Movie stars are a hot item for entertainment purposes in our society. The public loves when two celebrities’ are placed in “battle mode,” because that sells more tabloids and movie tickets. The stars become itemized for the entertainment industry and for the viewing or reading pleasure of the masses. Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie are a perfect example of this methodology by media to pin two Hollywood starts against each other, and the only thing that was needed to spark the battle was the drama situation with Brad Pitt. The two women had their own image and name established in the industry, but their little love triangle sparked interest for them in measures never before seen. Aniston and Jolie are signifiers (“sound image”), but they are completely different in the signified (“mental concept”) department. The media which often time plays the role of authority from above, made these two women opposite signs from each other, for their own benefit. Structuralism states that “linguistic sign unites, not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound image” (de Saussure 61). The mental concepts for these women can change with time and with the help of the media, because “the bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary” (de Saussure 62). In the entertainment industry every scandal, publicity, interview, movie, or even photograph has the possibility of altering peoples’ opinions about them. Language is not stable; it is affected by the region, culture, and people, which means that it is always on an evolutionary path. The ability to evolve is what allows words to not have “pre-existing concepts” (de Saussure 67) attached to the signifier.
Jolie is binary to Aniston, which mean their mental concepts are in opposition to each other. The mental concepts for Jennifer Aniston would be: glamorous, beautiful, elegant, “girl next door,” innocent, feminine, hopeless romantic, comedy/romantic star, loyal, and the biggest one with the Jolie situation would be the mental concept of victim. The media focused on the aspect of Aniston being dumped by Pitt for Jolie, and how Jolie got pregnant immediately following the break up drama. Aniston was turned into an object, because the media was not focused on her as an individual, but only the action that was done unto her in order to create this opposition with Jolie. These two women were made pawns by many magazines and tabloids for entertainment and monetary beneficial purposes. Even years after the drama and a couple of kids into Jolie and Pitt relationship, magazines are still using these women in “battle mode.” The mental concepts for Angelina Jolie would be: sex appeal (sexy), adventurous, edgy, gothic (at times), strong, athletic, provocative, action star, unstable (especially in relationships), and concerning the Aniston situation the mental concept would be home wrecker or the other woman. This example also shows that a signifier does not necessarily have one signified attached to it, because the signified is a mental concept the possibilities are endless. The media is a powerful tool is shaping the mindsets of individuals who are incredibly into the pop culture and entertainment industry, because it gives them an escape from their own realistic problematic lives. Movie stars are presented to people in certain images and when the media can get an opposition going they really milk it for as long as the readers or audiences allow them. Aniston and Jolie are still compared today in magazine titles like: Jennifer Aniston vs Angelina Jolie: the Vogue Battle, Jennifer Aniston vs Angelina Jolie: a box-office smackdown, Jennifer Aniston vs Angelina Jolie: Whose LBD do you like better?, and Jennifer Aniston Legs Versus Angelina Jolie Legs (all articles titles found in google search). These tabloids show that these women are just objects to be used for sexuality, publicity, movie ratings, and entertainment purposes. Media allows this to happen, but it forms in the minds of the audience different mental concepts (signified) for these two individual signifiers.
Works Citied
Saussure, Ferdinand De. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan.
Malden: Blackwell Ltd, 2004. p 59-71
No comments:
Post a Comment