Why Katherine Heigl Can’t Change the Conversation
Note: The following is post a co-production with my best friend and partner-in-crime, Alaina Smith, who has previously authored/collaborated on posts about Dooce (alias Heather Armstrong) and “Does Maybe Gaybe Matter?”
In 2009, Katherine Heigl gave a series of interviews while promoting The Ugly Truth that were perceived as whiny and critical of those who had helped her become famous. In return, she was the subject of a harsh backlash from the media and colleagues. Annie wrote about the position she found herself here, questioning whether or not she was Hollywood’s “New Shrew.” Since then, things haven’t gotten much better. As an agent quoted in a June 2010 NYMag article explained:
“She still green-lights studio movies. And personality aside, she is a movie star. [But...] producers are telling us, ‘We can’t go back to any male lead she’s ever worked with.’ And that’s because she’s a goddamn nightmare. It’s a shame, because she’s talented. She has a shot at being Julia Roberts, but she’s headed towards becoming Jennifer Aniston — someone who works regularly, but who could have been a superstar.
Heigl in costume for The Killers
Heigl, her manager-mother, and the publicist who eventually fired her couldn’t seem to do anything counter her bitchy reputation. This June’s Killers wasn’t pre-screened for critics (a fate usually reserved for the likes of Saw 17 and other bombs), eventually earned a 12% rotten rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and grossed $45 million domestic and $45 international on budget of $75 million. Add in 50% of that cost for advertising and promotion, and you’ve got a film firmly in the red. Heigl’s image - and perceived ability to open a film - went from bad to worse.
As Vulture explained, “As a whole, her post–Knocked Up movies have been competent, successful, familiar, and undistinguished — all of which you might say about Heigl herself. There will always be starring roles for pretty blondes who are delightfully ditzy and can chew their lips emotively on cue. However, there will also always be blondes like that, too.”
As Annie noted in her previous post about Heigl, we want our stars to be grateful for their success. Heigl broke that rule. She seemed to be just fine with the fame and fortune that came along with her explosive success as America’s new rom-com princess - but refused to embrace that role outside her screen appearances.
After her breakout roles in Grey’s Anatomy and Knocked Up, audiences thought she was a fresh new face. Heigl seemed to feel she’d put in time and was entitled to what she’d achieved (she’s been working steadily since she was 14). She also refused to pander to the minivan majority in her personal life - she shunned dating her co-stars for marriage to a singer, adopted a special-needs baby from Korea in 2009 with relatively little fanfare (by Hollywood standards) and lives in Utah when she’s not working.
Over the last few weeks, however, she began promoting Life as We Know It. This time, the media blitz included a mea culpa interview on Letterman and a fairly fawning article in the New York Times, entitled “The Unwilling Diva,” which was filled with quote after quote defending her professionalism and talent. While Heigl is on the offensive to prove her likability, willing colleagues, including her co-star Josh Duhamel - were rallied to defend her with compliments seemingly designed to tick off each black mark against her. Good on you, KatherineHeigl’s new publicist.
Playing Mom for Life as We Know It
Life as We Know It opened moderately well - it beat out Heartland fodder Secretariat in its first week - and has now grossed 28.6 million domestic on a budget of $38 million, and seems to have decent legs. Add in international grosses (which won’t be tremendous, but will probably come close to the overall domestic take) and you should have a moderate success.
As Anthony D’Alessandro reported over at Thompson on Hollywood, this was what Heigl needed. Life is not a flop - more importantly, it’s good for Heigl’s image. A movie about the trials and tribulations of parenthood, where a career gal’s brittleness is tempered by the twin forces of a rosy-cheeked baby and the love of a good man? A perfect way to “melt” a star who went from America’s princess to ice princess overnight.
D’Alessandro maintains that Heigl’s best move is to stick to small-budget rom-coms like Life in the future. But ultimately, Heigl’s un-likability stems not only from her perceived ungratefulness, but her constant effort to convince us she is *not* the shrew she plays onscreen. Since 99% of female roles in romantic comedy fall into the “beautiful but rigid and neurotic foil for the male lead” (think Jennifer Lopez arranging the cutlery on her TV dinner tray in The Wedding Planner), more of the same likely will not catapult Heigl to the next level of stardom.
And while Life and Heigl’s recent media appearances might have helped to work her way back into female audience’s hearts, it does very little to counter the sentiment that she’s not worth a big-star paycheck. As is, she’s just not blockbuster material, and certainly can’t demand the paycheck of Julia Roberts, who, even at age 42 and years from her halcyon days post-My Best Friend’s Wedding, still propelled Eat, Pray, Love to a worldwide gross of $166 million (on a budget of $90 million).
Several commentators have speculated that Heigl needs to be in a good, serious, well-respected movie - and have a good, well-respected director talk positively about her. Heigl’s upcoming projects have promise, and represent strong departures from the types of character she has previously played. As if to say: “So, America, you’re not sure if you can stomach me as a romantic heroine? How about a bounty hunter? Or a English nurse who goes back in time to 18th-Century Sexy Scotland?”
Heigl "acting" at repentent in the photo for her Times mea culpa
However, Heigl has persisted in making the worst mistake anyone in show business could ever make: having a family member as your manager, agent, or publicist. Tom Cruise proved this to be forever true when he fired inveterate publicist Pat Kingsley and hired his sister, leading to the Tom-Kat/Couch-Jumping/MattLauer-arguing fiasco, but it certainly holds for Heigl as well: your mom is in no position to give you objective career or image advice. Also, as many have averred, it remains to be seen whether she actually can act.
So, Heigl’s got her work cut out for her. It’s far, far more difficult to rehabilitate an image one than to ruin one. Her recent film and appearances aside, Heigl has not successfully erased negative public perception - nor has she re-established herself as “greenlight” star.
She needs an addition to her picture personality that will force people to reconsider their already formed opinions, and she needs a makeover - not just a new haircut, but a new “stars, they’re just like us!” persona. Right now, we’re still willing to read about her, but usually because we’re waiting for the next incriminating thing to come out of her mouth. It’ll be fascinating to see how, or if, her image can evolve. If not, it’ll be yet another testament to the difficulty of changing the narrative of star image once it’s been set in motion.
The Psychology of the Celebrity Doppelgänger
My Two Celebrity Dopplegangers: Melissa George (In Treatment) and Katherine Heigl
If you use Facebook, you’ve certainly noticed the sweep of profile pics changed to famous faces. I’ve seen pictures of Peter Krause, Paul Rudd, cross-eyed Britney Spears, Ashley Judd, Anne Hathaway, young Sally Field, Julia Stiles, Gillian Anderson, Oprah, Maria Sharapova, and dozens more. And the most amazing thing — and I think most of you can attest to this — is how uncanny some of the resemblances are. I don’t look like George or Heigl exactly; I do look like both of them inexactly. Enough to give pause and wonder.
Because this celebrity doppleganger business isn’t just the latest iteration of Facebook’s gradual transformation into a massive digital chain letter (see also: post a picture of you and your brother and sister! post this really sappy paragraph about how much you appreciate your significant other/mother/father/best friend!) The impulse is also dissimilar to that which fueled the wildfire spread of the “25 Things About Me” meme almost exactly a year ago, which played upon the simultaneous need to disclose and protect that characterizes “friendship” on Facebook. This is just a manifestation of a greater social/psychological phenomenon — the same phenomenon that leads random people on the street to say things like “Oh man, you really look like that one guy from that one movie!” or “Are you related to Hilary Clinton?”
So here’s what I think is going on.
1.) Celebrities fix standards of beauty.
Celebrities — and movie stars in particular — have been theorized to ‘fix’ standards of beauty. The more popular the star, the more we come to take that person’s beauty as a standard for the time. Angelina Jolie is a good example of this for our current era, ‘fixing’ a standard of sexiness built on a foundation of danger, sexual experimentation, and sultry features. Megan Fox fits within this paradigm — when people call her “the poor man’s Angelina Jolie,” they’re not (exactly) saying that she’s ‘trashy’ (although that is one of her valences) but that she almost, but not quite, fulfills the superlative type established by Jolie. This is also what’s likely behind The Octo-Mom’s various surgeries to resemble Jolie. It’s not that she wants to look pretty, or better, but rather resemble an established type of beauty.
2.) But none of you look like Jolie.
Think about it — did you see any Jolie doppelgängers? What about, oh, Cary Grant? Or young Elizabeth Taylor? Brad Pitt? Paul Newman? No. Because those types of beauty are so fixed, and so superlative, that to say that you resembled him/her — even though you don’t, because if you actually looked like Paul Newman, you’d be mine - because you’d either be seen as a.) bragging or b.) full of crap.
Also, if many people actually looked like Jolie, then she’d cease to be original. Part of what elevates her — makes her not only a superlative, but a superstar — is the uniqueness of her looks. Think about it: she has large, incredibly distinctive lips, almond-shaped, almost feline eyes, a chiseled jaw. She is different looking.
People don’t resemble Angelina Jolie, just like people don’t resemble Greta Garbo. If they did, they wouldn’t be the stars that they are. Barthes famously asserted that Garbo’s face resembled that of the archetype — “not drawn but sculpted in something smooth and fragile…at once perfect and ephemeral” — most similar to the masks of antiquity. See below and try to disagree.
As Barthes continues, “The name given to her, the Divine, probably aimed to convey less a superlative state of beauty than the essence of her corporeal person, descended form a heaven where all things are formed and perfected in the clearest light.” Garbo’s face is perfect — archetypal — and thus a point of admiration, but rarely aspiration (your facial features just won’t do it, no matter how much make-up you use — and not attainment. Thus…
3.) It’s not that you look like the celebrity, per se. It’s the celebrity looks like you — and many others.
In other words, most celebrities — the non-Jolies, non-Garbos, normal looking, often times B-celebrities, television personalities, sports players, cartoon characters, reality stars, newscasters, and other people that serve as our dopplegangers — are celebrities in part because they encapsulate not an ideal, but a reality.
It’s not like I’m the only person who resembles Melissa George and Katherine Heigl. Anyone with strong Nordic heritage/features and blonde hair looks a lot like these stars. My friend Colin just posted his doppleganger as Will Arnet — and it works, but not because their facial features are the same, but because they have the same hair. Which is whispy and slightly receding. Which is by no means unique.
Another friend of Indian heritage posted a picture of Jasmine as her doppelganger — not because she actually looks anything like the ridiculously proportioned Disney fetish object, but because Jasmine’s facial features are made to resemble as Indian/’Persian’/Arabic/Iranian/Iraqi/Palestinian features more broadly. That and it’s a joke, playing on the idea that all white people think brown people look the same, or, in this case, like Jasmine.
In this way, the non-illustrious performers — the Jerry Seinfelds, the Jon Cryers, the Neil Patrick Harrises and Jeff Probsts and Emilie de Ravens and Kings of Leon brothers and Rachel Rays — have talent, of course, but they also have faces that touch on something familiar about the human condition. They look like us. Even someone like Jennifer Aniston looks like that one really good looking girl in your high school, given the benefit of a daily hair blow-out and professional make-up and daily meal service. They become famous because they’re doing something unique, but they also manage to be non-threatening and normal. They reinforce the essental notion that any of us, at any moment, could transition into fame — a belief that has long undergirded celebrity culture (just think of early star-making contests in the fan magazines of the 1920s) but has become ever more salient with the rise of reality television and culture.
When you put a celebrity doppelgänger up as your profile picture, or tell the guy next to you on the plane that he looks like a young Michael J. Fox, you’re participating in the perpetuation of our particularly American understanding of fame. Just like anyone, no matter their economic, national, or racial background, is able, under the precepts of the American Dream, to succeed with hard work, so too is fame, in at least one of its myriad valences, available to us all. It’s cultural democracy in action. And our belief in it provides essential support for the otherwise fraught ideologies of the American Dream and democratic process.
Recall, however, that the word ‘doppelgänger,’ while commonly used to mean ‘double’ or ‘twin,’ actually has a much darker, more sinister connotation — a “sinister form of bilocation,” a “ghostly double” and “harbinger of bad luck.” Perhaps more to the point, an omen of one’s death. But perhaps that gets to the heart of the issue — if we all have the potential to be famous, what’s to keep me, with the help of some good eyeliner and a publicist and acting lessons, from usurping Katherine Heigl? Or you from taking the place of Ryan Seacrest? Or Elizabeth Hasslebeck? Indeed, all celebrities have doppelgangers, which only serves to underlines the fickleness of fame. They may pass from favor at any moment, exchanged for a new Nordic-looking blonde with oversized cheeks.
Post Script: Apatow, Rogen, Heigl Throwdown!
The shitstorm continues. Heigl’s The Ugly Truth opened relatively strong with $27 million domestic (although not strong enough to beat current summer rom-com champ, The Proposal).
And this weekend, it goes up against the Rogen/Apatow/Sandler collaboration Funny People. Rogen and Apatow have been doing the press rounds for the film, and have obviously heard wind of Heigl’s comments — both concerning her “torturous” schedule at Grey’s Anatomy and her previous complaints about her own collaboration with Apatow and Rogen, Knocked Up. (For the record, Heigl told Vanity Fair that Knocked Up “paints the women as shrews,” while the men look “lovable.” She added, “It was hard for me to love the movie.”)
On Howard’s Stern’s XM Radio show, Rogen and Apatow offered the following (via US Weekly):
“That [movie] looks like it really puts women on a pedestal in a beautiful way,” he quipped on Howard Stern‘s SIRIUS XM radio show on Thursday.
Added Apatow, “I hear there’s a scene where she’s wearing … Underwear …
with a vibrator in it, so I’d have to see if that was uplifting for women.”
Apatow figured Heigl was “probably was doing six hours of interviews and kissing everyone’s a**, and then just got tired and slipped a little bit” when she made the remarks to Vanity Fair.
Regardless, Rogen said, “I didn’t slip and I was doing f****** interviews all day too … I didn’t say s***!”
Even more baffling, said Apatow, “We never had a ‘fight’” with Heigl while filming. “Seth always says, it doesn’t make any sense [because] she improvised half her s***,” Apatow said, adding that she “could not have been cooler.”
Apatow said he hasn’t spoken to Heigl since her remarks. He doesn’t know if he’d make a big deal about it, either.
“It all depends on how much coffee I have had that day,” he said. “If I was fighting … with someone else about something I may handle it wrong, and if I’m in like total Buddha mood, I’d be like ‘I feel sad that she hasn’t learned the lesson of her journey yet,’” he said.
After the remark, “[You think] at some point I’ll get a call saying ‘Sorry, I was tired…’ and then the call never comes,’” he said.
Rogen said he doesn’t feel bad since Heigl seems to run her mouth and most people, including Grey’s Anatomy staff.
“I gotta say it’s not like we’re the only people she said some bat **** crazy things about,” he said. “That’s kind of her bag now.”
Now, this has been framed as Rogen and Apatow attempting to divert attention away from her movie and onto theirs, but I think the choice of forum — Howard Stern, who tends to encourage more, well, frank discussion — helps to at least frame their discourse as the expression of their ‘authentic’ feelings about Heigl.
Ultimately, Rogen and Apatow undermine any and all discourse that asserts that Heigl has become a scapegoat, or that her words are taken out of context (see the Newsweek article). If even the people she WORKS WITH say she’s this sort of person, she must be.
Again, I want to emphasize that it doesn’t really matter whether or not she really is a shrew — what matters is that all aspects of her image (and the media) seem to be collaborating to portray her as such. It also doesn’t help that she was the executive producer of The Ugly Truth — further highlighting what has been constructed as ‘movie-role’ hypocracy: criticizing her character in one film and playing one that seems to embody the selfsame traits in another.
That’s about all I have to say — other than the fact that everywhere, even The Onion A.V. Club, seems to be circulating this line of discourse. Heigl’s got to turn this around quick — either by mocking herself (a Funny or Die video or SNL skit might do, but I don’t know how funny she really is) or by doing something significant enough to drape over this now acutely felt component of her star image.
Katherine Heigl: The New Shrew
Katherine Heigl: The New Shrew?
A number of trusty tipsters have pointed me towards a bevy of articles (one on NPR here; another, more lengthy one you can find here from Newsweek) that, in light of Heigl’s recent visibility in promoting The Ugly Truth, attempt to grapple with the question of her stardom — and the backlash against it. Is she a shrew? Do people really hate her? And why?
The NPR Piece points to Heigl’s recent appearance on Late Night with David Letterman, which has been repurposed and used as ammo against her. In the clip, she complains about working an 18-hour day, but somewhat jokingly. Here’s what NPR reported:
When Katherine Heigl was on The Late Show With David Letterman in support of The Ugly Truth this week, he asked her about her return to Grey’s Anatomy, and she told him (it’s at about the 1:25 mark in this clip) that her very first day back was a seventeen-hour day. “Which I think is cruel and mean,” she said with exaggerated somberness, before moving on to talk about how it was great to be back, she misses former co-star T.R. Knight, and so forth. If it were anyone else, mentioning that she thought seventeen hours was a rather long first day, it would have gotten no attention whatsoever.
But she is not anyone else. She is Katherine Heigl.
Every time Heigl opens her mouth, the majority of the outlets that cover this sort of news gleefully write another story about what a horrible complainer and diva she is. (Two of those articles claim that she was on a “rant” and that she “railed at” producers. I challenge you to get “rant” or “rail” from that clip.)
The article then points out the following concerning her ploy against her own show last year:
People will tell you she got herself into this mess by insulting the Grey’s Anatomy writers by pulling her name from Emmy consideration last year and blaming the quality of the material she was given. That move was, indeed, not diplomatic in the slightest, despite the fact that she was absolutely correct about both the writing in general and the writing for her particular character. (What was she supposed to do? Submit the episode where she saved the deer?) There is a certain “you don’t trash your co-workers out loud” ethic that it would have been both wiser and kinder to embrace. (Although, of course, plenty of show “sources” haven’t hesitated to dish equally about her, except that they do it anonymously and avoid the consequences.)
…before going on to show examples of how her quotes have been taken out of context and used against here (including one in particular about smoking, which outlets used to complain that she swore she wasn’t addicted to smoking (even though she smokes regularly). Anyway. Point is, the press — especially the blogs — are out for her.
Newsweek offers a bit more of a meta-analysis:
How did Katherine Heigl fall so far and so fast in esteem? Part of it is pure sexism. Every decade has a Most Annoying Actress (not that long ago, Jennifer Love Hewitt was the object of tabloid disaffection), never an actor, and it’s a distinction doled out via a caveman’s principles. Heigl violates every archaic, unspoken rule of being America’s box-office sweetheart. A lot of actors smoke, curse, drink, and mouth off, but she gets the most grief for it. Last summer, when she was caught flicking a finished cigarette onto the sidewalk, Star magazine quickly tarred her as an environmentally unfriendly “litterbug” who inappropriately goaded a nearby police officer into letting her off without a ticket.
But then it goes on to do exactly what the NPR piece was highlighting —
- “more than simply daring to challenge chauvinistic mores, Heigl has shot herself in the foot with her delivery”
- “This week, she carped to David Letterman that she’d had a “seventeen- (dramatic pause) hour (dramatic pause)” workday on set, and that she was “going to keep saying this because I hope it embarrasses them [the Grey's Anatomy show runners].” Embarrass them for what? Keeping her employed? To a country nearing 10 percent unemployment, the remark was tone-deaf”
- And this doozy at the end: “Just like real life, in which Heigl seems unable to see the acreage between oversharing and keeping her mouth shut. Heigl might be an actress, but she could work on her act.”
So what is it? In a debate on my Facebook wall, two of my friends offered the following:
KL: while i think that gender plays a significant role in the Heigl backlash, i also think that she needs to step up her game. i mean how can she complain about Knocked Up and then star in The Ugly Truth? am i missing something here? they look about the same in terms of gender politics - except one doesn’t involve a baby, at least as far as the trailer acknowledges.
KW: heigl is a punching bag but that in my opinion it is fully deserved…i think what you said about the politics of her films (and tv shows) is true: she’s done nothing to merit being so damn sanctimonious about things. of course she’s right about knocked up but why … say that after you’ve cashed your check and become a “bonafide movie star”. as far as grey’s goes and last year’s incident, regardless of the writing, if she could actually ACT then that’s what would have counted. meryl streep could read the phone book and get an oscar nomination. what’s her excuse? heigl just infuriates me.
See the vitriol there? And I feel the SAME WAY. I don’t know exactly why: most likely a confluence of reading about what we have collectively taken as her ‘ungratefulness,’ her outspokenness, and her general complaining about the situation in which she’s found herself.
But this anger/annoyance bespeaks a greater sentiment and attitude towards stars, something I’ve been continually reading about in recent weeks. Part of our reason for being okay with stars and celebrities — who are paid enormous salaries, enjoy lavish lifestyles, have everything better than us — is our fundamental belief that they are there for two reasons:
1.) They have talent. And that talent merits their elevation — they are magical, beautiful, superlative. Angelina Jolie or Meryl Streep. They DESERVE our adulation.
2.) WE have chosen them. They become superstars because we, as a discerning audience, have ‘voted’ for them each time we attend a movie, watch a TV show, are interested in their lives. In this way, stars are strongly linked to feelings of democracy — we believe that those in power (and those that are elevated) are there because we, the people, have selected them to be so. They aren’t monarchy, they aren’t put in power by force — it’s US who have selected them to be our representatives. Even if they are completely and totally manufactured and put before us as the “new star” — see the Disney star factory — there’s still an illusion that they are of our choosing.
This is complicated somewhat by the rise of people like Paris Hilton (note, however, what a backlash there is against her — for her lack of talent, specifically) and reality stars. In my opinion, however, reality stars are the embodiment of the second quality: in American Idol, the country literally votes for who they want to be the newest celebrity. But a full discussion of this phenomenon merits a separate post.
For now, assume that we consider our stars as if elected officials. Now, what do we expect of an elected official?
1.) They will ‘serve’ us.
For stars, they serve us by entertaining us. When they do bad movies, or offer a bad performance, they are ‘failing’ us.
2.) They will make good on campaign promises.
A star must ‘make good’ on the promise of his/her first elevation into stardom. Katherine Heigl must “make good” on the promise of her performance in Grey’s Anatomy and Knocked Up.
3.) They will not begrudge the responsibilities of the office.
It was the star, after all, who wanted to be ‘elected’ — so he should not be angry when the paparazzi follows him, stars want autographs, or he has to work long hours. This was his idea, right?
4.) They will be grateful for our support.
For Heigl, this is key. She is ungrateful, she begrudges her work (see above), she lambasts the films/shows that made her a star (see her comments on Knocked Up and Grey’s.
5.) You must acknowledge (and play by) the rules of the game.
Politicians know they must participate in the publicity game — you spin negative things to look okay, you make sure you don’t put your foot in your mouth, you never say anything too outspoken — see the backlash against President Obama’s comment on the “stupid” decision to arrest Gates this week. You exhibit grace under pressure. You’re not too loud, too brash, too out there.
And Heigl is ALL of these things — and she has no compunction about it. Her transgression is of course embolded by the fact that she’s a woman — as one of my professors has pointed out, a woman who speaks (and especially speaks boldly) is always labelled as shrill, because women aren’t supposed to be speaking in the first place. But she’s also demonstrated a general unsavvyness, for lack of a better word, when it comes to negotiating her image, sustaining her fan base, and generally INVITING the press to take jabs at her.
Now, the feminist in me might want to look at this as a general critique on outspoken women. And Hollywood certainly has a long history of banishing those who don’t play by the rules: Heigl hails from a long line of “outspoken shrews” that include Katharine Hepburn, Jane Fonda, and Roseanne Barr. The first two bore the brunt of media criticism and fan backlash (Hepburn was “box-office poison; Fonda was the reason we “lost the war at home”) before returns in tour-de-force actings; as for Barr, well, I think we do different things (and force different fates) on women who aren’t considered ‘beautiful.’
So what does Heigl need to do? I don’t think she needs to “shut-up and sit down.” But her stardom is contingent upon a certain “contract” between fan and star — and to me, she just seems uncognizant of what is expected of her. As KW points out, this may be due to the fact that her MOTHER IS HER MANAGER. (See the example of Tom Cruise. Sigh.)
I’m not saying that women shouldn’t be able to speak their minds. Female stars speak their minds all the time — they just do so in a more calculated, less press-release-to-lambast-writers-on-my-own-show sort of way. I am saying that any star — regardless of gender — needs to be aware of the way that the game is played — especially when your words, whether in the form of an official statement or a couch-jumping tirade on Oprah — can be morphed, digitalized, and spread far into the corners of the internet. With so many opportunities for distortion — so many media outlets, so many voices that get to “speak” the star — it’s reckless, at least from a purely financial, star-maintenance point of view, to give them the opportunity to do so.
