Last week, I remarked to a friend that I felt sorry for whatever actress was undergoing a public separation at the time. Considering the recent coverage of Eva Longoria, Courteney Cox, and Jennifer Aniston, I can’t even say who I initially meant. Either way, my friend stated she also felt sorry and chalked our mutual sympathy up to 24-7 twitter/blog/entertainment news coverage that gives the illusion of connectedness. Yet, that got me thinking. Do we over identify with our favorite television actors to the point of confusing their characters with their real selves? If so, why? Considering my temporary sympathy for an actress that I can’t even remember this week, does contemporary society over identify with actors or celebrities? And how does that happen?
For part of the answer, I defer to academic film critic Laura Mulvey in her seminal Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (1973). According to Mulvey, the film audience “project(s) repressed desire onto the performer” where the actor serves as his/her “ego ideal.” They identify with certain stars because they represent an uber-“glamorous” part of our “ordinary” selves. So, do people just connect to contemporary actors because they represent prettier versions of themselves or, do we forget the actor is not the character?
But, there’s an uglier side to actor identification. Sometimes we insult people who critique our favorite actor or we take the criticism personally. Way back in my undergraduate days a friend and I had a disagreement over hockey. When I made a comment about Wayne Gretzky’s playing, as a hardcore Devils fan, she walked away, while describing her connection to him. I didn’t respond, but I wondered how she could bond with a mega-talented millionaire she had never met while showing rudeness to her friend. Considering I experienced it a little bit myself, as well as others, I wonder why we’re so protective of our favorite stars or their television performances. Despite my crush on Alex O’Loughlin, I can’t really fault Michael if he isn’t similarly blinded by O’Louglin’s eyes (or, ahem, his abs).
Maybe we take it personally because today’s world has become both segmented yet isolated. Nowadays, the internet allows us to connect with people that share our views, but we seemingly connect less with each other. If we see less of our mother but more coverage of Alex O’ Loughlin, does that make us identify with one over the other?
Or have we just lost the ability to handle criticism? With all of the niche-groups on-line, we grow so accustomed to sharing similar perspectives that we lose the ability to relate when someone disagrees. Personally, I do believe our society has lost the capability to handle constructive criticism without insulting each other. But, that’s another piece altogether.
So, do we over identify with actors who portray our favorite characters? And, if so, do we occasionally attack the people who are essentially us over those who are definitely not us on their behalf? And, if so,why? Is it because they’re our super-ego? Is it because nowadays if someone disagrees with us we don’t just say “you’re wrong,” we say, “you’re stupid”? Or, is it just that sometimes we hurt? Although this post started out with a slightly different focus, I do wonder. With the release of netbooks last year and tablets this year, we have the opportunity to spend even more time on-line watching TV, following Donald Faison on FaceBook, catching up with Stephen Fry on Twitter, and, of course, reading CliqueClack. Does that mean we’ll spend even more time catching up with our favorite stars and less with our friends and family? Probably not. But, if it did, I wonder what might happen to our world.
Clacked by An Nicholson 
on Nov 21, 2010 @ 10:00 EST5EDT
. . . . .
To be completely fair, that was the first time I believe I have seen “AOL” on screen. And what I saw didn’t trip my trigger. But I appreciate the nod, An. (And, honestly, if I was ‘blinded’ that would encompass an entirely different set of parameters.)
Isn’t it interesting how we do gravitate to different characters and personalities we see on the small screen? How can we not, when we see them week after week after week?
And, for me, it’s one of two situations within a character (or, sometimes, both in the same from week to week) that help me not only identify with someone. For me, that someone is Tommy Gavin (Denis Leary) on Rescue Me.
When he’s good, he’s good. He has the upper hand and no one can take it away from him when he’s got it. The swagger he exudes at those times is monstrous and I love it. Who wouldn’t want to be Tommy at those times? On the flip side, he’s a royal fukowee-up when he makes a bad decision … not always on purpose, I might add. In those instances, you can’t help but feel for the guy … or at least chuckle uncomfortably for him.
Defend when attacked? Yes. Of course I do. We all do. Anyone who says otherwise I don’t think is being completely truthful. We do it verbally with conviction … with a ‘whatever’ (‘whatever’ is an argument? Stupidest three syllables anyone can utter in a debate or as a response) … or silently to ourselves while labeling the person who doesn’t share our affection for a character as ‘you dumb monkey-brain; what do you know?’
To date, I cannot fathom why everyone does NOT like Flo on the Progressive commercials.
Super thought-provoking post, An.
*POST AUTHOR*
Thanks for posting, Michael. I won’t lie, I totally plan on writing a crazy bunch of Sanctuary fan-fic for the holidays. And, I did watch the Back-Up Plan because Alex O’Loughlin co-starred in it, despite warnings (which I should have listened to :). But, when I look at the young woman participating in the MovieFone Twilight contest who had 705 votes (last time I checked) and declared her love for the cast, I respected her, but I just haven’t experienced that level of over-over-identification
So, I do wonder what makes us connect with various fictional characters or TV actors to the point of just following them or uber-defending them. While clearly this started in response to another debate, after my mini-convo with my friend last week, my focus changed. Why do I feel sorry for people I haven’t met?
Thanks for sharing your love of Tommy Gavin. Interestingly, I started watching the show because I enjoyed O’Leary’s humor, but I didn’t really connect with the character or the show itself. And, regarding, “AOL,” he isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. Although, my interest in him is possibly tainted by his lead role in Moonlight, I always point people towards the later episodes just to check it out.
I think when we love or hate a character because we overidentify (or don’t identify) with them, it’s because the character represents something else. The character represents an idea, a quality, or reminds us of someone we know. A few examples – Jack Bauer represents justice to me. Obviously that’s an oversimplification, but I’m talking about why I might embrace the character – it’s because in the broadest, simplest sense, he represents justice against terrorists and against corrupt politicians, and I like that that idea. Dr. House represents truth and freedom from social boundaries – he represents cutting through the crap, telling it like it is, and living like you want. Again, its an oversimplification. Characters are more nuanced, but the ones who represent something more are the ones I think we really become protective and possessive of. And it doesn’t have to be an idea that they remind us of – they can remind us of a trait or a real person (for example, if House reminds you of your ex-husband, you might really hate the character; if he reminds you of your dad’s blunt sense of humor, you might really love the character).
*POST AUTHOR*
I definitely like the idea of characters/actors representing ideals and thanks for suggesting the Parasocial Interaction. I have a girl-crush on Laura Mulvey. The last time I read her text, I was struck less by the argument’s gendered facet, and more her initial construction of contemporary society’s relationship with cinema stars. However, I’ll start looking at the various articles that came out of the 90s focusing on Parasocial Interactions in the new media era until now.
By the way, another explanation you might want to explore is Parasocial Interaction, which is part of Uses and Gratifications theory.
I agree with Michael, An, very thought provoking. It leaves me with so much I want to say, I could write a comment as big as your post.
I’m not sure if technology has given us a new way to connect with characters and the actors who play them; just a more immediate and personal one. Growing up (shush about my age please) I watched Charlie’s Angels and The Bionic Woman, spent every free moment PLAYING Charlie’s Angels and The Bionic Woman – chasing bad guys, jumping fences, wielding guns. I was both Farrah Fawcett so I could be “married” to Lee Majors, and The Bionic Woman, so I could be “married” to the Bionic Man (both Lee Majors). I read every book and article about Farrah and Lindsay Wagner. I wanted to be them. We never argued over who liked who, we just loved who we loved.
I won’t even get into my celebrity boys phase. From the age of, oh, four maybe, I had posters of boys on my walls. Donny Osmond, David Cassidy, Leif Garrett, on and on. I planned routes on how I would find them, where in California I would live to “marry” them. Just ridiculous, and full of wonderful memories.
As technology and society has progressed, we’ve become more spread out, can communicate in ways never thought possible. While I have some friends where I live, all of my good friends have either moved far away or are people I’ve met through my love of TV (right here on CC) or dolls. I spent more time at my computer than I do with actual people. I know that is not good, and I’m not sure what it means about my place in the world. It’s just a fact.
Societally, we have decided that you are not allowed to disagree. If you do, you are not tolerant of others. By putting that message out there, it doesn’t make things better, it makes them worse. We’ve lost our ability to genuinely argue a point on merit rather than feelings. People are afraid to disagree, so they reach for “you’re stupid” due to their inability to handle it any other way. Without the merited part of the disagreement, it leads to hurt feelings, because you don’t know why someone would make fun of you for watching, say, Guiding Light.
I watched that show for longer than I know most people. I graduated high school with a group of people who were still on the show when it was cancelled. I knew them longer than actual high school classmates. I grieved when it was gone. I’ve actually Twittered with Rick Bauer (the actor who played him, not the character) and Beth Chamberlin, who played Beth on GL, follows me on Twitter. I’ve virtually met the people I watched in 1983 and shared similar moments in life. In what other time could that happen?
We’ve become closer to people we would otherwise never know, learn about personal lives and form opinions on characters and actors as if they are our real friends. We live in a really strange time, and I’m happy that I’ve had life both with and without technology. I feel better equipped to handle disagreements, discussion and criticism than those who have never lived without technology.
And, reading back, it seems I’ve added little to the discussion but I had to get it out. And, when you write things like this, An, it reminds me just how much I like you and that I need to catch up with you on chat more often. Without CC, I couldn’t say that. :-)
*POST AUTHOR*
Lol, Carissa, I agree with most of the things you’ve said. And, contrary to your final sentence, you’ve actually added a lot to the discussion.
Yes, technology does help us to connect with awesome people such as yourself, but I feel it allows us to walk away with a person’s best, while never dealing with the worst. I might’ve met Michael Trucco in reality, seen a couple of his shows, and sometimes read tweets from his former co-workers, but that doesn’t mean I ‘know’ him (although I wouldn’t mind ‘knowing’ him ‘biblical’-style ;) But, in our contemporary society, we know our friends/neighbors less and less, but our favorite TV actors more and more. It annoys me when I see kids sit side-by-side texting while informing each other of celebrity tweets.
While I wonder about kids today who now have both the fictional character and the real life actor to follow, I can’t say if it’s positive or negative.
However, what I’ve got from you, Michael and Ruby, is, yes, people do identify, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing (except when they attack other people). It happens because of how we feel or what the character means to us. But, my new thought is what happens when the character they identify with no longer remains culturally relevant? What will happen to die-hard Potter fans five years in the future? What about old school Michael J. Fox fans? Truthfully, both sets will probably grow or have already grown out of their identification, while remembering it fondly. So, while it probably isn’t a bad thing, I can’t help but wonder.
Even so, I have to thank all of you for responding. You all gave incredibly thought provoking posts, worthy of their own piece :) And, they definitely balanced my own neo-luddite perspective :)