such as breakfast television shows and talk shows. Since Howard Stern has regularly appeared in each of these programs, they are of particular importance to analyze the construction of the image of Howard Stern on television. Television shows are popular shows that appear frequently and are considered as light entertainment. Breakfast television shows usually include morning news, music segments, talk, interviews and comedy elements. Margaret Morse states in her article ―Talk, Talk, Talk‖ from 1985 that the reason why television seems to be more real than other media is because it feeds on everyday life. In contrast to a cinematic film or novel, television is based on ―discourse and the self-referential reality of human dialogue‖ (1985: 2). This feature is shared by game shows, talk shows or sports programming. According to Morse, television is a discursive medium because the viewer is addressed directly in two ways, through the host of a show or newscast and through television itself ―from a position of 25 subjectivity‖. Morse refers to the ―talking heads‖ on TV as ―quasi-subjects‖ since television converts the originally ―real‖ discourse into an ―imaginary‖ one (ibid. 6). In a reply to Morse‘s article Robert H. Deming agrees with her when he states that even the directly addressed segments are likely to be fictional ―because they imply a spontaneity of address, remarks, and a discourse especially formulated for that audience‖ (1985: 91).
Morse refers to Hans Magnus Enzensberger when stating that television as a ―technological and social form‖ prevents ―communication in the process‖ (1985: 3). Something that is not mentioned by Morse but is emphasized in Robert Deming‘s reply to Morse‘s article is that anchors and narrators usually struggle to maintain the credibility and reliability for themselves and their broadcasts. The way they present stories in the news reinforces ―the naturalness of their word choice‖ (1985: 89). In Deming‘s point of view our acceptance of the narrators and their acts of narration as well as ―representations of the real- world events as though they are real‖ is widely spread. ―Television news, sports, talk-shows and advertisements are not designed to change a viewer‘s attitudes or values but to reinforce the perception of what is ―really out there in the world‖ (ibid. 91).
Marshall highlights that in contrast to film celebrities, TV celebrities rely on the concept of familiarity which can be traced back to the period between the 20s and 50s when entertainment technologies (radio and television) became domesticated. The aim of television production was to address the mass audience and keep them interested. ―The television celebrity embodies the characteristics of familiarity and mass acceptability‖ (ibid. 119). The expression of the television celebrity originated from the radio personality that brought entertainment and information to the masses around the Second World War.
―In contrast to the film star, the television star who emerges as host and interpreter of the culture for the audience is treated as someone everyone has a right to know fully. His or her television life is subjected to daily scrutiny through his or her show.‖ (Marshall 2004b: 131)
Television and radio personalities delivered their messages through broadcast which separated them from film celebrities. When it comes to familiarity there is a number of things radio and television personalities have in common. Except for the fact that the radio listener cannot see the host but only hear him or her, the radio jockey and the news reporter both address the audience directly. ―The audience is included in the program‖ (ibid. 123). In radio and television, immediacy and the ―constructed sense that what is reported is very close to the 26 real events‖ emphasize the distinctiveness of newscasts. Marshall states that this correspondence with real events in real time refers to everyday life and thus goes hand in hand with Morse‘s assumption.
The capital of films and its stars is largely based on the box office receipts depending on the film audience. The broadcasting audience, on the other hand, did not explicitly follow certain stars or personalities. This audience was more likely to expect and receive information and entertainment. If a household owned a receiver it became a part of the broadcasting audience. ―In the United States, broadcasting became modalized around the selling […] of audiences – more specifically, the selling of audiences‘ time to advertisers‖ (ibid. 120). Marshall additionally explains that the growing control of networks over programming and the ―construction of audiences, advertisers and sponsors‖ were of great importance in building American broadcasting.
There are three different looks associated with the cinema: that of the camera as it records the pro-filmic event, that of the audience as it watches the final product, and that of the characters at each other within the screen illusion. The conventions of narrative film deny the first two and subordinate them to the third, the conscious aim being always to eliminate intrusive camera presence and prevent a distancing awareness in the audience. (Mulvey 1999: 843)
Whereas in narrative cinema the three looks are denied, television acknowledges them as Morse points out. In terms of film celebrities other messages are usually constructed within the narrative context, the television celebrity gets interrupted by out of context messages and images (e.g. advertisement) (cf. 1985:4). ―The film star maintains an integrity of being; the television star is pulled out of an aesthetic into the bare hands economics of production and consumption‖ (Marshall 2004: 121). Marshall explains the reduction of the ―aura of a television celebrity‖ by three aspects:
1. Television viewing is a domestic nature 2. The celebrity‘s common ground with the organization and the maintenance of consumer capitalism 3. The interrupted representation of the character‘s integrity and continuity due to commercial breaks
In film theory actors develop a star image. James Bennett states in his article ―The
27 television personality system‖ that the TV personality on the other hand, creates a ―televisual image‖ that is being constructed by the interplay between publicity, promotion and coverage and the onscreen appearances. ―Because of the importance of authenticity and ordinariness, the confusion between the television personality-as-a-person and the televisual image is particularly pronounced‖ (Bennett 2008: 35). Similar to the film star the image of the television personality also circulates with the help of additional appearances in magazines, newspapers or books. Especially when personalities are clearly marked by their vocational skills such as gardening, cooking or handicraft work instruction or educational books are of great importance. In the preceding chapters I have mentioned Geraghty‘s theory of the seamlessness of the public persona of television personalities.
According to Bennett this seamlessness is particularly important when distinguishing between the television actor (actors in sitcoms or drama series) and the television personality (game show hosts, magazine presenters). The onscreen and private personas of the performer are almost identical. The television personality appears as a public private individual. Bennett uses the example of the British TV cook Jamie Oliver who performs as himself on TV. The difference between a ―televisually skilled performer‖ and a ―vocally skilled performer‖ is that televisiually skilled performers do not demonstrate any other skills other than presenting. There is no connection between their private life and the content of the show they present. Usually these hosts present more than one show throughout their career ―within the broad genre of light entertainment‖ (ibid. 36). In contrast, Bennett explains that the vocationally skilled performer profits from his or her skill and its credibility that is strongly connected to performer‘s authentic character. In order to create this authentic image the ―star image‖ of the television personality has to remain hidden.
Whether vocationally or televisually skilled, the television personality will exemplify some kind of ‗ordinariness‘, implying that they can be perceived as ‗extraordinary ordinary‘, and this image will pervade their appearances across intertexts. (Bennett 2008, 37)
Regarding the image of the television personality the audience has to believe there is a ―perfect fit‖ between the private and the onscreen persona reached through ―a series of performances and continuity in programme, genre and performance style‖ (ibid. 38). Langer calls this the ‗television self‘ which is ―authenticated with each regular appearance‖ and ―coheres into the form of a ‗genuine‘ personality‖ (mentioned in Bennett 2008: 38f.). The way the presenter or host performs has to evoke the impression that everyone can do this. It 28 has to appear as ordinary. In television image and authenticity of the personality largely depend on
whether we understand them as a televisually or vocationally skilled performer. With the latter, authenticity is complemented and reinforced by the concept of credibility. Credibility functions in relation to vocational skill, reassuring the viewer that the skills being presented are authentic and worth investing (in the form of copying and learning. (Bennett 2008, 42)
4.1.1 Talk Shows
In the following two sections I would like to discuss the field of television talk shows in more detail in order to analyze the image of the biographical persona of Howard Stern on television compared to the image constructed in narrative cinema. Furthermore, I would also like to point out the similarities of talk show hosts on television and on the radio.
Late Night Talk Shows
Talk shows can be described as a sort of television program in which a host or hostess converses with celebrities during the show. A talk show usually consists of performances of different artists from the entertainment industry. Whereas the usual daytime talk show deals with regular, ordinary guests and their extraordinary issues, the late-night talk show resonates within topical media events and primarily famous personalities. These celebrities or extraordinary people usually attend a talk show in order to promote a movie, a book, recordings or other kinds of releases.
According to Morse, the relation between the talk show host and the viewer at home can vary. The viewer might not be included at all and therefore, may seem like a silent observer without being directly addressed, a voyeur. On the other hand, the viewer and the host can to some extent ally as a form of ―‘us‘ versus ‗those celebrities‘‖ (1985: 10). Marshall sees the mission of the host in making the guests reveal a secret or something else ―that goes beyond their intent of either personal promotion or cultural product promotion‖ (2004: 125). This goal is mainly achieved through a great amount of humor to blend the private and public persona of the guest. Familiarity is being created.
Marshall illustrates that film stars break out of the narrative realm of the filmic texts
29 and find themselves ―in the current time of live television‖ (ibid. 125). The audience in the studio as well as the audience at home witnesses an open conversation and are being addressed and looked at regularly. The aura of the film celebrity is being reduced because of his or her presence. ―The celebrity guest enters into the daily circulation of images and meanings of the audience‖ (ibid. 126). The talk show host is also considered to be a celebrity but in contrast to the famous guest the host is a product of television as an institution. The host can be seen as the mediator of familiarity. Television familiarizes the public sphere and its personalities. The host emphasizes this familiarity by ―deepening the private textual quality of celebrities‖ (ibid. 126). The celebrity quality of the host is also based around familiarity since he or she appears in the home the viewer on a regular basis.
Daytime Talk Shows
In talk shows, daytime and late night, the present audience is included by being addressed directly by the host. However, only in daytime talk shows the studio audience is usually allowed to ask questions or comment on the guests what also appears to express the concern of the audience at home. Television, as mentioned above, is ―constructing the familiar, and the talk show host perfectly portrays the ―familiarized subjectivity that television constructs for its audience‖ (Marshall 2004: 132).
The host organizes the entire event so that his or her own position is seen as sensible and rational. Talk shows are formatted around what is perceived as topical, and topicality is related to the show‘s construction or the currency and significance of the show. (Marshall, 2004, 124)
According to Marshall‘s analysis of The Oprah Winfrey Show the program is divided into ―several forms of ritual‖ responsible for the construction of Oprah Winfrey‘s personality. Oprah, the host, is the central character. The guests and the professional expert represent the minor characters and ―operate as infinitely replaceable characters and yet fulfil roughly the same function in each of the show‘s narratives‖ (2004: 133). The studio audience not only represents the audience at home, as mentioned earlier, but also the general public opinion ―because they are being heard‖ (ibid. 135). Similar to radio phone-in shows the members of the audience become a crucial part in the content of the show. Marshall describes this active participation as symbols for ―democratic action and will‖ (ibid. 134). By maintaining a close connection to a ―large, stable audience […] the commodity status of the celebrity‖ is secured. For talk show hosts the audience does not only maintain this status but also becomes a part of 30 the celebrity‘s identity through the live studio audience (ibid. 134). In terms of personality Oprah is constructed by the following factors based on Marshall:
Subject matter Relationship to the studio audience Empathy Familiarity – intimacy Serialization
Similar to Howard Stern who seems to appear as the typical, usually discontent American everyman, Oprah is also represented as one from the people. All in all,
the Oprah Winfrey Show was designed through its star to reconfigure daytime audiences through its construction of difference. The show is an attempt to recast the social world and the categorization of the groupings in the social world in terms of slightly different definitions and distinctions. […] the positioning of a new television program is a construction of a discourse of the Other. (Marshall 2004: 138)
Marshall mentions Phil Donahue as the first person to host a talk show dealing with social issues. Similar to Donahue, Oprah‘s show ―rose from local success to national syndication‖ (ibid. 138). This was of particular importance to construct their celebrity status and their authenticity. In terms of radio, the same success story applies to Howard Stern as discussed later in the case study. Oprah‘s regular presence on television and in magazines limits her ―ability to construct a distance and aura. […] Oprah is constantly being accused of something in the tabloid press‖ (ibid. 143). Those continuous debates including accusations and justifications distinguish the television star from the film star due to being ―more familiar and also susceptible to the advice of her audience and the press‖ (ibid. 143).
Marshall compares Oprah Winfrey with Tom Cruise and highlights that whereas Cruise is constructed as one big secret, Oprah remains to be ―an open book‖, an additional analogy to Stern. Marshall concludes that the television personality can never be separated from its audience. The private life of an authentic host is always a part of the onscreen performance. Oprah portrays ―the full complexity of the television celebrity‖ by depending ―upon proximity to and powers of explaining other celebrities‖ (ibid.148).
31
5 STARS AND SEMIOTICS
According to McDonald star studies profit from three aspects of semiotics. Firstly, stars can be analyzed by the signs created around their star image. Secondly, it demonstrates the reason why stars are not adored because of one unique, inherent talent but because of their relation to ideological values dealing with race, gender or class. Lastly, the star-audience relationship is not an issue of ―industry manipulation‖ but is based on the ―constructions of cultural identity‖ (1995: 81).
5.1 Ideological Values
Allen refers to Richard Dyer‘s Marxist analysis of stardom. The fact that Hollywood films represent the dominant ideology of Western society makes this ideology seem to be the ―natural‖ perspective of the world. The task of the movie star thus is to maintain this dominance. The star image ―renders fundamental problems unproblematic, defuses possible threats to the dominant ideology, and makes social-class issues appear to be personal ones‖ (2004: 608). Butler argues that within the field of contemporary star studies, star images do not reflect the values of a society. The polysemic image of a star is rather seen as ―a part of the meaning system of that star‘s society, the ideology of that particular time and place‖ (ibid. 345). Therefore, the goal of star studies is to investigate how ideologies in terms of race, gender and class are related to the meaning of a star image.
What makes ideology so important for Dyer are the conflicts and contradictions which are often illustrated through the stars‘ images. Butler mentions that stars manage to resolve those ideological contradictions which are not likely to be solved in reality (1998: 347). Even though Dyer claims the images of stars to be constructs that do not represent real personalities, he also notes that the performer is still needed to display the signs that construct the image. Thus, the resolution of ideological contradictions notably works ―because they are signified as property of one person‖ (mentioned in McDonald 1995: 82). The next step is the naturalization of the meanings by the star. The star portrays an individual identity and not a social construct which results in a ―double ideological closure‖.
It is known that denotation describes the literal meaning of a sign everyone can
32 recognize. Connotation reflects the cultural, social and personal background of a person. The associative meaning of the sign can vary depending on the gender, race or age of the viewer or receiver of the sign. In Roland Barthes‘ Mythologies he points out that a certain signifier denotes a particular meaning which consequently leads to more meanings due to connotation. He describes myth as ―a type of speech‖. Thus, if something originates in a discourse ―everything can be a myth‖ (1973: 109). The literal meaning of myth is only secondary. It is the intention of myth to turn history into natural. With the young, black soldier on a cover of a French magazine Barthes illustrates that the signifier, the black soldier, can be viewed from two perspectives: ―the final term of the linguistic system, or as the first term of the mythical system‖. Barthes calls the final term of the linguistic system ‗meaning‘ and the second one ‗form‘. This ambiguity does not apply to the signified. The third term would be a ―correlation‖ of these two and is called ―term of myth the signification. [...] It points out and it notifies, it makes us understand something and it imposes on us‖ (ibid. 115).
The three different ways to read myths either focus on the meaning, form or both. First, the focus is on an ―empty signifier‖ which excludes ambiguity due to literal signification. In the case of the black soldier, the soldier is a symbol for French imperiality. Second, the focus is on a ―full signifier‖. There is a clear difference between meaning and form ―and the distortion which the one imposes on the other‖ (ibid. 127). The myth of the signification becomes undone and makes the form seem like an imposture. The black soldier transforms into an ―alibi of French imperiality‖. The third type of reading focuses on meaning and form as a whole resulting in ambiguity. The signifier is not just a symbol but the presence of a certain institution. Instead of a symbol or alibi, the black soldier ―is the very presence of French imperiality‖. In the end, Barthes points out that it is the task of the reader of the myths to find out what they mean.
According to Lakoff‘s and Johnson‘s myths can be seen as metaphors. Within a culture or society we experience something and make sense of it (1980: 185f.). According to Barthes myths are reflections of what we believe are true. The most important aspect about myths is not that they mean something but how a particular meaning comes to life (1973: 206). To become a star, he or she has to embody a certain myth as Sommer puts it. There has to be a specific and traditional pattern embedded in an appropriate context everyone is familiar with. The origin, however, needs to be unknown. Thus, the secret of stardom consists of two aspects. The first one deals with the origin of the myth and the second one deals with
33 the question how one particular human being is able to embody this myth. Sommer justifies the exceptional and exclusive status with the star being the bearer of this secret. The star is built on myths, whether it is the young rebel, the temptress or the hero. The star appears as their reincarnation reflecting the attitudes of their time and culture (cf. 1997: 114f.).
As far as the image is concerned, the biographical persona cannot always maintain its flawless image due to ageing and other flaws. It is the persistency of dead stars that makes them more suitable candidates to own a mythic image. The myth can no longer be ruined by human flaws.
5.2 Charisma
Dyer states that according to Weber‘s theory of charisma, ―the notion of charisma […] does combine concepts of social function with an understanding of ideology. Weber (cited in Dyer 1979:30) came up with three alternatives to legitimate political order:
tradition – we do the things we are used to do bureaucracy – we do things according to rules charisma – the leader suggests us do things
What political leaders and stars have in common is that the charisma of both is based on the question ―how or why a given person comes to have ‗charisma‘ attributed to him/her‖ (ibid. 30). As stated by E. A. Shils, ―charismatic quality‖ of a person is based on its connection with ―some very central feature of man‘s existence and the cosmos in which he lives‖ (cited in Dyer 1979: 30). As soon as there is an uncertainty or instability within a social order charisma is most effective because it provides ―value, order or stability to counterpoise this‖ (ibid. 31).
In contrast to Dyer‘s point of view, the non-Marxist sociologist Francesco Alberoni sees stars as powerless in terms of politics and social power, but due to their ―charisma‖ the public develops an immense fascination in favor of the stars. In Alberoni‘s opinion stars lead a life of wealth that is open to the public and therefore they ―are idolized but not resented.‖ At this point we get back to the paradoxical meaning of stars. ―The star is powerless, yet powerful‖. The private life of a star is hardly ever connected to occupation of being an actor. 34
Still, to a large extent the image of the star is based on the private life (marriage, fashion, home, etc.) rather than on professional matters. Allen argues that the star image as an individual summarizes ―a set of issues‖ prominent in society such as ―wealth, romance, success, social behavior, and consumption‖ and thus represent a somewhat ―social as well as aesthetic discourse‖ (2004: 608). As soon as actors turn into stars their image is socially present. ―The combination of familiarity and extraordinariness gives the celebrity its ideological power‖ (Marshall: 2006: 86).
5.3 Authenticity
Holmes insinuates Dyer‘s main thesis was that the charisma of a star has little to do with a certain quality inherent in a person but ―a product of the ways in which their image engages social issues and dilemmas‖ (McDonald cited in Holmes 2006: 12). Due to the fact that fame has often played an integral part in the search for individuality in western culture it has been of great importance in creating social and cultural identity. As Holmes puts it, the purpose of Dyer‘s work was to investigate how stars convey the idea about being an individual person. According to Dyer the driving force behind the attempt to illustrate ―authenticity‖ and the ―real self‖ was the ―desire to suggest a separable, coherent quality, located inside consciousness and variously termed ‗the self‘, ‗the soul‘, ‗the subject‘…‖ (Dyer cited in Holmes 2006: 14).
Alan Lovell, however, claims stars as too unstable and superficial to function as ideological models and thus do not represent a unified identity. ―Stars are the polar opposite of the solid bourgeois citizen…‖ (Lovell cited in Holmes 2006: 14). According to Holmes, Dyer was aware of this when he said that the mass media was responsible for the ―invasion and destruction of the inner self and the corruptibility of public life‖ (2006: 14). In other words, due to hype and manipulation stars were able to demonstrate how discourses work in terms of constructing identity (Holmes 2006: 14).
Through time the explanation of fame has changed. Whereas right at the beginning of the history fame was all about ‗greatness‘ the emphasis in classical Hollywood laid on the natural process of becoming famous. Later, when the number of media outlets began to rise the ―increasing visibility of the publicity machine itself‖ endangered the existence of those myths. Sommer points out that the biographical person behind the star image is not visible 35 within the immediate field of experience. It is controlled and adjusted to the star image (cf. 1997: 119). Gamson raises awareness of ―the construction of an ironic and mocking perspective on celebrity culture, and an increased emphasis on‖ the growing importance of the control of the audience (2006: 15).
In inviting the audience to see ‗behind‘ the image, or adopting an ironic perspective on the field, it may avoid the more ‗disruptive notion that there is nothing behind a fabricated, performed image but layers of other fabricated, performed images‘ (Gamson in Holmes, 2006, 16).
What is important for the audience is to discover ―the authentic nature of the star beyond the screen‖ (Marshall 2004: 85). As Holmes states celebrity magazines these days represent an ironic perspective towards celebrity culture through following celebrities while they are doing ordinary things such as shopping or walking their dogs. Moreover, celebrities are shown as imperfect persons like everybody else with the help of ―candid photography, blurred focus and grainy aesthetic negotiating ―the belief in the ‗higher truth of the stolen image‖ (ibid. 16). When celebrities pose for candid pictures (e.g. Victoria Beckham) it would endanger the authenticity of the shot and is therefore even criticized by the magazines.
Dyer comes up with two qualities which have always been mostly appreciated in a star, sincerity and authenticity (cf. 1979: 20f.). Lowry adds that fans as well as the press aspire to reveal the truth behind the star as a private persona. This can only be achieved if a certain difference between the public and the private person is maintained (1997:14). Marshall states that with the help of ―extratextual reports‖ the audience is capable of constructing a ―coherent‖ identity of a star. But this identity is never complete. Through interviews, media reports, images and films the identity of a celebrity is provided with ―conceptions of freedom, independence and individuality‖ (2004a: 85).
5.4 Intertextuality
Geraghty divides the star into three categories: the celebrity, the performer and the professional in order to point out the similarities and differences of film stars to other public figures present in the mass media (2002: 187f.). When it comes to the term celebrity we cannot really speak of fame reached through work and effort. This type of fame rests on the shoulders of gossip, press and public relations. What seems to be most important in this
36 category is how all the information gathered through these sources creates the biography of the star. In other words, intertextuality is the key term in this field. Intertextuality, according to McDonald, describes the interplay of Dyer‘s four categories to create an image: promotion, publicity, film text and criticism. Due to the instability of a stars image, intertextuality ―is the only meaning that the star ever has. […] the star‘s image cannot exist or be known outside this shifting series of texts‖ (1995: 83).
The gap between film stars and stars of other areas becomes smaller because ―in the celebrity mode the films are relatively unimportant and a star can continue to command attention as a celebrity despite failures at the box office‖ (Geraghty 2002: 189). Professionals, in contrast to celebrities, become famous because of their work. Private life only plays a very small part on their road to fame. Especially television personalities are thrown into this category because of their rather consistent identity. Examples would be newsreaders, journalists or chat-show hosts. Also regularly appearing characters of fictional TV shows such as in soap operas or situation comedies can be associated with this category because ―the actor is hidden behind the character and recognized only through that association‖ (ibid. 187).
The duality of the star can be reached ―when a biography is brought to the audience‘s attention‖ as in the case of Roseanne. In film, stars as professionals link their identities to certain genres. Jim Carrey, for instance, stands for a certain type of comedy whereas Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger represent the paradigm for action heroes. Geraghty emphasizes the importance of a consistent star image because deviating too much from the ―established star image‖ may be disappointing the ―intended audience‖ (ibid. 189). In Der Star: Geschichte – Rezeption – Bedeutung Faulstich, Korte, Lowry and Strobel mention the limits of Schwarzenegger‘s attempt to fathom the possibilities of his roles. Whereas the movie Twins happened to be a success because of combining action and comic elements, the movie Junior, a comedy, failed. Last Action Hero could not live up to the expectations of his old fans. Other movie goers avoided the movie because of Schwarzenegger‘s original image (cf. 1997: 20).
Dyer made a clear distinction between acting styles as Geraghty points out. First, there is the Hollywood studio style in which ―the actor appears to play himself or herself‖ and secondly, there is the Broadway style in which actor and character are clearly differentiated. The Hollywood style stood for personification, meaning that stars in large part played
37 themselves including their own gestures and expressions and not the ones of the character. Key words in this category are ―stability‖, ―repetition‖ and ―consistency‖.
Similar to the professional, the performer mainly relies on his or her work too. However, the star‘s talents do not remain hidden. For instance, Jean Claude Van Damme and Chuck Norris clearly draw the audience‘s attention to their martial arts skills. What characterizes the performer is the fact that the actor ―is often associated with the high cultural values of theatrical performance‖ (2002: 188).
The more actors are known for their work, the more cultural value they achieve. Another good example of a performing actor would be Robert DeNiro. Throughout his career DeNiro has successfully portrayed different roles in various kinds of genres. Also, very little of his private life and his real personality are known to the public and yet, he is considered a star. Faulstich, Korte, Lowry and Strobel argue whether DeNiro can even be labelled a star due to the lack of an identifiable persona and a cultural identity when it comes to synchronic continuity, the relationship between appearance and real existence of a person (cf. 1997: 20).
For film stars, performing has become more crucial since the status of a celebrity can be easily achieved by soap stars and pop musicians as well. The tendency towards the star as a performer describes ―a way of re-establishing film-star status through‖ the film text alone. In contrast to the star as a professional, the performer clearly distinguishes between the actor and the character. Geraghty claims method acting as a crucial element of the star as a performer (2002: 192). The emphasis is laid on ―emotion expressed through gesture and sound‖ and thus makes the body very important. Even though the character and the self merge into one, ―the audience who follows the 1990s‘ performer is aware of the gap between star and character in which the performance is taking place‖ (ibid. 193).
In Geragthy‘s opinion cinema provides a rather ―inefficient‖ platform to provide fame compared to television or magazines. She claims that regular appearances of stars from spheres like television or music make them more accessible to the audience and therefore ―more available to function as stars‖ (ibid. 193).
The three categories, according to Geraghty (ibid. 193) can be distinguished as follows. First, the star as a celebrity reaches its fame through not acting at all. The star as a
38 professional is characterized by covert acting whereas the star as a performer can be defined by overt acting. It is up to the audience and to the stars themselves whether to ―exploit the full range of mass media exposure or to establish pleasures around stardom which are specifically related to the film text and to cinema‖ (ibid. 188). The purpose studies based on intertextuality is to make sense of the individual identity within modern society. Stars are said to embody the ideal public idea of the individual.
39
6 THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STAR IMAGE
In his article ―Stars und Images‖ Stephen Lowry argues that earlier attempts to define a star‘s image based on individual features were not prolific. The results could not be generalized. This leads to the assumption that various characteristics such as beauty, talent and sex-appeal can result in becoming a star but according to Lowry, they are not required. The star image owns integral social and historical dimensions because, as Lowry argues, the image can only be understood in the context of social definitions related to the individual, personality, gender, love and sexuality, work and free time, moral and political values and ideologies. This enables the audience to analyze relevant questions and issues. The audience can use the image to symbolically evaluate ideological issues to define personality and individual within society (cf. 1997:24).
Earlier I have already mentioned how the star works as a product. In addition, the star also functions as a ―representational system‖ as Staiger states (1997:51). Stars as actors are being associated with different characteristics they display in a movie. The image of the star thus can simplify the characterization of a role which makes the access to the beginning of the plot much easier. Star images allow a better way of narrating a story. They can also be used to support the credibility of change in a certain character. According to Staiger, stars can play a role that does not conform to their stereotypical roles. This discrepancy can have all sorts of effect on the career of a star as well as on the plot of the movie. For example, the character the played by the star does not need to match the image of the star at first. Throughout the movie the character can turn into a role that, at the end, matches the usual image of the star. This reappearance of the ―authentic‖ image makes the movie seem coherent and true for the audience (cf. 51).
Another purpose of the star is the embodiment of ideologies. Stars maintain the ―status quo‖ through confirmation, seduction or transfiguration. With the help of the audience stars can also ―compensate‖ what they lack in life. Lowry illustrates that the image of the star does not only consist of the information, images and texts provided by the media but rather is a product of processing these signs and discourses (cf. 1997: 26) The secret that makes actors turn into stars is what Lowry describes as ―star quality, charisma or aura‖ which results from the interaction between the recipient and the semiotic material. The particular star image is
40 being created through the reception of the semiotic elements. Lowry further adds that this reception is divided into subjective factors and culturally determined reception. The former depends on individual situations, psychological conditions of the recipients as well as socio- psychological tendencies or basic mechanisms such as ―identification‖, ―projection‖ and ―cognitive abilities‖. The latter relies on cultural values, ideologies and discourses in order to construct a star image (Stacey 1994: 126-175 mentioned in Lowry 1997: 26).
There are different meanings that are created through selective reception related to historical context and changes with the example of James Dean. The central meaning of James Dean is the one of a rebel, whereas his movies only partially evoke this meaning. It was not until his death when James Dean became an iconic figure. According to Lowry, Dean was irrelevant during the 60s and 70s. 1975 he then became an icon for beauty, narcissism and androgyny. However, this change has nothing to do with the image of James Dean rather than with changes within a cultural context and how recipients deal with the image. (cf. ibid. 1997: 27)
Lowry points out that text and reception of an image are two moments of the construction of meaning. These moments are only effective when integrated in specific historical and cultural discourses. Discourses communicate between individual and society. They enable, regulate and limit the link of signs and meanings. The meaning of a star image, according to Lowry, is determined through an extended intertextuality. Neither the star‘s movies nor secondary texts determine his or her meaning. This intertextuality ranges to general cultural intertexts, to ―social text‖ of historical discourses within a society (Brenkman 1979 mentioned in Lowry 1997: 28). The discourse offers a frame where particular aspects of meaning can be situated. This frame can specify the connection between the image and its use through the audience. Dean can be described as a prototypical figure for a particular period of time. The meaning of James Dean is not just a construct resulting from his movie characters. Lowry explains this construction of meaning as a result of the collision between the star image and discursive complexes that already existed.
6.1 The Search for the “Right” Image
As mentioned in Chapter 3, in the periods of classic Hollywood (1917 – 1955) the studios controlled the image of a star. The studios wanted the star as a performer to be in line with the 41 star as a biographical person. This was not the case when the star as a performer took over the role of an unethical character or when the star as a biographical person was threatened by a scandal (Staiger 1997: 52). In the new ―studio-period‖ (1955 until now) actors try to maintain and control their image themselves or through experts. Staiger lists five theories dealing with finding the ―right‖ star image (cf. ibid 53):
1. The film industry forces the “right” star image on the audience.
This theory equals the manipulation theory through which the industry can force images and ideologies on the audience, provided the audience is very manipulable. For this reason the theory is insufficient.
2. The audience forces the “right” image on the film industry.
The opposite of the first theory has more followers. According to this thesis, the star image faces the collective attitude of the audience consisting of cultural questions, needs and desires. However, the choice of images available to the audience is fairly limited as King criticizes this theory referring to the required sovereignty of the audience.
3. The star image appears to be “right” because of habit.
This theory suggests that an image appears to be ―right‖ due to its steady development. The image seems to be natural because of a diligent construction of a personal image with the help of the roles the star plays in the movies. This theory cannot explain why certain images seem ―right‖ immediately whereas other images never do.
4. The “right” star image results out of a conflict between the interest of the studios in standardized movies and the interest of an individual actor in his or her own career.
This theory describes the star‘s contribution in building his career. Due to the fact that not all stars take care of their careers themselves, this model only stands for a part of the overall process.
5. The “right” star image is the result of a number of attempts including all participants
42
(industry, actor, audience).
Film studios try out various versions of an image. The image then will be adjusted according to the reactions of the audience. Through public relations the studios try to convince the audience that the image is right. Similar to the second theory it has to be considered that not every possible image is available for the audience. Staiger concludes that it does not matter whether the image of a star is right or successful. The image of a star never remains the same throughout the entire career (1997: 53). In Lowry‘s point of view the star image exists and is being constructed over a longer period of time. In the course of time, a star can lose all its meaning and can change his or her image. Moreover, the star can communicate various meanings in different contexts to different parts of the audience. In the end, no image can guarantee eternal success (cf. 1997:30).
Outer-filmic Image
The outer-filmic image is based on the publicly known private life of the star which is mediated by the media (press, commercials, television etc.) in particular. We receive all information about the star through various media outlets. Sometimes it is about the star as an actor but for the most part it is about the star as a private person. The signs that are most essential for the stars image are the ones that point to the star‘s biography, to his or her attitudes and especially, to the star‘s family life and lifestyle (ibid.17).
Inner-filmic Image
The inner-filmic image consists of elements such as the movie role, genre, the star‘s performance as well as the filmic production and representation. Within each of these categories numerous details and complex utterances provide us with information about the star and the role (ibid. 16).
In terms of content, the inner-filmic and outer-filmic image can be divided in several subgroups including characteristics, attributes and life context. Elements that a presented to the audience by the media consist of lifestyle of the star, particular behavior, appearance, his or her family and love life or ideals. Lowry points out that personal features as well as filmic signs are not digital, but analog. They do not have one fixed meaning but create meaning
43 through their composition within text, context and according to their reception. Regarding semiotics it is of great importance to detect the composition of the image and the different signs and elements of filmic and common signification. Therefore, Lowry claims analytical methods are hardly applicable universally but serve a useful purpose when it comes to analyzing specific star images (ibid. 20).
6.2 The Categories of the Star Image
The star image is said to be constructed within a framework consisting of ―success, consumption, and romance‖, at least according to Dyer. The themes always remain the same and may ―involve other themes as well‖ but their structure differs. Allen illustrates that whereas Garbo insists on having a private life, stars like Jane Fonda and Ronald Reagan fathom the political aspects of stardom (cf. Allen 2004: 609). In order to rebuild the star image Dyer comes up with four categories that are necessary to create the complete image of the star:
Promotion Publicity Films Critizism and commentary
6.2.1 Promotion
Promotion includes everything that is controlled by the star and his or her representatives. According to Dyer you need certain texts in order to produce a ―particular image or image context for a particular star.‖ These texts belong to the category of promotion which includes press releases, photographs published by the studio and public appearances. In the times of classic Hollywood during the 1920s and 1930s actors were bound to the contract they had with a studio which allowed them to have absolute control over the star‘s looks and appearance, thus the entire image of the star. Stephen Lowry points out that it was of great interest to the studios to carefully build and maintain a stable star image (cf. 1997: 22). This was carried out by the publicity department. Allen states that the star was not allowed to make a public appearance connected with a movie or sound recording if the studio had not agreed on it (cf. 2004: 609). Such contract also obligated the star to act in any film chosen by the 44 studio and to promote the movies accordingly. ―Name and physical likeness‖ of the star were property of the studio. Also, as Lowry adds, the interaction between the star and the audience was directed by the studio. In the end, all effort by the studio is in vain if the audience does not accept the star. Lowry highlights that it is not until the reception of the audience when the image of the star gets meaning (cf. 1997: 23).
6.2.2 Publicity
Stars are publicly present but they do not have control over their publicity texts. Their presence does not need to have a promotional effect. Stars give interviews, offer an insight to their private life and are subjects of gossip columns. Dyer explains that the purpose of publicity was for the star to appear as an authentic person not depending on a studio, even though articles about stars were arranged by the studio. ―Through publicity we like to think we are able to pierce through the façade constructed for the star by the studio and get at the inside and unauthorized details of the star‘s persona‖ (Allen 2004: 611).
In The star system and Hollywood Jeremy Butler provides an example for the case when promotion and publicity are not clearly two different pairs of shoes. Newspapers and magazines once revealed the secret that the famous actor and TV-star Roseanne Barr had given up a child for adoption when she was a teenager. The publication of those articles affected the understanding or Roseanne‘s skills as a mother. What made those news even more important was how much they related to her role as a mother in her self-titled sitcom. Butler points out that usually the two components of motherhood and abandoning a baby would be in conflict with one another, but not in the context of Roseanne and the type of mother she represents in the show. Even though being a bad mother does not really nurture the positive component of her role as Roseanne, it does not contradict it either. ―Roseanne, as with all true stars, possesses an image constructed from interlocking media texts‖ (1998: 350). Thus, intertextuality is a crucial element in order to understand stars.
6.2.3 Films
According to Dyer, films function as a means to communicate or associate that star with a certain character of genre (mentioned in Allen 2004: 615). Consequently, for every type of star there is a certain type of character together with the right genre, provided the star 45 conformed ―to any existing star-type‖. Allen notes that in the case of Bette Davis, for example, it was not easy to put a label on her and thus, it made it difficult for Hollywood studios to find a film that matched her type (cf. ibid. 615). Nowadays this does not seem to be a problem anymore since a large number of actors and actresses switch their role types on a regular basis.
Jane Staiger supports Dyer‘s point of view by listing three reasons why stars are useful in order to ―sell‖ a Hollywood movie. First, stars offer production value as well as guarantee quality of a particular movie. To know about the appearance of certain star as well as the genre and the supporting cast helps studios and movie theater owners to somewhat control the expectations of the movie. Secondly, the star functions as product differentiation to let the audience know about what makes the movie so special. The third reason describes stars as ―idols of consumption‖. This term was used by Leo Lowenthal in 1961 to demonstrate how actors and stars are used as biographical persons to sell images of how and what people are supposed to consume (cf. Staiger 1997: 51).
6.2.4 Criticism and Commentary
This section includes reviews, articles and other interpretative articles on the star‘s movies and other performances. Reviewers may help promoting the star‘s image but for the most part they are representing the audience‘s response to an already created image. According to Dyer ―criticism helps to add complexity to the star-image and helps to account for changes in public reception of the star‖ (Allen 2004: 617). This can lead to helping choosing future co- stars or promoting one particular aspect of the ―star‘s screen performance‖.
These four categories are supposed to help the film historian in the following matters: location, complexity and changes of the star image. According to Allen the process of public film viewing marks the first ―point of convergence‖ of three social processes. The first process brings the movie on the screen. The second process is about making the audience going to see the movie. The last one describes how society is represented in the movie ―within the filmic text‖. Other aspects considered within social film include publicity, promotion of the stars, different viewing situations in other countries and cultures. These and other aspects indicate the ―complexity of the social processes involved in film production and reception‖ and therefore, make it impossible to jump to quick conclusions (cf. ibid. 619).
46
7 AUDIENCE AND FANDOM
According to Korte, Strake-Behrendt it is the audience that makes the actor, athlete or musician become a star (1992: 173f.). Marshall states that the tension between the ―possibility and impossibility of knowing the authentic individual‖ navigates the relationship between the audience and the (film) celebrity (2004a: 90). What makes a star so desirable for the audience is the distinction between the star as a real person and the elements of his or her identity displayed in films, interviews or magazines. For the general viewer particular fragments of the identity are said to be enough. For others, the characters of the films contribute enough to the celebrity‘s identity. This does not apply to real fans. According to Marshall the core of identity must be examined in more detail through ―closer representations of existence and identity‖ (ibid. 90). Fans contribute to keep the identity of a star coherent by distributing information in order to gain a deeper insight into the ―star‘s true nature‖. Fandom goes beyond the material one can find in magazines and newspapers.
Since the beginning of the film industry it has been a widespread belief that anyone can be a star regardless of one‘s background; ―the myth of democratic access‖. Marshall points out that it was not so much the actors talent but the history of the star that was of great importance to the public. ―Humble beginnings, hard work, and honesty were the extratextual signs of the film celebrity that supported this myth of the democratic art.‖ Fame and fortune mostly were used to illustrate the danger of corrupting the ―ordinary human being housed in the star personality‖ (ibid. 91).
The dynamic power of the aesthetic of a film celebrity‘s wealth and leisure contributed to the definition of ―pleasure through consumption for all segments of society‖ (ibid. 92). Marshall uses the image of the healthy body as the ideal example for the power of Hollywood stars to influence society. Tanned skin, at first, stood for physical labor under the sun. Therefore intensified lighting was used to emphasize the healthy look of the film stars. With the growing connotation of being able to do nothing but lying in the sun ―the film star worked in this domain of breaking down and reconstructing conceptions of distinctions‖ (ibid. 92).
Thus, having a tan skin later became an indicator for wealth and leisure. The field of consumption made the film star‘s identity connected with the field of ―nonwork‖. The star
47 became a paradigm for consumption. All the rumors and gossip spread through magazines and newspapers about the tragic lives of Hollywood film stars fills the gap between the identity ―constructed by the film star and that constructed by the audience‖. Usually immediate success of a film star was claimed to be the origin of failure for deriving from the ―person‘s true nature‖. In terms of lifestyles, stars represented the extreme. It was then the viewer‘s task to find ―some kind of balance‖ (ibid. 93).
In Sommer‘s point of view the tension between familiarity and distance is the main motive for the identification of a single fan with the idol. Familiarity with the values embodied by the stars enables the identification. The idol‘s specific attractiveness and myth are the reason to approach and compare with the ideal of the group and thus, the ideal of one‘s own identity. This approach has two dimensions according to Sommer (cf. 1997: 118):
1. Social attraction: approaching the highly attractive other 2. Identification in a strict sense: identification with someone seemingly alike
Lowry clarifies that stars do not mean the same to people who reject them as they do to their fans (cf. 1997:23). Through the imagination of the recipient the star becomes a fictional person, an ―inferred personality‖ as Fowles (1992: 66 cited in Lowry 1997: 24) calls it. This fictional person gets equipped with special features and creates highly significant meanings and emotional effects for his or her fans and viewers. These polysemic signs get supercharged with meanings, selectively carried out and different information, texts and signs get connected (ibid. 24).
In Sommer‘s eyes, fans want to keep their idol to themselves and want to be loved by him or her. Also they want to be like him or her. Female teenagers that idolize male musicians, as in the case of ―Take That‖, exemplify another form of identification with an idol. In the case of John Lennon and his murderer Mark David Chapman, one can speak of an extreme case of identification in a strict sense. Not only did the murderer adopt John Lennon‘s behavior, clothing and hair style but also used Lennon‘s name on his working attire and even had a Japanese wife. Sommer assumes the reason for the murder could be that the sole existence of John Lennon was the only thing that reminded Chapman that he was not him (cf. 1997: 118). Lowry adds that even though the intensity of fandom can reach a stadium of loss of reality, the fan‘s activities represent only one way of receiving stars. Fans rather
48 demonstrate continuous moments of the construction of meaning and of the dependence on context within star reception (1997:27).
In order to explain the identification with the star more clearly, Sommer comes up with three different perspectives: the individual perspective, the intergroup perspective and the temporal perspective (cf. 1997: 120).
The Individual Perspective
People can belong to various social groups at once and therefore, can admire more stars at the same time. Due to the individual importance of each category stars are esteemed and respected accordingly. Thus stars have different impacts on the personal identity of a person (cf. 120).
The Intergroup Perspective
This perspective describes the fact the different social groups have different idols. The star image of the one biographical person can vary between different groups. For example, Dyer (1986 mentioned in Sommer 1997: 129) found out that the star image of Judy Garland was constructed differently by homosexual men and the average audience. The reading of the homosexual audience was unofficial whereas the reading of the average older female fans was regarded as official.
The Temporal Perspective
In Sommer‘s point of view idols change according to the change of group values. Especially younger sub-cultures are responsible for the change of values. The youth has to find their identity within the area of conflict consisting of the values of older generations (parents) and new requirements of society. This conflict results in new concepts of identity causing new identities and styles including new idols. Idols function as origin for new subcultures and as catalysts for the diffusion of the styles of those subcultures. Not conformity but originality and individuality are the norm (e.g. Punk movement) (cf. 1997: 121).
There has also been a growing demand for role models and the interest in there
49 authentic personality. It does not matter what kind of values stars seem to embody. Stars basically represent individuality. Stars demonstrate how an individual can deal with society‘s requirements. Even though the private sphere gained more importance, the myth of the star image is still alive. The seemingly authentic presentation of the star is constructed as much as the role image. The portrayal of the biographical persona conforms to the known image. Even apparent contradictions (modesty, no airs and graces) comply with the image. Sommer states that even though this private image is not staged by a director, the star can be expected to behave according to his image (cf. 1997: 122).
50
8 CASE STUDY: HOWARD STERN
Howard Stern is considered one of radio‘s most controversial talk show hosts. His show ―The Howard Stern Show‖ was just the beginning on his way to become the ―King of All Media‖. The controversial themes that often consist of hilarious, somewhat graphic descriptions of various sexual activities and his frequent use of profanity brought him the label of a ―shock jock‖ which is used to
describe a type of any radio broadcaster […] who attracts attention using humor that a significant portion of the listening audience may find offensive. The term is usually used pejoratively to describe provocative or irreverent broadcasters whose mannerisms, statements and actions are typically offensive to many listeners. It is a general-media term, rarely or never used within the radio industry (Shock jock, n.d.).
This reputation helped Stern to become one of the most talked about and most listened-to early morning radio personalities. Even though Stern had a large number of followers the show also brought him a lot of opposition from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). During the period that is featured in the movie Private Parts Stern‘s co- stars consist of co-host and news anchor Robin Quivers, writer and performer Fred Norris (who is also responsible for various sound effects on the show), executive producer Gary Dell‘Abate and head writer Jacky Martling. Besides Stern‘s staff members various, extraordinary guests such as drag queens, prostitutes and occasionally rock and film stars are invited to the show. Things that make people tune in and listen include frequent phone calls from his often angry wife and his mother complaining about Stern‘s overly frank display of his private life as well as his calls to lawyers, politicians, famous actors, and others in the news. On air he tells the listeners how he feels no matter how personal or delicate a topic is. When one bases his or her assumptions about Howard Stern‘s persona according to what he says on his show Howard Stern seems to fully enjoy fame and stardom. This becomes clear in the following excerpt of The Howard Stern Show when Stern was listening to and commenting on an old interview of Patrick Swayze about fame and stardom:
Patrick Swayze: You know the loneliness of stardom was a sort of…was a big… Howard Stern: The loneli…I was lonely when I wasn‘t a star. Robin Quivers: [laughs hysterically] Stern: Nobody would talk to me. Are you sh***ing me?! The loneliness of 51
stardom. That‘s one thing I can‘t even relate to. Stern: Thank God, I became famous. I finally got some friends. […] Stern: I went to parties and people wouldn‘t even talk to me when I wasn‘t famous. Now I walk in and you thought Jesus walked in. People wouldn‘t leave me alone. […] Swayze: So I went into researching how, you know, other people have dealt with stardom well and other people that didn‘t deal with stardom well and… Stern: Really? I‘m dealing with it great. Swayze: I think by doing that, putting a consciousness on it is the only reason I‘ve lived through it. Stern: My goodness, I have a complete opposite opinion of stardom. […] People who would never talk to me suddenly talk to me. Quivers: And here is how he survived being taken in by the trappings of Hollywood. Swayze: Somewhere in my insides this little bird has always said, ―Don‘t buy it. Don‘t buy Hollywood. Don‘t buy the hype.‖ Stern: I buy it! I thank God for it. Swayze: Stay the person you are. Stern: Stay the person you are?! You should‘ve seen what I was! Swayze: […] I figured the only way to do that is live a simple, rural lifestyle. Stern: Nice. That‘s the way. You work to get famous to live a simple rural lifestyle. This is a guy who was never left alone in a TV room in a girls‘ college. […] I don‘t know what stardom he‘s talking about. (The Howard Stern Show)
Whether or not Howard really feels this way about stardom, this excerpt provides a good example for Howard‘s on air-personality and what people expect to hear: hardly to non- existent discretion. He speaks what is on his mind.
In the book Howard Stern: King Of All Media – The unauthorized Biography Paul Colford describes Stern as someone who ―transformed the radio industry‖. Stern managed to become one of the ―most influential personalities in the history of broadcasting largely because he ‗abandoned‘ the fixtures of the radio trade‖ (1996: xi). It seems Howard Stern has no limits. One of his strengths is to make people indentify with Stern and his co-hosts because he exposes all their insecurities. Colford also adds that Howard Stern once said, ―I think I can relate to a mike better than I can to people…the mike doesn‘t talk back‖ (ibid. xii). Stern manages to merge his radio persona with his private persona and thus blurs the line between
52 myth and public performance.
8.1 The Instability of the Image in Postmodernism
The case of Howard Stern it becomes fairly complex when it comes to discussing him in the realms of film and cinema, since he is not what someone would consider a typical movie star. Without a doubt he is a star and as a star he created an image that he has to uphold. The function of Howard Stern‘s biographical movie Private Parts based on his autobiographical book with the same title is not to create an image but to illustrate and explain the image he had created until then. It demonstrates an example how to manage and arrange an image and how to remain authentic as a star.
Similar to Madonna, Howard Stern has been successful in a number of areas. Over the years Madonna has become a singer, an actress and a fashion icon. In fact she has become ―a superstar of pop culture‖ (Kellner 2005: 263). Similar to Madonna, Howard Stern has left his mark in various media outlets. He is a radio jockey, an author, a television personality, an actor and also a musician. Consequently he had every reason to call himself the ‗king of all media‘.
Another thing both have in common is the controversy they cause among the public. ―While some celebrate her as a subversive cultural revolutionary, others attack her as antifeminist, or as irredeemably trashy and vulgar‖ (ibid. 263). The exact same thing can be stated about Howard Stern. Kellner additionally emphasizes that Madonna‘s images and the way these images are received points towards the ―constructedness of identity‖. As far as change and the production of one‘s own identity is concerned the image of Howard Stern somewhat deviates from Madonna‘s. Whereas Madonna stands for experimenting and change, Stern never clearly re-invented himself. Madonna has constantly changed her image to create something new. I am not stating that Stern never tried anything new but instead of replacing one image with another it feels like Stern rather added more facets to an already existing image. This aspect is further discussed in the case study.
Kellner believes that because of Madonna‘s extreme changes of her image it becomes clear that identity is indeed constructed and thus, can be ―modified at will‖. This is in opposition to the original belief which claimed one‘s identity to be ―fixed, solid, and stable‖. 53
Madonna is proof that ―one‘s appearance and image helps to produce what one is, or at least how one is perceived and related to‖ (ibid. 268). Both Madonna and Howard Stern are successful businesspeople who manage to effectively present and sell an authentic image and identity.
According to Kellner, individuality was of great importance when it comes to create your own identity within the field of modern theory, especially since consumer culture has regularly confronted us with inspiring models of style and look. ―The problem of identity consisted in how we constitute, perceive, interpret, and present ourself to ourselves and others‖ (ibid. 233). The instability of the image as portrayed by Madonna came along ―as the pace, extension, and complexity of modern societies‖ accelerated, as Kellner puts it. All of a sudden, identity became a myth constructed by linguistic and social factors.
Kellner uses the example of Pretty Woman to illustrate the construction of identity by transforming the image from a ―fashionless street girl to a high-fashion beauty‖. ―The film illustrates […] the extent to which identity is mediated through image and look in contemporary culture‖ (ibid. 234). Kellner‘s outcome of this movie is that in order to change your identity and re-invent yourself you have ―to focus on image, style and fashion‖.
8.2 The Image of Howard Stern
Listen, not everything is at it seems. You don’t really know the real me and you don’t really know my struggle, and maybe if you did you would appreciate what it is I do. Howard Stern
The general image of Howard Stern has been constructed throughout the course of his career as a radio talk show host. His other endeavors such as becoming an author, a television personality and an actor have rather confirmed and expanded the image he himself as well as the media has created over decades. However, one of the most interesting aspects about Howard Stern is that in contrast to other actors, media personalities or celebrities he claims to be acting while he is off air. ―On the air is the time of day that I am most free, that I am really myself. I can say anything that‘s really locked in here. During the day we‘re all […] acting in a certain way.‖ (Stern, The History of Howard Stern).
54
In the following sections I would like to discuss how this particular star image is constructed. The main purpose of this analysis is to examine the image itself and the context in which the image are produced. This examination can also be regarded as a continuation of Sandra Gavard‘s essay ―Howard Stern‘s ‗public parts‘: a semiotic analysis‖ (1997). What she did not include in her work is the issue of ―reality vs. what [is] being told in a movie‖. When it comes to semiotics and iconography ―the main difference between the two is that iconography uses both textual and contextual criteria for arguing symbolic meaning, while Paris school semiotics restricts itself mostly to textual criteria, to pointers within the image itself‖ (Van Leeuven 2004: 3).
In the first part, I use the movie Private Parts directed and produced by Betty Thomas and Ivan Reitman, a film adaption of his autobiographical book of the same title to discuss the various myths Stern‘s image is based on and also the content of the movie. In the process of the analysis I will discuss the different facets or myths around Stern by following the course of the movie. In other words, it will cover Howard Stern‘s early years until college, his first years as a professional radio jockey, his breakthrough, and the achievement of becoming America‘s most listened radio host. In this case the image is constructed by the scenes and images used in the movie and also the way some of these scenes are mediated by Howard Stern‘s narration at the beginning and at the end of the movie.
The second part investigates the construction and representation of Stern‘s image on television and in print media. It has always been argued how much of Stern‘s performance is in fact just an act and what is actually the real Howard. After all, what his audience gets by watching or listening to Howard Stern is his public persona. However, his television appearances as well as his interviews in magazines largely depend on how media representatives portray his ―true‖ public personality. Whereas in the movie it is Hollywood that functions as a manipulative mechanism, it is the task of journalists and television show hosts to mediate Howard‘s image. I would like to illustrate and compare the myth around Howard Stern‘s image through appearances on The Late Show with David Letterman, The O’Reilly Factor, Biography, 20/20, Midday Live as well as interviews and articles in different magazines. Performance or not, it can be argued that the image of Howard Stern constructed in cinema coincides with the image created through television and print media due to common social and cultural denominators.
55
8.3 Autobiographical Film vs. Biographical Film
According to Marshall, the public personality relies on a number of aspects which are necessary for ―biographical and autobiographical writing‖. For example, the celebrity has to demonstrate features that make him or her unique. It has to be discussed which particular moments in the life of the celebrity led to stardom. Furthermore, the person has to embody certain characteristics together with factors such as ―motivations and undercurrents‖ that ―have allowed to individual to rise to public acclaim‖ (2006: 3).
The autobiographical film deals with oneself and ―one‘s own surroundings‖ such as family and friends, as Lopez puts it (1993: 20). ―When a filmmaker expresses his impressions by filming his life or part of it, the end-product is known as an autobiographical film‖ (ibid. 20). The form of the autobiographical movie can vary between a self-portrait, a diary, ―travel experiences, or confessions‖. Each mode represents a reflection of the feelings of the filmmaker related to him- or herself and to the world around him or her. Kathleen McHugh, however, claims autobiographical works in cinema and television to be ―nonexistent‖, since Hollywood usually avoids explicit narration but merges ―the imaginary and the ideal‖ through ―combining narrative and aesthetic interests in compelling, seductive characters‖ (2002: 269). An autobiographical movie requires the filmmaker to explicitly address the viewer. This mode of narration prevents ―a universalized identification‖ because of its clear distinction of the protagonist and the audience. McHugh also mentions Elizabeth Bruss‘ argument that a ―cinematic equivalent for autobiography‖ does not exist because the erased ―unity of subjectivity and subject matter‖ in film. This nonexistent unity results in ―mutually exclusive elements of the person filmed (entirely visible […]) and the person filming (entirely hidden […])‖ (Bruss 1980 cited in McHugh 2002, 271).
In contrast to the autobiographical film the biographical movie can be seen a portrait of the life of someone else, usually a famous person. This genre may focus ―on the life, on the formative years, or on the most relevant period‖ of this person (1993: 25). Lopez divides film biographies into two separate categories. First, there are versions developed by Hollywood studios which are marked by a high amount of fiction and ―fabricated facts‖ in order to ―suit dramatic content‖. On the other hand, biographies can also solely base on known facts and stick the truth, or at least ―follow the detail as accurately as knowledge permits‖ (25).
56
8.4 Private Parts
Having always wanted to be a disc-jockey, Howard Stern works his way painfully from radio at his 1970's college to a Detroit station. It is with a move to Washington that he hits on an outrageous off-the-wall style that catches audience attention. Despite his on-air blue talk, at home he is a loving husband. He needs all the support he can get when he joins NBC in New York and comes up against a very different vision of radio. (Private Parts, n. D.).
The movie features Howard Stern and the members of his staff including Robin Quivers, Fred Norris and Gary Dell‘Abate playing themselves which adds to the authenticity of the movie. As mentioned before biographical movies usually focus on the formative years of a famous person. In the case of Howard Stern, it starts with the moment when he discovered his love for radio as a child and ends with AC/DC giving a concert in New York to celebrate Howard Stern as New York‘s most listened disc jockey. All this is being narrated by Howard Stern himself during a flight home after he has appeared as ‗Fartman‘ at the MTV Music Video Awards in 1992.
8.4.1 Semiotics of the Movie Poster
Before I begin to analyze the myths and iconography of Stern in the movie itself I take a closer look at the theatrical poster of the movie. As Daniel Chandler states, ―connotations […] are determined by the codes to which the interpreter has access‖ (2001). The framework emerges from cultural codes which are ―organized around key oppositions and equations‖ referring to ―a cluster of symbolic attributes‖ (Silverman 1983, 36 cited in Chandler 2001). Being a collection of signs the movie poster is one of the first elements that draw the viewer‘s attention when promoting a movie. Within a certain culture its members would filter out a similar meaning. The theatrical poster displays a gigantic version of Howard Stern in the middle of a city. After taking a closer look the image eventually enfolds a variety of different meanings. In his essay ―Rhetoric of the image‖ Barthes distinguishes between three messages the image mediates with the first message being linguistic, the second one being the coded iconic message (literal) and the non-coded iconic message (symbolic) (1977: 273).
The Linguistic Message
This message can be summed up as consisting of all the words used on the poster. Barthes deals with the linguistic message of an image by dealing with the following questions: ―does 57 the image duplicate certain of the informations given in the text by a phenomenon of redundancy or does the text add a fresh information to the image?‖ (ibid. 273) Barthes furthermore divides the function of the linguistic message into two elements, ―anchorage and relay‖ (ibid. 274). Anchorage represents the text as the link between the image and its context creating a sort of fixed meaning. Relay, on the other hand, describes the complementary relation between text and image such as in cartoons and comic strips.
In Barthes‘ example of the Panzani advertisement it was necessary to know writing and French. In this case, people are required to know English. This is known as the denotational message. What we get out of the linguistic message is the writing of the name of main character on the top of the image (Image 1). It is commonly known by moviegoers to usually find the name of the leading role on the top of the advertisement. Seeing the image of Howard Stern right below one can assume that he obviously has to be the main character. This becomes clear even if someone is not familiar with Stern.
The vertical writing of the movie title represents the second linguistic message. The advertisement is additionally supported by two ambiguous captions. ―Never has a man done so much with so little‖ is not only Image 1: Private Parts movie poster a hint to the career of Stern but also is a reference to his small penis. ―Coming for spring‖ marks the release date of the movie on the one hand. Within the context of Howard Stern it is also important to note that ―coming‖ also is another term for ―climaxing‖ or ―ejaculating‖. The obligatory cinematic information can be found on the left.
58
The Literal Image
According to Barthes the literal image consists of a set of discontinuous signs (ibid. 270). The first sign is the depiction of a gigantic Howard Stern. The second sign would be the city itself, New York City. The constituent that tells us that it is New York City is the Chrysler Building in the middle of the image covering Stern‘s ―private parts‖. In the background we see a cloudy sky hanging over New York City. What we also see is a tanned and seemingly manly Howard Stern posing like a super hero. The playful look over his glasses directly into the spectator‘s eyes and the little smirk conveys shiftiness, superiority and the attitude that he does not seem to care at all. Stern is portrayed as a bad boy.
The Symbolic Image
Like the literal image the symbolic image also is an iconic message. Only this time the message is non-coded.
The sign of this [symbolic] message is not drawn from an institutional stock, is not coded, and we are brought up against the paradox […] of a message without a code. This peculiarity can be seen again at the level of the knowledge invested in the reading of the message; in order to ‗read‘ this last (or first) level of the image, all that is needed is the knowledge bound up with our perception. (Barthes 1977, 36)
What we can get out of the image is that there are a number of signifiers leading to a number of connotations. In order to create these symbolic messages one has to be familiar with Stern and what he stands for. Howard Stern‘s naked appearance is a clear sign for maleness and sexuality. The vertical adjustment of the title along with New York‘s skyscrapers represents phallic symbols and emphasizes the notion of sexuality, masculinity and power. The cloudy sky over New York City signifies the ‗evil‘ caused by Howard Stern and the approaching disruption of everything that is beautiful. The gigantic version of Stern might refer to his larger-than-life personality as the ‗king of all media‘ on the one hand and to Howard Stern being a Godzilla-like threat to America on the other. It represents Stern‘s unstoppable rise to infinite fame and that he has more power than anyone else. One can also assume that the Chrysler Building covering Stern‘s genitals stands for American prudery and censorship. The Construction Image of Howard Stern in Private Parts
59
8.4.2 Introduction of the Movie
He was offensive. He was obnoxious. He was disgusting. You want me to go on? Once he wanted me to approve a contest where he would give a new toilet to the listener with the largest bowel movement, on the air. I mean, you can imagine the logistics of that. (Opening lines of Private Parts) These are the first lines of the movie uttered directly into the camera by Denise Oliver (Allison Janey) who was the program director at WWDC in Washington. The protagonist‘s name does not even have to be mentioned to know who she is talking about. These features are responsible for Stern‘s status as the American bad boy. If one defines Howard Stern according to the star types by Dyer, Stern would most likely belong to the category of the anti-hero type of rebel. According to Brian Kinnard anti-heroes are marked by ―characteristics that are antithetical to those of the traditional hero […] [and] perform acts that are heroic but only do so through methods or manners not appearing heroic at all‖ (2010).
The scene fades into black and is followed by the opening credits. A few seconds later the narrator, Howard Stern himself, starts telling the story about his life or in this particular part of the movie, the story about his appearance as Fartman at the MTV Music Video Awards in 1992 (Image 2). In Act four of The History of Howard Stern, a radio documentary series about Stern‘s life and career Stern says that it was of great importance to recreate the event for the sake of authenticity. Everything had to be as authentic as possible including his costume. However, the original presenter on MTV was Luke Perry known from Beverly Hills 90210 (Image 3). Perry is said to have turned down the role because he feared it would not be successful enough. Instead, John Stamos from Full House played the part of Perry. According to Stern, Stamos really wanted to this part which led to a greater authenticity of the scene (ibid. The History of Howard Stern).
60
Image 2: Howard Stern at the MTV Video Music Awards in 1992 (copyright MTV)
It seems fairly ironic that Stern, the anti-hero, makes his first appearance as a superhero. What makes Stern to appear as a hero is how he is successful with doing what he loves. He appears to have total control over his image and gets away with everything he does. The controversy he has caused throughout the years was and still is the open secret to his success. As Stern mentions right in this scene he wanted ―this to be the biggest moment in entertainment‖ (Private Parts). Everyone should talk about him when they wake up the next morning. While we see a close-up of his eyes it makes us believe that we hear is what is going on in Howard Stern‘s mind. He further continues that this type of thinking usually is the root of all his trouble.
Image 3: Luke Perry (right) and Howard Stern at the MTV Video Music Awards 1992 (copyright MTV)
61
The scene presents Howard Stern at the peak of his career. The role of Fartman represents the epitome of triviality and the type of childish, prepubescent sense of humor that marks the root of his reputation as a rebel. During his performance as Fartman Stern is being cheered at by the crowd. This makes Stern feel like he ―was the Beatles on Ed Sullivan‖. On his way backstage it soon becomes clear that according to Stern, no one understood ―the comedic ironic aspect‖ of Fartman. (Private Parts) In ―The History of Howard Stern‖ Stern remembers the original scene of the MTV awards as follows:
I was Fartman on the MTV awards and when I came off I remember there was this feeling of elation, that I had done something really great and that would be remembered, but also a feeling of revulsion because here I was a guy walking backstage at the hippest place on the planet which is MTV with all the cool rock stars there and I‘m walking around with my butt cheeks hanging out of this uniform and my butt cheeks are nothing to be proud of. […] So I‘m walking through this maze of rock stars […] with my butt cheeks exposed and feeling like I am the biggest jerk in the world. Two seconds ago I had been out in front of an audience that was adoring me and here I was feeling like a total jerk off. So it was quite a moment and the audience gets to share my innermost thoughts while this is going on (Stern, The History Of Howard Stern).
In this scene he appears like a kid on his first day in school. The way Stern is passing by all the stars backstage portrays the insecure and helpless Howard Stern and how he feels that no one really understands him, which is being pointed at a couple of times throughout the movie. Howard is telling us during the scene that all he wants for his ―artistic courage to be an inspiration to others‖ but instead he feels like everything he does ―is misunderstood‖. This can also be seen as another example for the strong presence of the inner kid of Howard Stern. He blames everything that goes wrong on others and fears that everything he does is never good enough. In the next scene we see Stern walking along a crowded airport terminal with his manager. The first thing that strikes the viewer is the height of Howard Stern. If it was not because of his height and maybe his long hair, Howard would be as ordinary as everyone else in this scene wearing totally casual clothes. This ordinary, casual appearance of Stern is the total opposite of his bizarre performance in the night before and makes the viewer belief that Stern has indeed two personalities, the public persona and the private persona. When being on air, he is believed to perform an act only but Colford claims it was not an act at all.
62
It was the other Howard […] Howard had an unusual ability to reach this other side of himself on the radio—the sex-driven, go-scratch-yourself Howard. The radio personality was not the warm and quiet Howard familiar to those who knew him off the air (Colford 1996, 253).
However, only because he is off air it does not mean his brain switches to another mode as well. This scene also alludes to another loved as well as hated characteristic of Howard Stern, the immaturity of a teenage boy considering women. The popular belief of Stern being a chauvinistic pervert who likes to reduce women to their appearance is supported in this scene. While his manager is talking to him a woman is walking by which attracts Howard‘s attention right away. Howard imagines this woman just wearing a bra and moreover, due to his lively imagination, makes her breasts grow bigger until his manager wakes him up from his daydream.
After he has boarded the plane Howard utters another line that is of great importance to explain the person that is Howard Stern, ―More than anything I‘d like the public to appreciate…no, forget that. I want them to love me. Not the myth, but the man. The real Howard.‖ The woman Stern has watched in the terminal before enters the plane and Howard illustrates his statement as follows, ―take this woman, for example. Now, she hates me. She doesn‘t even know me but it‘s clear that she is totally disgusted by me‖ (Stern, Private Parts)
The Carol character is exactly what we were trying to do with the film. […] I guess it was a manipulation in a way. It was my way of approaching something. I have sat down with people who hate me. And we meet at a party or something and we are talking and two seconds later they are suddenly sucked in and they love me. […] and the point of the character with Carol Alt was to show my frustration in life. Like, wow, now I‘m with someone famous and this beautiful woman is kind of captivated and interested in what I‘m doing…and oh my god, look at the temptations there and all that. So she represented a lot of things in that movie. (Howard Stern, The History of Howard Stern)
The way Stern is sitting on his seat shows that he does not feel comfortable at all. The woman takes a look at the front page of the newspaper on her seat. It shows a picture of Howard Stern as Fartman accompanied by the heading ―Howard Stern gross-out‖ along with the subtitle ―Exposed buttocks gross and disgust‖. The woman turns her head disgustedly to Stern. Stern then goes on narrating, ―I have seen this look before. It‘s the look of misunderstanding‖. After all the controversy Stern has caused with his show, TV appearances
63 and books it can be argued that the main purpose, except for the aspect of entertaining, was to help people to understand the person Howard Stern.
8.4.3 The Early Years
This is when the actual life story of Howard Stern begins. Howard and his father, Ben Stern, sit in the car and his father says ―You‘re a moron. Now shut up and sit still‖. People who are familiar with Stern know that he Stern is known for a lot of things but definitely not for keeping his mouth shut. In this scene the young Howard Stern accompanies his father to work. The young Howard is portrayed as a typical young, curious boy who admires his father and what he does. His father was an engineer at a radio station in Manhattan and gets to see his father at work and watches a radio jockey doing his job. Howard experiences an argument between his father and the jockey and the viewer can tell how impressed the young Stern is in this particular moment. From that point on he wanted to be on the radio. ―Show business was definitely for me‖, as Howard tells in the movie.
Image 4: Howard Stern at the age of 12 (copyright Private Parts)
At the age of twelve we see Howard performing with puppets in a nursing home (Image 4). He is tall, skinny, wears a hat and big glasses. The way he is depicted in this scene emphasizes the nerdy and dorky side of Stern. The audience of his puppet theater is not really
64 paying any attention. Consequently Howard makes the puppets seem to have sex which not only attracts the audience attention but also causes a fair amount of disgust. This can be seen as a first demonstration of Howard‘s wish to be the center of attention. As a result his father does not allow Howard to play or perform with his puppets anymore leaving behind a disillusioned boy. The movie makes another jump into the high school period of Stern. Not only has Howard maintained his nerdy appearance but also was he the only white, Jewish kid among ―6000 black guys‖. In this part of the movie Howard begins to complain about his appearance and how everything became worse when he was growing up.
[…] and then I had puberty. That made things worse because my penis never got any bigger. I mean I was hung like a three year old. Hey, seriously, these guys had rhinoceros penises... huge. You know, I‘ve heard black men complain that they‘re unfairly stereotyped. Man, I‘d love to have a stereotype like that. Now, because I had such a minuscule schlonger, I turned to drugs (Private Parts).
This part does not only describe Stern‘s inferiority complex when he was a teenager but also represents an example of his low self-esteem as a grown man, at least what looks and his endowment are concerned. The movie continues with Stern being a student at Boston University. This is the first time, after the opening scene, the audience gets to see the real Howard Stern playing himself (Image 5).
Image 5: Howard Stern‘s first appearance as himself during his time at Boston University (copyright Private Parts)
65
Similar to the airport scene at the beginning we see Stern walking among a number of other students and clearly, he is the one the stands out the most. Stern tries to ask a lot of girls out but without any success. Despite his nerdy appearance and his failure in terms of interpersonal relationships the viewer feels sympathy for the dorky giant. After all, so far in the course of the movie he has not done anything wrong. Stern is presented as the good guy. During his senior college year Stern finally has his own radio show and what the audience gets to see is everything but a professional and successful radio jockey. His voice is whiney and an accident happens right in the middle of the show which causes Stern to panic.
After the show Stern gets caught in the rain with two of his friends, so they stop by at the place of a friend of him. The girl invites the guys in without hesitating. In this scene we see that Stern indeed has friends, male and female ones. In this particular scene Stern also gets to know Alison Berns, his future wife. Stern is immediately fascinated by her so he asks her to be a part in his film. Stern tells us that he ―refused to leave the room until she agreed to be in my film. Seriously, she was the most enchanting woman I have ever met.‖ Howard eventually receives an award for ―best student film‖ and starts to go out with Alison including their first sexual encounter. Finally the viewer gets to experience a real moment of success for the persistent Howard Stern.
8.4.4 Radio and Private Life
On May 2nd, 1977 Stern applies for his first job as a radio disc jockey at WXPK in Briarcliff Manor, New York. We see the geeky and nervous looking Howard Stern dressed in a suit. His appearance does not suggest any kind of rebellious behavior. In the moment the viewer gets to see Stern doing his first show talking in a different voice it certainly feels like to watch a whole different person. Even though he still appears to be somewhat clumsy behind the microphone it is clear that he enjoys what he is doing and the way he performs makes the nerdy Stern even more likeable to the movie audience. However, his station manager at WXPK does not think Stern has the talent to be on the radio when he lectures him, ―Howard, you stink. I don't mince words. You will never be a great disc jockey. You have lousy voice, lousy personality, and this will not change. OK? So on the air is not for you‖ (Private Parts).
Instead, Howard gets offered the position as the program director of the station. Even though he gets paid more money it is not what he wanted. However, he accepts the offer so he can afford to marry Alison. This part of the movie provides a good example to show how important Alison is in his life. He gives his relationship with Alison top priority and thus,
66 makes his first steps towards becoming a model husband. Gavard (1997) mentions the ―mythological virtue‖ of Stern‘s love with Alison. She compares Stern‘s marriage with one of the marriages described by Barthes, namely the love marriage. In terms of this kind of marriage love is placed above success and ―carries the morality of the social status quo‖ (ibid. 1997). During the wedding scene Stern, as the narrator, tells us, ―Oh, look at her. I mean, this was a miracle. Here's this beautiful girl, I mean, a gorgeous woman, willing to spend the rest of her life with me. I just couldn't have been happier. I was the happiest program director in the world. (Private Parts).
The emphasis on the human side of Howard Stern becomes evident several times throughout the movie. People who thought that Stern does not care about other people and does whatever he wants might get a whole new opinion about Howard Stern. Not only does he care about his wife and parents but also about his co-workers as he demonstrates in the scene in which he is supposed to fire a jockey. In the following scene he clearly feels bad about this and asks Alison if it would be alright to give up his job as a programming director. They are being portrayed as a normal couple discussing issues in bed with Howard‘s head in Alison‘s lap. They do not seem to have any secrets which they hide from each other. Howard does not decide about things without talking to Alison, another example presenting the romantic and lovable aspect of the movie as well as of Stern. The scenes with Alison almost make the viewer forget about the rebellious and obnoxious side of Stern. Throughout the movie we often see Stern asking about Alison‘s opinion about a certain show.
8.4.5 Authenticity – Developing His Radio Persona
In 1979 Howard Stern moves to Hartford, Connecticut to become ―the wacky morning man‖ at WCCC. This is the time when Stern gets to know and work with Fred Norris who later on becomes the longest tenured staff member of The Howard Stern Show. Right when Stern enters the studio he starts complaining and explaining the reason why he is late. Fred Norris is just standing there and does not respond at all. As Howard Stern reflects on this scene in ―The History of Howard Stern‖ he reveals that the way Norris is presented in the movie has been manipulated in order to make the movie work. ―That‘s not really who Fred is but that‘s who Fred is to me. […] Everything in the movie is a compilation. […] Some things have to be compressed for movie making. You can‘t do a 42 hour movie. It‘s got to be all compressed‖ (Stern, The History of Howard Stern). Robin Quivers, Stern‘s news anchor, adds that the
67 movie ―a long period of time. […] Not only are there are scenes […] that are different than reality but there are things that are compressed. The Paul Giamatti character is several characters. It‘s more the sense of what was happening to us than all the facts‖ (The History of Howard Stern).
Through the course of Stern‘s career speaking what is on his mind is one of the trademarks of Stern‘s popularity on air. As soon as he gets on air the audience notices that he has gained a lot more confidence in his work. He presents a more casual style and also demonstrates his honest and up-front side. In one scene he is supposed to tell something good about the station‘s sponsor but does not know anything about it, so he makes up a story.
You know, I got to tell you something. When I was a child, I used to go to Stanley Sport all the time. I loved Stanley Sport. My parents would take me through there, and we just had a great time. And we could walk out with tons of stuff even though my parents didn't make a lot of money. Oh. And, uh, "There's only one Stanley Sports, "and the grand opening is this weekend. Mark it on your calendar." The grand opening is this... I just realized, uh... that makes no sense what I just said. I just told you I went there as a kid, and now the grand opening... Well, I just... I think I was just caught in a lie. Oh, boy. You know what the truth is? I'm a disc jockey who makes 250$ a week and I just want to do the right thing here on the air. I don't want to get fired, so, uh, I guess I lied to you, but, uh, I'll never let that happen again. You know what I mean? Oh, boy, do I feel stupid (Private Parts).
In the following scene Howard asks Alison what she liked best of the show and Alison tells him that it was that particular advertisement what she likes best when he was just being himself. His role as the model husband gets put to the test when he gets the chance to accompany Brittany Fairchild to her movie premiere along with Fred Norris. She soon invites him to go with him to her hotel room. While waiting in the room Fairchild is getting undressed in the bathroom with the door open. The viewer still feels sympathy for Stern because he acts like many men would behave in that kind of situation, nervous and somewhat helpless. Besides, Fred Norris is still with him. She asks him to rub her back and Stern clearly does not feel comfortable with this as he explains to her, ―I got to tell you something. You are gorgeous, and you're a great actress and everything, but I got a wife at home. I can't cheat on my wife.‖ Stern and Norris get in the bathtub anyway, but with their underwear on believing Fairchild‘s claim that it is not cheating when you have your underwear on. Before it gets really sexual Stern leaves with a bad conscience.
Stern tells that this scene is based on a lot of things that happened throughout his career. ―It was a combined experience‖ (The History of Howard Stern). Again, those events
68 have been compressed into one scene. One can argue that this scene has been shot for the movie to highlight the aspect through what kind of things Howard and Alison have to go through during their relationship. At home he tells Alison that he had the worst night of his life and goes straight to bed hoping Alison will never find out about what happened. However, she finds his wet underpants in the car and believes Howard has cheated on her. Howard then moves to Detroit for a new job but without Alison.
8.4.6 Becoming the Radio Rebel
Without Alison Howard‘s career seems to have come to a halt in Detroit. He does not get a warm welcome from a disc jockey who calls him Big Bird as he enters the station. Stern further illustrates, ―So let's review. My life sucked. Alison dumped me. I didn't know if she'd ever come back to me, and now this dickwad is calling me Big Bird. I don‘t know, something in me just snapped. In this scene the viewer gets the idea that whenever Stern has to put up with insults and not being valued he would tell them in his own way, on air. During his first show he impersonates a black, female traffic reporter and repeats the line ―kill, kill, kill the white man‖ over and over again. The controversy about this issue becomes more serious since according to the essay ―The Ruins of Detroit‖ (2008) the majority of the population in Detroit since 1980 has been non-white.
Howard is angry about his entire situation and does not seem to enjoy his job anymore. Not only is he mad about the loss of Alison but also that his new boss insists on Howard sticking to the rules. The next scene demonstrates the increasing rebellious side of Stern. Indeed, he does what he has been asked to do but again, he does it in his own way.
Boss: You talk too much. And very important, I want the time and the temperature four times every 15 minutes. Not three. Four.
Stern (on air): My grandmother died last night. I spent all night with her in the hospital. She... She had a car accident. By the way, uh... It's 6:45. Temperature is, uh, 58 degrees. (Private Parts)
Just by the time Stern‘s career has reached a low point having hardly any listeners, Alison returns to Howard. This emphasizes the romantic aspect of the movie and the strong bond they have. When Alison tells Howard that for her ―to be in this marriage‖ she needs to 69 be the only woman in his life. In this moment the audience believes, or at least wants to believe him when he replies that he does not need anyone else.
Later, his boss tells him that there are too many rock stations in Detroit so he decides to change to a country music format in order to get better ratings. Here, we get to watch the rebellious Howard again as he attacks the listeners of country music by saying
I know a lot of you out there really love this music, but I just don't get it. Explain it to me. And maybe it's 'cause I went to college, and I never drove a truck and had sex with my daddy's sister, but... I guess what I'm trying to say is, I... I don't think I'm the man for this job. So this is your old pal ―Hopalong Howie‖ saying I quit. (Private Parts)
Again, his co-workers are shocked. Thus, disregarding political correctness and emphasizing freedom of speech are probably two of the most important things that come along with Howard Stern. These two features do not only stand for Stern as the radio bad boy but also for the authentic and believable nature of his personality on and off air.
8.4.7 Stern’s Public Persona as the ‘Real’ Self
After Howard Stern has quit in Detroit he tries to find the answer to what he should be doing on the radio. In this scene Howard explains the formula of what might work best for him on air to Alison, namely to be himself.
Howard: It's so apparent to me now what I should be doing. I should be talking about my personal life. I've got to get intimate. And every time I feel like I shouldn't say something, maybe I should just say it, just blurt it out, you know? I just got to let things fly. I got to go all the way. Alison: You didn't go all the way before? Howard: […] No. A lot of times, I'm just holding back. Alison: Then I guess you should go all the way. (Private Parts)
Stern has been hired by the radio station DC-101 in Washington, D.C., where to viewer gets introduced to Stern‘s news anchor and future permanent staff member Robin Quivers, also played by herself. In the movie Stern tells us that it was the first time he met
70
Robin but in reality the first contact with her was on the phone while he was still in Detroit. Howard Stern explains in The History of Howard Stern that the program director Denise Oliver already knew he needed someone who he can interact with. According to Colford Quivers took over the role of serving ―as an effective counterweight to Howard‘s often racially charged antics‖ (1996: 63). It was the pairing of ―the controversial Jewish guy from New York with the black woman from nearly Baltimore‖ that worked so well. In this part of the movie Howard displays one of his other famous features of his persona. Not only does he give the listener (and in this case, the viewer as well) the impression of his brutal honesty, but he also encourages other co-workers, such as Robin to take part and contribute to his broadcast. This behavior, however, is not accepted by his superiors. In the following scene the viewer gets to witness the re-acting of the first broadcast of Howard Stern together with Robin Quivers where he complains about the fact that he did not have sexual intercourse for a long time and encourages his listeners to call if they have the same problem. His superiors are clearly shocked but do not interrupt the broadcast.
Howard: […] I must tell you, my life is, um, very odd. I get hornier and hornier. My wife, she comes home from work, she goes to sleep. The whole week goes by, she never gets horny. Robin, as a woman, what is it? Do women get horny?
Robin [hesitating]: Sometimes.
Station manager: Why is he talking to his news person?
Denise Oliver: I‘ll have him stop.
Howard: What about you specifically, though? When is the last time that you were with a man... sexually?
Robin: About a year.
Howard: You're serious? A year?
Robin: Yeah.
Howard: A year, ladies and gentlemen. Someone more pathetic than me. This is good. This is good. We're getting somewhere. This is a good discussion. […] you know, I bought a book, "How to Score with Babes," and listen to what it says. I think it's rather revealing. [...] "If necessary, stuff a semi rigid, large object into your pants to create the appearance of having a large penis." Women like large penis.
Station manger to Denise: Did he say ―penis‖?
Howard: I know about this stuff. I have no bulge in my crotch. I have a small penis and I've never told anyone this before...
Robin: And I don't think you should start now. 71
Howard: Well, I've done it. Now the cat's out of the bag. But this guy wrote a good book. The author has slept with over 16000 women, and, uh, take it from him. He says wear tight pants.
Robin: If he slept with 16000 women, he wouldn't have time to put on pants. That is true, too. I didn't consider that. […]
Howard: (off air) You're a genius. That was great.
Robin: That was interesting.
Howard: Didn't that feel good? That was great. You say whatever you want. You have carte blanche. (Private Parts)
Colford states that Stern loved Robin‘s reaction and that she was playing along. It marked the beginning of their ―wonderful chemistry‖. (1996: 68) This chemistry becomes obvious in this particular scene. Except for Howard‘s more upfront way of broadcasting the viewer also notices another change in Howard‘s appearance. His hair is longer. His clothes are somewhat eccentric which emphasizes Howard‘s rebellious bad boy image. One can tell that being authentic and real is not just an issue Stern has to cope with during his career but also as an actor in this movie, especially since it is a biographical movie about his life. As Stern states playing a different character is not as difficult as playing oneself.
The fact is that Robin can act and Fred can act and Jackie (Martling) can. They really played themselves well and playing yourself is tricky. It‘s maybe more difficult than playing any character. You have to be true to yourself and sometimes it‘s difficult. […] If someone says ―be yourself‖ you are like ―what the hell is that?‖ (Howard Stern, The History of Howard Stern).
In a later occurring scene which portrays the dismissal of Robin from WNBC, which never happened in real life, Stern has to convince the station as well as Robin to come back. Stern reveals that it is not easy to play yourself when the ―scene has nothing to do with reality. You‘re playing a scene and that‘s make-believe‖ (The History of Howard Stern). This story and movie about the life of Howard Stern exemplifies that being authentic has not only been a crucial element to be successful on the air. Authenticity in this case is also necessary to believably depict something that has never happened in reality, especially when it is meant to be a biographical movie.
72
8.4.8 Stern and Authority
Another reason why this movie seems to be so authentic is the convincing way of how the relationships between Howard and his boss are depicted. The way Stern expresses his rebellious side follows the same pattern throughout the movie. His superiors, especially Kenny Rushton during his time at WNBC in New York, tell him what he is allowed to do and what he is not allowed to do leading Stern to do the exact opposite. Stern does not really get away with it but the fact, that he does it over and over again makes people sympathize with him. Stern has often explained that some parts of his life have been manipulated in order to fit in the movie. Therefore they merged various characters into one. Thus, as Stern stands for the rebellious side of America, Kenny Rushton can be seen as the archetype for the corporate radio management at that time.
I think that the film Private Parts is clearly based on the book Private Parts and as it is typical in the world of motion pictures the film makers clearly took liberties with their source material as they pursued a more interesting movie. […] In the film the Kenny characters is clearly an obvious composite of numerous program directors and other […] management pinheads Howard has experienced including myself and my friend Denise Oliver and others (Kevin Metheny, The History of Howard Stern).
The conflict between Stern and Rushton always seems authentic and real, even though it is presented with a lot of humor. Howard Stern himself points out that playing the scenes with Paul Giamatti who played Kenny Rushton was not difficult at all. Robin Quivers further adds that even though Giamatti had never met the real Kevin Metheny he managed to capture the essence of the character. ―I never felt like I had to act because of him. It took my right back to those times of my life. All of a sudden I was there arguing with Kevin. I didn‘t realize it during the movie but all my scenes with him were great‖ (Stern, The History of Howard Stern).
8.4.9 Censorship
During his WWDC era the viewer gets confronted with the results of Howard‘s offensive language and rebellious attitude on the radio as the station receives a letter from the FCC concerning inappropriate language by Stern. In 1934 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was founded in order to regulate broadcasting in the United States.
73
Nemeth states that the FCC ―required broadcasters to operate in the public interest […] [and] to devote ―reasonable time‖ to public issues and to air contrasting viewpoints on these issues‖ (2001: 100). ―In the early 1980s, the FCC‘s policy was clear: Broadcast indecency was confined to uttering the seven dirty words cited in the Pacifica decision: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tit (FCC v. Pacifica Foundation 1978)‖ (ibid. 101). Nemeth adds that this policy adopted a more conservative direction during the era of Ronald Reagan whose lead was to investigate ―the effects of obscenity and pornography with a tougher stand against coarse language on the broadcast airwaves‖ (ibid. 101). In Private Parts Stern justifies his attitude as a method to increase the ratings. However, until the end of 1986, as raunchy as the program often was, it was protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution (―Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech‖) as interpreted by the FCC (Colford 1996: 165). Even though Stern constantly gets reprehended for breaking the rules on air he does not change anything about his attitude.
In one scene Howard gets a call during his radio show from a woman who claims to think of him every morning. Howard decides to have sex with her on the air. While Howard is stimulating her over the radio we see people on the streets listening to the show and becoming more curious about what is going to happen. This scene hints to the popularity of morning radio shows during this period of time. Even police officers are listening to the show and are obviously amused. Stern is humming into his microphone until his female listener reaches her climax (Image 6). While the woman is having an orgasm we also see a car having a little accident adding to the comedic aspect of this scene.
Image 6. Howard Stern is stimulating a woman over the radio at DC-101 in Washington (copyright Private Parts) 74
By looking at this scene in more detail the reason for Stern wearing a t-shirt with the American flag on it could be a symbol for having the right to say whatever he wants on the radio referring to the First Amendment to the Constitution. While receiving standing ovations from his co-workers at the station his superiors do clearly not approve his behavior until they find out that his ratings have increased. Colford states that during his time in Washington Howard Stern ―was still testing how far he could go‖ (1996: 72). According to Jim Elliot, a radio deejay in Washington, Stern was much ―tamer‖ than 15 years later, but ―for that period of time he was revolutionary‖ (ibid. 73).
Image 7: Howard Stern advertisement on a bus in Washington showing his increasing popularity (copyright Private Parts)
This moment marks the beginning of Howard Stern‘s breakthrough as a radio jockey as well as the beginning of the American Dream. He is finally able to persuade his superiors to hire Fred Norris. He is advertised across the city (Image 7). He gets recognized in the public. Even though Howard‘s hair was not that long during that time he is presented as a long haired guy in the movie. To someone who is not familiar with Stern he might even appear as a rock star rather than a radio personality. This can be seen as another manipulation in order to emphasize his bad boy image, not only in the movie but also in real life. We see him walking around the city with his wife appearing as a rebel on the one hand and a loving husband on the other.
75
8.4.10 Reversion of the Image: Howard Stern and His Role as the Husband
The movie attempts to make you believe that the things Howard Stern is doing throughout the movie are for the best. Stern further illustrates this aspect by referring to the producer Ivan Reitman and Reitman‘s goal of the movie.
We have to show that Howard is a good guy‖. He said ―that‘s the amazing thing about the story‖, even for Ivan who hadn‘t met me. He said ―What I got from the book is that you‘re a human being. Some people think of you as like a monster. […] No, you‘re a very sensitive guy […] and I want people to see your story to fully get it‖. That‘s the heart of the story. Some of the devices to put in […] [such as] some of the touching moments with my wife in the movie, […] moments where I was misunderstood, devices like the tub, showing that I still have a heart […]. These kinds of devices show that I am a stand up kind of guy. And so it is a manipulation of sorts because some of this stuff is based on true stories that happened but things wouldn‘t go down exactly like that (Stern, The History of Howard Stern).
Director Betty Thomas describes the romantic aspect of the movie as ―deliberate‖ and a means to make Stern ―more accessible‖. ―It was very important to Ivan [Reitman] and Howard to blow him open in a way and make him more accessible mostly to women‖ (The History of Howard Stern). During one of his shows where Howard Stern asks his studio guest to tell the listeners about her first lesbian experience Alison calls in and tells him that she is pregnant. This shows that the relationship between Howard and Alison is of great importance in the movie and that Private Parts merges comedy and romance. It almost evokes the impression that every time Howard seems to get too repulsive for the viewer the appearance of Alison makes the viewer focus on the human aspect of Stern.
After all the things he says and does on the radio, he is still a person who cares about the people close to him. This again refers to the manipulative nature of the movie. In the scene where they learn about Alison‘s miscarriage both are devastated. This is another moment where Howard proves to be a good husband. Even though he makes jokes about the situation the viewer notices that he means well by trying to make his wife laugh. He is confronted with the joys and setbacks like every other husband. It is just the way he deals with them that might be different.
76
There is a whole other movie inside this movie which I don‘t think most people expected. And that was the love story between Alison and Howard. That sort of came together with the scene when they are in bed […] and then the very next day he is exploiting it on the air as a comedy bit. That sequence made me understand that whole thing (Betty Thomas, The History of Howard Stern).
Betty Thomas explains how she expected Howard to perform in this scene about the miscarriage as follows,
I said to him ―Howard, you have to reveal something to me in this scene. […] You have to reveal how you really felt. It‘s what an actor does. Without telling me you must reveal what is really going on with you. So why are you doing the comedy bit? I have to understand. What are you thinking? (The History of Howard Stern)
While being on air he treats the issue as a joke but as soon as he starts playing a song the viewer can tell that Robin did not feel good about this. Even Howard seems to feel a little guilty. The growing success of Stern together with his ―tell it all‖ attitude also causes more tension in the relationship between them. Howard and Alison have a quarrel about his comedy bit as soon as Howard gets home from work. It can be argued that indeed nothing is too personal for Howard to tell on the radio. However, Alison puts up with it which is another example for how tight their relationship is. One could even say that Alison represents the ideal counterpart to Howard. According to Gavard the reason why Howard Stern belongs to the ―pantheon of controversial American personalities‖ is that he is a person ―people love to hate‖ (1997). On the one hand because of his show, and on the other hand because of the way he is portrayed in the media. It is the romantic aspect that is particularly important in the movie to work on the audience whose image of Howard Stern‘s personality does not correspond with the one of a loving husband but the disgusting shock jock. As mentioned before, the movie wants to show the people that he is the good guy.
77
8.4.11 The Triumph of the Anti-Hero
Reporter: What you're about to hear is going to shock you because it's vulgar and obscene. It's x-rated radio, barnyard radio.
Howard Stern: You mommies and daddies out there who complained to the radio station, I got something to say to you. Here. [Passes Gas]
Reporter: This is a story with a twist. While we were producing this report, Howard Stern was lured away from Washington by a New York City station. That station, you guessed it, is WNBC... (news report about Howard Stern coming to New York City, Private Parts)
Howard‘s beginning of his career in New York City in 1982 is also the beginning of the rebel‘s triumphal procession against regulations and following the rules.
Put me in charge of the Stern show. Let me ride herd on him, and I'll mold that son of a bitch into another Don Imus. When I'm through whipping him, that boy will be asking permission to wipe his ass. […] either I'll tame him, or I'll make him so crazy... he'll quit. So either way, we win. (Kenny "Pig Vomit" Rushton, Private Parts)
In this scene the viewer is introduced to Kenny Rushton, played by Paul Giamatti, who is the program director of WNBC. In real life, his name was Kevin Metheny and his nickname was ―Pig Virus‖. According to Stern, the nickname has been changed for the movie because the character was based on Metheny but it included other characters as well. ―I knew that Paul Giamatti was playing a composite character that was a combination of a couple of different guys […] and that was good because he was such a crazy character. […] It was important that that was true‖ (Betty Thomas, The History of Howard Stern). Rushton tries to get in the way of Howard and his reckless attitude. His goal is to ―tame‖ Howard and thus represents the ultimate challenge as the villain opposed to Stern being the (anti-)hero.
78
Image 8: Howard Stern is introduced to Kenny Rushton (right), his new program director at WNBC in New York (copyright Private Parts)
Throughout the course of the movie there is a constant switching of the focus on Howard‘s image as the model husband and on the image of the radio bad boy. When we see Howard being introduced to Rushton, the program director (on the right), the viewer observes a clash of two worlds (Image 8). The difference between Howard and his superiors are even more apparent than in Washington. On the one side we see corporate clerks in their suits and on the other side there is the long haired Howard Stern all dressed up in leather clothes. In my opinion this scene illustrates what Howard represents and what his superiors stand for. Howard is authentic. He is being himself whereas Rushton, for example, is just pretending to be the nice guy. Rushton‘s laugh is obviously fake which emphasizes his role as the actual bad guy in this movie, the boss. When Howard gets introduced to Rushton he immediately gets being told what to do. For instance, it is of great importance to say the call letters WNBC properly. By the look in Howard‘s face one can tell that he does not feel comfortable at all with it. Rushton tells him to do what Don Imus does. At the time of Howard‘s arrival at WNBC Imus was the most popular and most influential radio jockey in New York.
Howard: I gotta tell you something, Kenny. I always saw myself sort of something different than lmus. That's why you hired me.
79
Kenny: You are original. You are original, but... you say a lot of offensive things, and occasionally you are real funny, but you've got to learn to do what Imus does. See, he doesn't actually say the bad thing himself. He says it through a character.
Howard: Yeah, well, I don't do character...(Private Parts)
In the movie the viewer learns that the first encounter of Stern with Imus was not friendly at all which marked the beginning of an enduring war between the two jockeys. The tension between them however, is only hinted at in the movie. The dialogue between Howard and Kenny demonstrates how important originality and authenticity are for Stern. He expresses his disapproval of all the new orders and rules during his first radio show in New York. Howard performs as a gay disc jockey and insults Rushton on the air and giving him the nickname ―Pig Vomit‖. For the most part he makes fun of saying the call letters right so he gargles the letters with ―semen from his boyfriend‖ as he tells on air. When he gets off the air he turns to Robin and says, ―so we gave him some characters, right?‖.
As already mentioned before, Howard enjoys doing the opposite of what he has been told and after getting rebuked by his repulsive bit on air he jeopardizes his job once more. Stern gets instructed by Rushton and his attorney about what he is not allowed to say on the air including jokes about bodily functions and the seven dirty words. Where other disc jockeys would probably just follow the orders Howard seems to see this as another opportunity to offend his superiors. Garvard (1997) clarifies that ―the rebel is a modern day hero, he is like a slap in the face: its existence itself is a testimony against the reigning hypocrisy, a fight against the establishment‖.
The FCC made its policy clear in the following paragraph:
The broadcast must be examined in context to determine whether its meaning can reasonably be considered to contain the patently offensive references to sexual or excretory activities and organs. Words that in one context may be innuendo or double entendre may be rendered explicit in other contexts when they are intermingled with explicit references that make the meaning of the entire discussion clear or capable only of one meaning. The latter may constitute actionable indecency. (2 FCC Rcd 2705 in Nemeth 2001: 101)
In the following scene Stern and his staff play a game called ―The Match Game‖ in which they play around the use of the seven dirty words and make fun of this preceding paragraph. The fictitious show features Stern as the host and his staff members Fred Norris as Richard Nixon, Robin Quivers as Brett Summers and Jackie Martling as guests. 80
Howard: All right! Now let's go to our newest member of the panel, Mr. Jackie "Jokeman" Martling. Blank willow.
Jackie: Well, Gene, I didn't write it too neat, so I have a sloppy pussy.
Howard: Sloppy pussy! We had a sloppy and a fuzzy pussy and a very big one.
Fred: Are we talking about Brett again?
Howard: All right, now, let's keep going. Now it's gonna get a little rougher, OK? Everybody ready? Blank a-doodle-doo. Blank a-doodle-doo. [Music Plays] Blank a-doodle-doo. Think about that while the celebrities are writing. Here we are. Let's go over to our Dick Nixon, our own ex-president. What do you got there, Dick?
Fred: Well, it takes a Dick to know a cock, and that's what I wrote.
Howard: Cock-a-doodle-doo. Now, that's what I would have said. That seemed like the obvious answer. OK, let's go to our own Jackie "The Jokeman" Martling. Jackie The Jokeman?
Jackie: Gene, I have cock, and I wrote it big. I have a big cock.
Howard: Uh, I don't think you can say "big cock" on the radio. I think that's a no- no.
Robin: But I just said pussy.
Jackie: Yeah, she just said pussy.
Howard: Yes, pussy is OK. It's the way he says it. "Big cock" coming out of your mouth sounds awfully dirty.
Jackie: So I can't say "big cock," but you can say "big cock coming out of my mouth"? Howard: That's correct.
Jackie: That sucks.
Fred: Did you just say, "big cock coming out of your mouth sucks"?
Howard: All right, enough of this nonsense. We gotta move to Miss Brett Somers.
Robin: Just like the boys, Gene, I've got cock.
Howard: There it is, cock-a-doo...do me a favor and hold that up so I can see your cock. Jackie: Aw, Gene, don't have...
Howard: All right, there it is. Cock, cock, cock. I must tell you, though, we have to end this fun right now.(Private Parts)
While the movie was being shown on TV in America in February 2011 Stern was doing a live commentary on the movie on Twitter. Stern assumed that after he had done the match game in real life he would have gotten fired by NBC. According to Betty Thomas this
81 scene perfectly portrayed the ―the clash of the establishment versus Howard‖ and thus, also stands for the essence of the movie (The History Of Howard Stern).
However, Robin Quivers never was dismissed by NBC. As Howard clarifies in ―The History of Howard Stern‖ he and Robin did not get hired by WNBC together. Quivers was very upset about this but Stern tried everything to get NBC to hire her as well. ―It was again based on some truth but it‘s not the accurate way in terms of the history of the show‖ (Stern, The History Of Howard Stern). Having Robin fired in the movie certainly adds to dramatic effect of the story and also emphasized the interpersonal relationship and friendship between Stern and Quivers. The focus moves away from Howard, the bad boy to Howard, the human being.
At the movie premiere in New York, Quivers was overwhelmed by the reaction of the audience during the scene in which Howard convinces Robin to return to WNBC. ―There was this roar from the audience and I was like ‗They really care about us getting back together‘ and it still floors me‖ (The History of Howard Stern). The hero successfully brings back his news anchor to WNBC just to reveal his rebel image once more the moment after. Howard receives a massage from a naked woman on air while his wife is listening to his show as she is driving around with a real-estate agent. When Robin objects and Howard is joking that he is not married anymore because his wife died of cancer the other night. The agent tells Alison that the majority of her listings are from divorces, a hint to the tension between Howard‘s and Alison‘s relationship. Alison explains to her agent that everything he does on the radio is ―just an act‖. However, Alison is clearly not pleased about what her husband does on the radio and changes the channel.
The following dialogue between Rushton and one of his clerks illustrates the reason why Americans listen to Howard Stern:
Clerk: The average radio listener listens for 18 minutes.
Rushton: Mm-hmm.
Clerk: The average Howard Stern fan listens for... are you ready for this? An hour and 20 minutes.
Rushton: How can that be?
Clerk: Answer most commonly given: "I want to see what he'll say next."
Rushton: All right, OK, fine. But what about the people who hate Stern?
82
Clerk: Good point. The average Stern hater... listens for two and a half hours a day.
Rushton: Look, but if they hate him, why do they listen?
Clerk: Most common answer: "I want to see what he'll say next."
(Private Parts)
Right after the dialogue Rushton takes Stern off the air which introduced the office showdown at WNBC. The scene is a recreation of the argument with Stern‘s former general manager which Stern was broadcasting live during his show. Eventually this can be seen as the rebel‘s victory over the radio management. Furthermore, it marks Stern‘s rise to New York‘s most popular disc jockey.
Image 9: Howard Stern celebrates being the most listened disc jockey in New York in 1985 (copyright Private Parts)
However, as we witness the rebellious hero becoming the king of radio we also see Stern fulfilling the American dream. At the near end of the movie we see Howard Stern celebrating his triumph with an enormous open air concert of AC/DC in Bryant Park in New York (Image 9). Having a rock‘n roll band playing does not only emphasize the bad boy /
83 rebel image of Howard Stern. The way he enjoys how thousands of people are cheering at their ―hero‖ makes him appear as a rock star. His festive but extraordinary attire adds to this particular notion.
At the end of the movie, we see Stern back on the plane telling his story to the woman next to him, who has - as mentioned before – grown very fond of him. The message of this movie is fairly clear claiming that people who would take the time to get to know Stern would also learn about the man behind the myth, namely the nerdy, immature but caring husband and father. Again, the movie puts another exclamation mark on the romantic aspect not only of the movie but also of the person that is Howard Stern, or at least the person he wants the people to believe he is. The last lines uttered by Stern before the credits fittingly sum up his personality:
So occasionally I make a fool of myself in public, and the FCC wants me off the air, and every fundamentalist group in this country hates my guts, and, yeah, most of the things I do are misunderstood. Hey, after all, being misunderstood is the fate of all true geniuses, is it not? But my life isn't bad at all. I'm still on the air, I've got my kids, and I've got Alison. Alison... She's the best friend I could ever have. And who knows? With a little time, the right energy I think I could talk her into some hot lesbo action (Private Parts).
8.4.12 Filmic Means for Authenticity
Together with Stern directly speaking into the camera at the beginning and at the end of the movie, as well as being the narrator of the story, the movie uses elements such as staged interviews to give the movie an additional biographical and somewhat pseudo-documental note. For example after Stern‘s first sexual encounter with Alison the story is ―interrupted‖ by a short interview where the movie-Alison explains, ―we did not have sex on our first date, although it was very sexual. Our sex life has always been good. I mean, Howard complains that his penis is too small, but his penis size is fine. Howard exaggerates‖ (Private Parts).
Staged interviews like this are scattered throughout the movie featuring remarks from his ―parents‖, his ―wife‖ and some of his superiors. Despite the fake authentic touch it still does not hide the fact that the people who are being interviewed are actors. The movie also consists of segments which are in fact improvised and do not feature professional actors. These scenes show producer of The Howard Stern Show Gary Dell‘Abate with random people announcing a new important chapter in Howard Stern‘s life such as the one below when Howard Stern has his first job interview (Image 10). The girl holding the sign wears 84 nothing but a bikini in the middle of winter. After she is done saying her line Dell‘Abate asks her if she would take her top off which supports the general opinion that nothing is too trivial or absurd when it comes to Howard Stern.
Other improvised scenes introduce Stern‘s arrival in Detroit, Washington and finally, New York. Except for the location each of those scenes are out of context of the actual movie. The people who are asked to announce the chapters consist of half-naked women, mentally handicapped people, bodybuilders and drag queens. All these people represent the kind of curious guests Stern usually invites to his radio show or people he ridicules on the air. Additionally, it emphasizes Stern‘s image as a freak and outsider.
Image 10: Gary Dell‘Abate, producer of The Howard Stern Show, together with a woman announcing Stern‘s arrival in Westchester, New York (copyright Private Parts)
8.4.13 Outcome of the Movie Analysis
Despite Howard Stern‘s reputation as the radio bad boy who attacks others rather than being attacked, Private Parts mainly portrays him as the victim. At the beginning, his father always tells him to shut up and to not be stupid. In high school, Stern is the insecure outcast who does not seem to fit in. During his time in college, his female colleagues reject him. Even a blind girl refuses to go out with him after she has touched his face. He hardly receives any respect from the people around him until he starts working at DC-101 in Washington.
85
Stern and the people responsible for the film clearly attempted to transform Stern‘s image from being a crude bad boy to an honest family man who particularly relies on the patience and understanding offered by his wife, and on his strong persistence in becoming the world‘s greatest radio jockey. One can argue that on the one hand, Stern‘s life is depicted authentically, on the other hand, however, it cannot be disavowed that the notion of Hollywood is strongly present. As Stern himself tells in the movie, ―for this movie, you gotta suspend disbelief‖. The objective of the movie neither is to confirm the rebel image of Howard Stern, nor is it to deny Howard‘s rebellious personality. It simply illustrates another aspect of his persona in order to make the viewers, his fans as well as his objectors understand the driving force behind Howard Stern.
As Garvard points out stories that show an everyday normal person becoming successful have always been appreciated by Hollywood and its audience (1997). She describes the standard success story as the ―cursed genius type‖ portrayed by personalities such as Marilyn Monroe, James Dean or Jim Morrison. The first feature of the cursed genius is a tough childhood. Being the only white Jewish kid in a black neighborhood, lonely and not good-looking this certainly can be applied to Stern‘s life. Secondly, the genius is misunderstood by the people around him. This message is clearly articulated by Stern at the beginning and at the end of the movie. The third characteristic is about having ―existential problems‖. In a way Stern might be somewhat unhappy with his appearance. He often mentions his inferiority complex as it can be observed during his high school days. The last aspect is defined around the tragic ending of the hero usually represented by dying at a young age. At the age of 57 and still being successful this criteria does not apply to Stern. Thus speaking of Howard Stern as a ―cursed genius‖ in a traditional sense is not entirely correct but he certainly portrays features that allow defining him as a genius. The fact of Stern still being the King of All Media after three decades of radio history could even represent a change from the anti-hero to the hero. He still lives the American Dream.
Despite the manipulations and the tendency of Private Parts being a comedy, especially for those who have never heard of Howard Stern before, I agree with Peter Travers from the Rolling Stone Magazine when he states that it ―is that rare comedy that allows for the sweet, messy sprawl of reality‖ (1997). In addition to the number of comedic aspects, the manipulated scenes almost make the movie seem like a ‗pseudo-biography‖, not in the sense of true events portrayed by a fictional character (cf. Lopez 1993: 25), but due to the manipulated and sometimes even exaggerated presentation of true events.
86
Private Parts is a biographical movie based on an autobiographical work. Even though the movie is based on the real life and facts of Howard Stern it is still only an altered and to some extent manipulated representation of what is real. What is important in terms of a biographical movie is not creating an image but providing an authentic representation that makes the audience believe that the things happening in the movie indeed reflect the life of the protagonist, despite all the comedic aspects. In my opinion, the goofy and wacky image of Stern created throughout all those years made it obligatory to turn the movie into a comedy in order to be a success and also to create a credible image of Howard Stern. Nevertheless, as discussed earlier, the movie is only one crucial factor that to construct, confirm, extend, revert or even erase an already existing star image. Publicity, promotion and criticism are elements for which the media is largely responsible for.
8.5 The Image of Howard Stern in Other Visual Media
In this section I use magazine articles, movie reviews and interviews all conducted throughout the 90s, especially around the release of his movie, and coverage of Howard Stern on various television shows in the 80s and 90s to investigate how the image of his personality is represented by the media compared to the depiction in Private Parts. As much as the movie can manipulate the perception of the viewer, the media is also capable of manipulating a star image not only by the appearance of the star but also by expressing opinions (editor, author, hosts, etc.), showing certain pictures and photographs or using additional commentary by people surrounding the star. I have chosen three features of Howard Stern‘s public and private persona that are most prominent in the movie. The first image will be Howard Stern, the rebel. The second one deals with Howard Stern, the family man. Thirdly, I would like to analyze the connection between Howard Stern and the American dream. Finally, I would like to sum up all three aspects in terms of their importance for the authenticity of Stern‘s image.
8.5.1 Howard Stern - Rebel, Outcast and Freak
Unlike iconic personalities such a James Dean or Marlon Brando Stern does not represent ―Hollywood‘s leading man archetype‖. However, Stern does have plenty of things in common with the rebel in the traditional sense. Teenagers found a ―spokesman‖ in James Dean because
87 he ―acted on the same restless impulses, motivated by an absence of satisfaction and obedience. Dean‘s stood as the character to emulate for an adolescent audience hungry to liberate itself from the Father Knows Best paradigm‖ as Zeth Lundy puts it in his essay ―James Dean Iconography: Archetypes, Stereotypes, and the imitation of life‖ (2005). The same can be applied to Stern. Even nowadays Stern appears to use (in his own way) ―rebellion in the name of truth and honesty, not just as a status symbol‖.
The lead-in of the majority of programs dealing with the life of Howard Stern refers to his bad boy image in the first place. ―Hired by WNBC radio to bring in ratings and advertising revenues Howard Stern makes his living abusing and attacking anyone and anything‖ (1984, 2 on the Town). According to the Rolling Stone Stern has a ―reputation as a world-class vulgarian. He is loved, hated and widely imitated. He‘s the Bad Boy of radio, the King of Shock Jocks‖ (Rolling Stone, 1990).
It is obvious to me that if Howard Stern has never been labeled a shock jock you most likely would have achieved his current state of stardom. In short, being the bad boy on the radio is what made him successful and famous. Thus, it is of little surprise that the majority of journalists and reporters speak of the shock jock in the first place. This is the way how Stern won his audience and consequently, this is also how the media directs the attention of their audience towards Stern. As Garvard mentions in her essay ―Stern assured his place in the pantheon of controversial American personalities, the ones people love to hate, because of his raunchy show, but also because of thanks to the media‖ (1997). However, it also provides the ideal starting point to reveal more about the person. In an article for the Time Magazine Bruce Handy introduces Stern being most famous
for getting female listeners to bare their breasts in his studio, for saying Rodney King deserved his beating and Magic Johnson his HIV virus, for obsessing about the smallness of his penis, for having racked up a record $1.7 million fine from the FCC for uttering words like penis on air in an ―indecent‖ context. (March 10th, 1997)
It seems like the masses want to read what they already know in order to confirm their belief. Even though journalists also focus on other aspects of his personality, it is his rebellious side that usually drives the article or interview. At times one can notice the
88 malevolence against Stern as a personality which diminishes the objectivity of a movie review. For example, Margaret A. McGurk from The Cincinnati Enquirer writes in her opening paragraph, ―Howard Stern‘s show is a prime example of that bizarre modern phenomenon – popular entertainment that congratulates the audience for being stupid‖. She furthermore calls Stern ―a curiosity who wants to be an icon‖. The writer not only attacks Stern but also the millions of people across the country listening to his show.
The fascination of his personality is accompanied by his appearance which journalists often prefer to address. In the feature story about Stern on his birthday in 1990 he is described as ―the six-foot-five birthday boy […] who has described himself as looking like a cross between Big Bird and Joey Ramone. […] [Stern] is a vision in black leather, metalhead tresses and shades […]‖ (Rolling Stone, 1990). Seven years later the same magazine makes the reader picture Stern as follows. ―Stern is famously funny-looking – like a cartoon drawn by a 10-year-old. From a distance he‘s little more than a collection of features: nose, hair, height. He has too much of all three. He is lean, rangy, 6 feet 5 inches, with long arms and long, bony fingers‖. Eventually this image largely applies to the one described in the former article. Stern is not only labeled as a freak on the radio, he also looks like one.
One can observe that the media not only tends to blame Stern himself but also the general mass for his rebel reputation. According to Martha Frankel in ―Howard Does Hollywood‖, ―people say he‘s a moron, a pig, a racist, an animal who knows no limits, a self- serving jerk, the Antichrist. And those are the people who‘ve never even listened to his radio show‖ (Movieline, 1997). Especially in print media, it does not only matter what people say about Stern it is also about what Stern says about himself and about others, and most importantly, about the actual content the magazines choose to print. In a six hour interview with the Playboy in 1994 Howard Stern used the word ―fuck‖ 111 times, followed by ―shit‖ with 27 times and ―penis‖ uttered 14 times. After all, everyone is aware of the fact that Playboy has and always will be a magazine for the male popularity. An interesting observation is that as soon as Stern is asked to comment on people or something that appeared to be standing in his way at some point during his career (celebrities, past superiors, film companies that rejected his ideas or guests on his show) the bad language increases remarkably.
The aim of this interview was to reveal the difference between Stern‘s personality on the air and off the air. Marshall Fine, who conducted the interview for Playboy, describes the radio jockey as follows. ―Stern folds his willowy 6‘5‘‘ frame behind a radio console, a tiny 89 fortress from which he keeps the universe at bay with jokes, belches, come-ons, put-downs […] But off the air, he is not the aggressive motormouth he is on his show […]‖ Fine clearly points out that the rebel as he appears on the air is only a part of Howard‘s personality. However, since Stern is aware that what he says is being published one cannot tell for sure to what extent the ―off air Howard‖ can be interpreted as the real Howard. After all, what seems to be revealed as the real, private personality is also somewhat constructed for the public. As it has been often mentioned in the movie and several articles, he is been said to hold back when he is off the air. It rather seems like being off the air should be replaced by not being surrounded by any media-related recording tools. If he knows he is being recorded for the public he enjoys ranting about people, institutions or even his own management. During an appearance on the Late Night with David Letterman show in 1984 he called his former management NBC ―stupid‖ because they did not allow him to air bits of his radio show on Letterman because of the word ―orgasm‖. This period of time was mainly used to advertise Stern‘s shock jock image. Letterman himself introduced Stern by quoting the people magazine and calling him ―New York‘s mad dog disc jockey‖. During the show Stern would even inform other stations to bring his show to their station if they made the right offer.
In the opening paragraphs of the introduction for the interview Playboy clarifies that
there is no neutral ground for the self-proclaimed ―king of all media‖, Howard Stern. In fact, he may be the subject of America‘s most intense love-hate relationship. […] If you love him, you think he‘s a radio genius, holding the airwaves most weekday mornings for more than four hours with an unprecedented blend of irreverent, jaw-dropping comedy and wild personal revelations. […] But if you hate Howard Stern, you are hardly alone. His outrageous spewing […] has earned him enemies in all corners of the political landscape. The Christian Right condemns him for his frank, often lewd, talk about sex and bodily functions; the politically correct Left disdains him for jokes about racial, ethnic and sexual identity. Stern, meanwhile, argues that he just spouts off the kinds of things people think but rarely admit out loud (April 1994).
When Stern is being asked about the reason why he chose to become a movie star he refers to the release of his second book Miss America when retail stores kept his name off the best-seller lists. Stern argues with an unmistakably clear statement: ―If the movie Private Parts is huge, it will piss off every establishment type there is. […] I see Hollywood the same way I saw radio when I got into it. I basically see an industry that rejects me […] because they
90 don‘t understand me and they know I don‘t play by their rules‖ (Movieline, 1997). The image the reader gets of Howard Stern is that of a one man-army.
Another aspect that supports the image of the rebel is the constant dispute between Stern and the Federal Communications Commission. According to Playboy by 1994, fines against Stern totaled more than $1.2 million‖ (1994). Several articles of magazines and newspapers address the ―indecency‖ Stern is regularly accused of by the FCC. In the article ―Shock Jocks Shake Up Uncle Sam‖ by Jon Pareles for the New York Times, the FCC claims Stern to be a ―government problem‖. It is not because of Stern alone but because of numerous imitators and Stern-wannabes across the country.
It‘s the herpes simplex of radio formats, contagious and incurable, though rarely fatal. […] His show constantly alternates self-deprecation (about his appearance: ―a big-nosed idiot with freaky hair‖) and self-importance. ―I liberated radio,‖ he proclaimed the other day. ―Talk radio is not interesting, I am interesting, and people imitating me are even interesting (New York Times, Nov 15th 1992).
Parles describes Stern‘s ―free speech as loose talk, forever in search of the taboo- tweaking line that will jolt a sleepy listener out of bed or distract a commuter from the traffic. He‘s an insult comedian […] who invokes sexist and ethnic stereotypes as if by reflex‖. In this case, it almost feels like the media functions as Stern‘s advocate justifying what he does on the radio. Indecency, according to the FCC, includes ―patently offensive‖ terms ―by community standards and usually depends on the context. ―Whether or not children are tuned in is not the problem,‖ writes Parles. ―Listeners are attracted by someone who snarls blunt opinions, any opinions, and doesn‘t worry about being undiplomatic or politically incorrect‖ (New York Times. 1992). He further explains
American mass media offer sexual discourse from the sniggers of ―Studs‖ to the ―steamy‖ romances of soap operas to the clinical-therapeutic tones of Dr. Ruth to the adolescent boasts of heavy metal and rap. Despite the F.C.C.‘s presumptions, plenty of people prefer the locker room. Under pressure, Mr. Stern may switch from anatomical vocabulary to euphemisms like ―rocket of love‖. But until his audience grows up, his style won‘t go away (ibid. 1992).
91
Thus, in this article Parles ascribes Stern‘s success to the immaturity of the majority of men across the country. Frankel states that picturing Stern as an adolescent boy ―with a wild libido‖ helps to not see him as ―a threat to the nation‖. ―Just like any other 14 year old he‘ll taunt and annoy you until you finally send him off to his room (.i.e., switch off that radio)‖ (Movieline, 1997). To the Playboy Stern describes free speech as ―the single greatest freedom we have in this country‖. To some extent, the way Stern presents himself during interviews can be seen as a victim, similar to a defiant teenager. However, what distinguishes Stern from an adolescent teenager is that he does not only point out what is wrong but also provides cogent reasons why he feels that way. When it comes to the FCC he complains about selective enforcement.
You can‘t selectively go after me and no one else. The laws have to apply to everyone. Still, if you have psychiatrist sitting up on the stage with Donahue, then it‘s legitimate. If you have me sitting around cracking jokes about sexuality, that‘s considered frivolous. To me, free speech is free speech. You can‘t decide in what context you can speak about these things (Playboy, 1994).
During his career he has also been invited several times to Late Night With David Letterman. In Throughout his career he had done several interviews with the Rolling Stone magazine. In the cover story of 1997 Stern is introduced as ―the insecure homebody with a small penis who just wants to be liked‖ (Rolling Stone, 1997). This also refers to the release of the movie Private Parts which also tries to transform his image from the rebel to the human being. In 1982 Washington television featured Howard Stern in a report in which Robin said that she once had gotten in trouble because of talking about Howard Stern in a personal way. Stern accused her of trying to ruin his image because she had described him as a nice guy.
The way he feels about his image is somewhat contradictory. The Playboy interview makes the reader assume on the one hand that he does not seem to care about his image at all by saying ―I could give a shit what my image is. If I ever worried about my image, I‘d be in big trouble, because everything I say is wrong‖. However, in the same interview he also admits that being constantly called a shock jock is an issue because it does not acknowledge Stern as a pioneer of radio. The author addresses the topic about Howard treating women as sexual objects and Howard brings up his relationship with his wife. ―She‘s the only person who loved me when nobody else did. She stuck by me. I talk about that on the air. It‘s not as simple as saying, ―Howard just sees women as tits and ass,‖ because that‘s not what the show
92 is about‖ (Playboy, 1994). In other words, one could interpret this statement that he indeed cares about what people think.
Three years later, during the interview with Steppin’ Out he seems to be more aware of his image by becoming more famous. ―Yeah, I do worry about it. As you become more famous and well-known you start to worry about your image. Suddenly you start to say maybe I shouldn‘t say that on the radio because of my image. And as soon as you say that you‘re finished.‖ In Biography Stern‘s success as an author made him seem almost respectable and thus, placed him in a ―dangerous situation‖. Stern then continues that every time he starts thinking that he should not say something because it is bad for his image he further asks himself, ―What image? There is no image here. […] That‘s precisely why people like this show. […] Don‘t become a star‖ (Steppin’ Out 1997). However, Stern obviously has an image. Otherwise he would not be there where he is now. What seems to distinguish him to other stars is that Stern seems to have ultimate control over his image.
8.5.2 Howard Stern, Reversed Image – the Family Man
With the release of Private Parts the goal of Stern and his public relations department can be described as inverting the bad boy image and highlighting the family man who would have never made it to the top without his wife (Image 11). ―The movie is really a love letter to my wife,‖ he says, looking down. ―A guy who can‘t get laid meets a wonderful woman at a young age, a woman willing to travel the country with him, to go along with this wacky career‖ (Rolling Stone, 1997). His wife, Alison further adds ―the whole thing is weird. […] I‘m still trying to get beyond the oddness and realize it‘s probably good for people to get a sense of what Howard and I have in private‖. In an interview with Chauncé Hayden for Steppin’ Out Stern points out that Alison
is the humanity of the film. […] The idea behind Private Parts was to reveal something new. Something that I hadn‘t shown the audience before. To me the key to this movie was the relationship I have with my wife because for years people had said to me, what kind of woman would marry Howard Stern? (1997)
93
In the movie review by the Rolling Stone, Peter Trevers speaks of Stern ―as a master of self-deprecation‖ and that the movie ―means to reshape our perceptions of the media storm trooper‖ because of its ―human touch‖ (1997). Again, the big difference between his on-air (―Frankenstein monster‖) and off-air personality (―reclusive, doting husband and dad‖) is of importance. Janet Maslin of The New York Times refers to a transformation ―from the scourge of airwaves to a sweetheart on the screen‖ and portrays the on-screen Stern as ―a great friend, wonderful husband and broadcasting pioneer‖ (New York Times 1997). Lisa Schwartzbaum from Entertainment Weekly IMAGE 11: A cartoon of Howard Stern and his wife seems to be questioning the credibility of Alison as the perfect couple (copyright New York the ―on-screen‖ Howard Stern. ―He means Magazine 1997) to shock, but he wants to go to Hollywood. He can‘t have it both ways.‖ Schwartzbaum describes him as ―shaped and softened‖ and as ―a defanged tiger, funny but tranquilized‖. She continues,
By big-studio standards, Thomas was a smart choice as director. The Brady Bunch Movie and HBO's The Late Shift demonstrate her bright, winking appreciation of popular culture at its most outsized, and the big-gal authority she brings to the project is just the juice needed to offset all the bad-boy blither about sex (Entertainment Weekly, 1997).
In the March issue of the New York Magazine, Barbara Lippert‘s heading of her article is ―The Ladies‘ Man‖ which addresses the aspect how Stern‘s management tries to appeal to women. Along with most journalists Lippert states that the movie ―is a conscious attempt to soften his image, to show how one guy uses his radio character to follow his dreams and be a loving husband and father‖. The strategy of the promotion campaign is said to show Stern‘s ―endless need to entertain‖ and ―needing everyone to love him‖ (New York Magazine 1997)
94
8.5.3 The King of all Media as an American Icon
Hall states that ―a contest of possible meanings makes up the drawing power of an icon, and makes it dynamic, rather than static, evolving, rather than securely deniable‖ (2006, xviii). In 2003 VH1 created an assessment named the ―200 Greatest Pop Culture Icons‖. The list consists of actors, musicians, politicians, academics, sports figures and fictional characters. All of those public figures were listed according to their influence on pop culture. The ranking was influenced by the following aspects: ―Can you dress as them for Halloween? Would you recognize them by a one-word name? And has Saturday Night Live ever parodied them?‖ (2003). All of these criteria apply to Howard Stern, therefore he ended up on spot 67 right after Barbara Streisand and followed by Bob Dylan. Oprah Winfrey is listed on the top.
According to Hall, certain features can be associated with an icon. (cf. 2006, xviif.) Three of the listed features seemed to be of great importance in reference to Howard Stern. First, ―an icon generates strong responses; people identify with it, or against it; and the differences often reflect generational distinctions‖ (ibid. xvii). Stern, now and then, has reflected different meanings to people in their twenties opposed to people in their fifties and sixties. Secondly, ―an icon stands for a group of related things and values‖ (ibid. xvii). Stern, for example, cannot only be associated with the classic rebel but also with the anti-her. Additionally, he can stand for the American dream. Thirdly, ―an icon is usually successful in commerce‖ (ibid. xviii). This feature probably applies to Howard Stern better than to the majority of other public figures. His commercial success in broadcasting, publishing, cinema, television and even politics confirms this hypothesis.
In the Playboy interview Stern highlights that the king of radio is not a remarkable achievement. ―Radio is an easy medium. I think I was seven years old when I realized I could be a success on the radio‖ (Playboy 1994). It does not matter if you watch a television program covering Stern‘s life or if you read an article in a magazine; the huge success and how he turned from an outsider to the king of all media is always of great importance.
He hit No. 1 in New York, Los Angeles, Washington, Philadelphia. He is now listened to by more than 18 million people nationally each day. Excerpts from his radio show are aired each night on the cable channel E! And he has written two best-selling books: Private Parts and Miss America (Rolling Stone, 1997).
Howard Stern often compares his life and the way it is depicted in the movie as a sort of Rocky story. While growing up Stern was leading the life of an outsider. He spent most of
95 his life living in Roosevelt in Long Island, New York. As it is shown in the movie Stern also tells in numerous interviews how an originally white neighborhood turned into an all black neighborhood over night. ―As one of the only white kids in school, he says, he was a symbol of oppression- a victim. […] Roosevelt taught Stern to be an outsider, a role he still plays every day. ―I have no idea what my place in show business is,‖ he tells me. ―I‘m sort of this outcast.‖ (Rolling Stone, 1997) According to the Rolling Stone cover story, Stern has always struggled to be accepted and appreciated.
He studied, was rejected by girls, worked on college radio. […] Before he met Alison […] Stern was the sort of lonely college kid who can‘t get a date. […] He followed the jobs, which he read about in Radio and Records, a trade publication. He went city to city. […] The stations were usually run-down joints in just the worst part of town, paper peeling off the walls, know-nothing program directors with bullshit rules. […] And just when you defeat one guy, you go somewhere else, and they tell you the same shit over and over again (1997). This excerpt of the article is a good example that the magazine does not portray Stern as a person who became the king of all media by chance. His life has been marked by overcoming obstacles and beating the odds with hard work and persistency. He had a dream and would not give up on it. It really seems like Rolling Stone is trying to convince their readers not to be fooled by Stern‘s reputation.
Despite the roadie clothes and cowboy mouth, he has proved himself a master businessman. [...] In the past 20 years, he‘s moved from the bottom of his profession, making less than a hundred bucks a week, to the top and an estimated yearly income of $12 million, which includes money from his books, movie deal and television contract (1997).
In an interview with Bill O‘Reilly Stern reveals that his primary audience consists of ―anyone who likes to laugh‖, the majority of it being male. The media often refers to Stern as a publicity phenomenon and his ability to draw masses to any of his events. ―Stern has displayed enough star power to have sold out – in four hours – Long Island‘s 16,000-seat Nassau Coliseum […]. All this at a time when most radio personalities can‘t draw a crowd to a mall opening‖ (Rolling Stone, 1990)
Rolling Stone describes Stern‘s secret as a result of
going against everything his past has taught him, by turning all the manners and lessons of his middle-class upbringing inside out‖ […] When Stern broke through, it was a kind of revelation, a noise that came on a wind from suburbia, a voice for the next 30 years, a voice born of prosperity and boredom, a voice in your head
96
when you‘re stuck in traffic on a Monday morning. The line between thinking and saying had been obliterated (1997).
8.5.4 The Rebel, the Family Man and the Icon in the Context of Authenticity
Regardless if it is 1985, 1992 or 1997, Stern‘s openness and honesty is always an important topic when dealing with Howard Stern. In this last section I would like to discuss the interplay between the three features and how they all intertwine in the context of authenticity. Print magazines such as the Rolling Stone and the Playboy magazine contribute to the notion of authenticity by apparently print everything what he says regardless of the language Stern uses during the interviews.
When Stern admits about doing drugs when he was a teenager, it does not only stand for his bad boy image but it also displays a sense of authenticity. Stern always points out how honest he is on air. The reader believes Stern when he says ―I did it because I wanted to look cool and get laid‖. The problem with Stern is that it never becomes clear whether what he does on the radio is just an act or not. This question is addressed in a number of interviews with Stern. When Stern talks with Playboy about revealing his masturbating habits on air he tells his wife that it is just an act because he is too embarrassed to tell her. ―As a person on the radio, I feel like I can confess to anything and be totally honest with my audience. In real life, I‘m a maggot who is kind of wormy‖ (1994).
The authenticity of Howard Stern is also being highlighted in the Rolling Stone story. ―Off air, his tone drops. He is tentative and honest, someone who wants to be liked. […] Stern lives on air. Every episode in his life moves from his world into his studio. He is a transparent being. Everyone knows everything. So he feels he is judged as much for his plans as for his accomplishments‖ (1997). It indeed feels like there is no privacy left in Stern‘s life. When talking about the movie Stern explains to the magazine ―I didn‘t want a Hollywood version of my career. […] I didn‘t want my director to love me. […] I want people to begin to understand what I‘m about, that I‘m not just a guy who tells pussy and dick jokes all fuckin‘ morning, and there is some intelligence behind it.‖ Being the rebel behind the microphone is not the only thing important for Stern‘s authentic image. It also is the fact how important his wife and family are to him. ―My dream was to be honest on the air and tell people everything that was going on in my life. That was not my wife‘s dream.‖ Stern is very much aware of what his wife has had to put up with during his career. ―There is some sort of character flaw in me and yet she continues to love me […] because we have a true friendship between us and 97 a true relationship between us.‖ He additionally points out his honesty when being on air. ―Somehow I think when I‘m off the air, I‘m role playing‖ (1997).
In the interview with 2 on the Town in 1984 he is asked whether it is really him on the radio or if it is just an act. Stern answers that it is really him. ―When I get on the air I just unleash everything I am feeling and when I get off the air it‘s like I clam up inside […] but what you hear on the air is pretty much me‖. While Howard is convinced is makes radio interesting the voice-over adds right after, ―some people feel that Howard is making radio dangerous‖, which does not put Howard into the position of a victim but the people exposed to him. However, throughout the course of the show Stern also admits how insecure he is because of the type of the show he does.
In terms of honesty, during his stream of consciousness talk on television shows it is often difficult to tell whether Stern is being serious or whether he is making a joke. During his recent appearance on Late Night with David Letterman in February 2011 he tells Letterman that he has been in therapy for 16 years and the audience bursts out into laughs. Indeed, Stern has mentioned in a number of interviews before that he really does consult a psychiatrist on a regular basis. Thus, one aspect about his authentic persona is to not be trustworthy.
When Stern appears on talk shows there seems to be an immediate familiarity between Stern, the host and the audience. Regardless whether it is a late night talk show or a daytime talk show, When Stern appears on a talk show he often attempts to distract the host while doing the lead-in. For example, during Heart of the Matter Stern is holding the hand of the host and interrupts the introduction with short remarks. Sometimes he individually addresses random people among the audience as seen on Midday Live in 1984. In other words, as soon as Stern starts talking the host struggles to maintain his control over the show. Thus, similar to being on the radio, Stern also proofs to be able to create a certain familiarity on television.
Another interesting aspect of Stern‘s behavior is every time Stern is being asked a question he often begins his answer with ―I am going to be honest with you‖ or ―the truth is‖. It creates the feeling of Stern constantly highlighting his honesty but also the feeling of having the need to defend oneself. Moreover, his tone and pace of talking as well as the flow of words make it difficult for the listener to really distinguish whether Stern really speaks the truth or only pretends to tell the truth.
His honesty goes hand in hand with his rebel image. In Heart of the Mind the host partly blames his dismissal at WNBC on Stern himself because of constantly insulting his 98 superiors on the air. Stern explains that ―they know that there is a certain amount of honesty going on‖. The host refers to a WNBC commercial featuring Don Imus and Howard Stern with the caption ―if we weren‘t so bad we wouldn‘t be so good‖. This leads to the assumption that the station actually approved of and endorsed Howard Stern‘s image as he reveals on the show. In a commercial for Howard Stern during his time at DC-101 in Washington prior to WNBC we see a boy whispering something into the ear of a girl. She then slaps the boy and calls him a pervert while the boy is grinning into the camera. The scene is then followed by a voice-over ―Howard Stern on DC-101 radio. He has never played by the rules.‖ Thus, it can be said that even though Stern was dismissed or at least lectured by his bosses in Washington and New York for being outrageous and disobedient, they also promoted and therefore, approved of his bad boy image.
According to Schwartzbaum the on-screen authenticity does not concur with his on-air honesty, ―if Stern really believes in going all the way, why not hold out for a movie that really shows him like he is?‖ (1997). She does have a point because even in the movie it seems that Stern is not the type of person who would easily agree to a compromise. Thus, one might argue that the promotional campaign to present Stern in a different light seems too contrived to be authentic, at least to those who clearly see Stern as a rebel and nothing else. McGurk shares a similar opinion by putting ―true story‖ in inverted commas and describing Private Parts as ―a comic-book version of an autobiography designed as a joke-delivery system‖ (1997). Whereas Maslin talks about the some parts of the movie being ―as authentic as Mr Stern‘s movie hair‖, she also mentions the presentation of the star ―as a crusader‖. Unlike The people vs. Larry Flynt Private Parts is not about free expression but ―about the hot career and self-congratulatory charisma of Mr. Stern‖ (New York Times, 1997). Therefore, the movie, in a certain way, indeed seems to reflect Stern‘s personality but not in a way the viewer would expect it to be.
99
9 OVERALL CONCLUSION
After observing how the movie and the media constructs and mediates a certain image it can be said that Private Parts as well as media coverage depicts Howard Stern as an honest rebel on the one hand and as an everyman with a wife and two children on the other hand. Especially the media has come to oppose those two images extensively. What distinguishes the movie and the media coverage is the image-ratio between rebel and family man or in other words, public and private persona. In the movie the emphasis is clearly put on interpersonal relationships, pretending to portray how Howard Stern really is. The goal to direct Stern‘s image into the direction of the caring husband was probably also a reason to choose a female director. The media, on the other hand, highlights the rebel image to a large extent. In other words, the first portrayal could describe how Stern prefers to be seen by the public, whereas the second depiction describes how the public chooses to see Stern. After all, the rebel image is the image that was and remains to be the main aspect responsible for his popularity and stardom. Both images would not work without Stern‘s authentic nature. The subject of honesty is equally present in the movie as well as in various magazine reports and television programs about Stern.
In terms of criticism, the movie reviews discussed in this paper have led me to the assumption that a reversion of the image does not solely depend on the star and its promotion campaign but also to a large extent on the individual. Once a person is too preoccupied and convinced about a star‘s persona or image the reversion of the image is most likely to fail. In the case of Howard Stern, the newly created image of the family man had to compete with an image that had been established for twenty years. Therefore, it was necessary to distinguish between Stern‘s ‗on air‘- and ‗off air‘-persona. This duality enables a coexistence of two different images being equally authentic. An aspect the media coverage and Stern‘s representation in the movie have in common is that both use means in favor of manipulation. Both mediums decide what should be visible and what should remain hidden to the public. All in all, it has been shown how a movie is capable of reshaping the reception of most Americans regarding a star‘s image. However, this attempt to change an image only appears to be successful if this change can also be retraced within the media.
Since Stern has only made one movie so far he does not fall under the category of film stars. Despite being successful in other fields such a literature, television and cinema, he is
100 and will remain a radio personality who has had an enormous impact on America‘s media landscape as well as on its culture.
It can be argued whether the same rebel of the 80s would be as revolutionary today as he was 30 years ago. Since my findings almost exclusively refer to the Howard Stern of the 80s and 90s it would be also of great interest to do research on his persona and image from the year 2000 onwards including the evolution of the radio and the internet, especially social networks. For example, Howard Stern is being followed by more than 560.000 people on Twitter. Thus a thorough analysis in the field of fandom is most likely to deliver fertile results. His omnipresence in the media as well as in American politics provides enough resources to also include his role as an author, his role as a television personality as well as his candidateship for governor of New York. Thus, his impact on areas such as the media, freedom of speech, race and gender enables a much deeper analysis of his persona. Additionally, it would be desirable to extend the field of stardom and its studies to celebrities being successful in more than one or two media-related areas for future comparative analyses outside film studies.
101
10 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Robert C. (2004) ―The Role Of The Star In Film History [Joan Crawford]‖. In: Leo Braudy, ed. Film Theory and Criticism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 606- 619
Barthes, Roland (1973) Mythologies. London: Paladin.
Barthes, Roland (1977) Image, Music, Text. London: Fontana Press.
Bennett, James (2008) ―The Television Personality System: Televisual Stardom Revisited After Film Theory‖. Screen 49:1. 32-50
Boorstin, Daniel J. (1992) The Image: A Guide To Pseudo-Events in America. New York, NY: Vintage
Butler, Jeremy (1998) ―The Star System and Hollywood―. In: John Hill, ed. Oxford Guide to Film Studies. New York, NY: OUP. 342-353
Colford, D. Paul (1996) Howard Stern: King of All Media – The unauthorized Biography. New York, NY: St. Martins Press.
Deming, Robert H. (1985) ―Discourse/Talk/Television‖. Screen. 26: 6. 88-93
Dyer, Richard (2007/1979) Stars. London: British Film Institute
Ellis, John (2004) ―Stars As A Cinematic Phenomenon‖. In: Leo Braudy, ed. Film Theory and Criticism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 598-605
Faulstich, Korte, Lowry, Strobel (1997) ―Kontinuität - zur Imagefundierung des Film- und Fernsehstars―. In: Faulstich, Werner/Korte, Helmut eds: Der Star: Geschichte, Rezeption, Bedeutung. München: Fink. 11-28
Geraghty, Christine (2002) ―Re-examining stardom: questions of texts, bodies and performance‖. In: Christine Gledhill & Linda Williams, eds. Reinventing Film Studies. London: Arnold. 183-201
Hall, Dennis & Hall, Susan G. (2006) ―Preface‖. In: Dennis Hall & Susan G. Hall, eds. American Icons: an Encyclopedia of the People, Places and Things that Have Shaped Our Culture. Connecticut: Greenwood Press. xvii-xx
102
King, Barry (1986) ―Stardom as an Occupation―. In: Paul Kerr, ed. The Hollywood Film Industry. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 154-184
Harris, Thomas (1975) ―The Building of Popular Images: Grace Kelly and Marilyn Monroe‖ In: Christine Gledhill, ed. (1991) Stardom: Industry of Desire. London: Routledge, p. 40-44
Kellner, Douglas (2005) Media Culture. London: Routledge.
Lopez, Daniel (1993) Films By Genre: 775 Categories, Styles, Trends and Movements Defined, with a Filmography for Each. North Carolina: McFarland & Company
Ludes, Peter (1997) ―Aufstieg und Niedergang von Stars als Teilprozeß der Menschheitsentwicklung―. In: Faulstich, Werner/Korte, Helmut, eds. Der Star - Geschichte, Rezeption, Bedeutung. München: Fink, p.78-98
Marshall, David P. (2004a) ―The Cinematic Apparatus and the Construction of the Film Celebrity‖. In: Celebrity And Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. 79-118
Marshall, David P. (2004b) „Television‘s Construction of the Celebrity―. In: Celebrity And Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. 119-149
McDonald, Paul (1995) ―Star Studies‖. In: Hollows, Joanne and Joncovich, Mark, eds. Approaches to popular film. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 79-97
McHugh, Kathleen (2002) ―Where Hollywood Fears to Tread: Autobiography and the Limits of Commercial Cinema‖. In: John Lewis, ed. The end of cinema as we know it: American film in the nineties. New York: New York University Press. 269-276
Morse, Margaret (1985) ―Talk, Talk, Talk―. Screen. 26:2. 2-15
Mulvey, Laura (1999) ―Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema‖. In: Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen, eds. Film Theory and Critizism: Introductory Readings. New York: Oxford University Press. 833-844
Nemeth, Neil. (2001) ―Covering his Not-So-Private Parts.‖ In: Yahya R. Kamalipour and Yaha R., eds. Media, Sex, Violence, and Drugs in the Global Village. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. 97-113 103
Sommer, Carlo Michael (1997) ―Stars als Mittel der Identitätskonstruktion: Überlegungen zum Phänomen des Star-Kults aus sozialpsychologischer Sicht―. In: Faulstich, Werner/Korte, Helmut, eds. Der Star – Geschichte, Rezeption, Bedeutung. München: Fink. 114-124
Staiger, Jane (1997) "Das Starsystem und der klassische Hollywoodfilm." In: Faulstich, Werner/Korte, Helmut, eds. Der Star - Geschichte, Rezeption, Bedeutung. München: Fink. 48-59
Tudor, Andrew (1974) Theories of Film. New York: Viking Press.
10.1 Online Resources
Chandler, Daniel (2001) ―Denotation, Connotation and Myth‖. Semiotics For Beginners. [Online] Prifysgol Abersmyth University. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem06.html [2011, February 5th]
Cohen, Rich (2011, March 16) ―Howard Stern Does Hollywood: Rolling Stone's 1997 Cover Story‖. Rolling Stone. [Online] Rolling Stone http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/howard-stern-does-hollywood-rolling- stones-1997-cover-story-20110316 [2011, March 20th]
Fine, Marshall (1994, April) ―Howard Stern: The Playboy Interview‖. Playboy [Online] Playboy.com http://www.playboy.com/articles/howard-stern-playboy- interview/index.html [2011, March 20th]
Frankel, Martha (1997, January 1) ―Howard Does Hollywood‖. Movieline. [Online] Movieline. http://www.movieline.com/1997/01/howard-does-hollywood.php [2011, March 19th]
Gavard, Sandra (1997) ―Howard Stern‘s ‗Public Parts‘: A Semiotic Analysis‖. Sandra Gavard’s Essays [Online] Oudjian. http://sandra.oundjian.com/content/kaite.htm [2011, January 5th]
Handy, Bruce (1997, March 10) ―Cinema: What Private Parts?‖ Time Magazine [Online] TIME. http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,986032,00.html# [2011, March 20th]
104
Hayden, Chauncé (1997, Febraury 26) ―Howard Stern‘s Private Parts Conquers Hollywood‖. Steppin’ Out. [Online] KOAM.com. http://www.koam.com/hs_pp_interview.html [2011, February 2nd]
Holmes, Sue (2005) ―‗Starring… Dyer?‘ Re-visiting Star Studies and Contemporary Celebrity Culture‖. University of Westminster. [Online] University of Westminster. http://www.westminster.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/20159/Holmes.pdf [2010, November 14th]
Kinnaird, Brian (2010, June 3) ―Anti-heroes: Can there be a goodness of purpose?‖. The Hero In You [Online] Psychology Today. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-hero- in-you/201006/anti-heroes-can-there-be-goodness-purpose [2011, February 12th]
Lippert, Barbara (1997, March 17) ―The Ladies‘ Man‖. New York Magazine. [Online] Google Books http://books.google.at/books?id=u- gCAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA22&dq=new+york+magazine+howard+stern&hl=de&ei=LP W2TfGXCIaMswaNwqTTDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0 CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20magazine%20howard%20stern&f= false [2011, March 5th]
Lowry, Stephen (1997, June 2). ―Stars und Images: Theoretische Perspektiven auf Filmstars―. Montage AV. [Online] Montage AV. http://www.montage- av.de/pdf/062_1997/06_2_Stephen_Lowry_Stars_und_Images.pdf [2011, February 12th]
Lundy, Zeth (2005, July 21) ―James Dean Iconography: Archetypes, Stereotypes, and the Imitation of Life‖. Popmatters. [Online] PopMatters. http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/050721-jamesdean/ [2011, March 3rd]
Maslin, Janet (1997, March 7) ―Private Parts: When A Scourge Turns On The Charm‖.The New York Times. [Online] The New York Times Movies. http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9A07E1D61330F934A35750C0A96195 8260 [2011, March 20th]
McGurk, Margaret A. (2006, November 3) ―Howard Goes Hollywood: Shock-jock Stern puts ‗Private Parts‘ on big screen‖. The Cincinnati Enquirer. [Online] Cincinnati.com. http://www.enquirer.com/columns/mcgurk/030797c_mm.html [2011, March 20th]
105
Parles, Jon (1992, November 15) ―RADIO VIEW; Shock Jocks Shake Up Uncle Sam‖. New York Times. [Online] New York Times and New York Post. http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC- Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=A174995260&s ource=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=nypl&version=1.0 [2010, February 16th]
Schwartzbaum, Lisa (1997, March 14) ―Private Parts‖. Entertainment Weekly [Online] Entertainment Weekly. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,287042,00.html [2011, March 20th]
Travers, Peter (1997, March 7) ―Private Parts‖ Rolling Stone. [Online] Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/private-parts-19970307 [2011, March 20th]
Van Leeuven, Theo and Jewitt, Carey eds. (2004) The Handbook of Visual Analysis. [Online] Scribd. http://www.scribd.com/doc/27620388/VanLeeuwen-Jewitt-Visual-Analysis- Handbk [2011, March 4th]
Wild, David (2011, March 16) ―Who is Howard Stern? Rolling Stone‘s 1990 Feature‖ Rolling Stone [Online] Rolling Stone http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/who-is- howard-stern-rolling-stones-1990-feature-20110316 [2011, March 20th]
―The Ruins Of Detroit‖ March of the Titans: The History of the White Race (2008, October 15) [Online] White History. http://www.white-history.com/hwrdet4a.htm [2011, February 12th]
―Bill O‘Reilly: Howard Stern interview Part 2‖ [Online] Youtube. (2008, August 10). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAMtd4Wf9gI [2010, December 20th]
―Howard Stern talks about stardom & celebrity and Patrick Swayze‘s death‖ [Online] Youtube. (2010, January 4). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOeqm9DFZJg [2010, Novermber 19th]
―Howard Stern‘s Biography‖ [Online] Youtube. (2007, May 25). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_Et_KHOqxM [2010, November 25th]
―Howard Stern fired from WNBC‖ [Online] Youtube. (2007, January 14) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJewgWh0Sjs [2010, November 26th] 106
―Howard Stern on Late Night w/ David Letterman‖ [Online] Youtube. (2006, June 15). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1X5cQ1ymnQ [2010, November 25th]
―Howard Stern WCBS Channel 2 On The Town 1984‖ [Online] Youtube. (2009, July 26). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYhqPGd4oCw [2010, November 25th]
―Howard Stern, The Early Years‖ [Online] Youtube. (2009, March 20). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF5wnUcR0I4 [2010, November 25th]
―Howard Stern 20/20 Interview 1 of 2‖ [Online] Youtube. (2007, January 6). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEATQYrAhbo [2010, November 26th]
―Howard Stern 20/20 Interview 2 of 2‖ [Online] Youtube. (2007, January 7). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAXNdk2Kxs8 [2010, November 26th]
―Howard Stern 1984 TV Appearance on Midday Live Pt 1‖ [Online] Youtube. (2008, March 31). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74PyIqOZfm8 [2010, November 26th]
―Howard Stern 1984 TV Appearance on Midday Live Pt 2‖ [Online] Youtube. (2008, March 31) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAXwbxU3NIw [2010, November 26th]
―Shock Jock‖ (n. d.) Wikipedia [Online] Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_jock [2011, February 11th]
―Private Parts‖ (n. d.) Internet Movie Database [Online] Internet Movie Database. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119951/ [2011, February 11th]
10.2 Film
Reitman, Ivan, Producer (1997) Private Parts [Film] Hollywood, California: Paramount Pictures.
107
10.3 Radio
―Private Parts The Movie‖ (2010, December 23). The History of Howard Stern. Sirius XM Radio, New York.
10.4 Images
Image 1 [Online] http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2088/2881/1600/private_parts.jpg [2011, January 5th]
Image 2 [Online] http://www.mtv.com/photos/mtv-video-music-awards-1992- highlights/1563762/2507974/photo.jhtml [2011, January 5th]
Image 3 [Online] http://www.mtv.com/onair/vma/2005/flipbooks/hot_shots/1992_03_getty.jpg [2011, January 5th]
108