Jenny J writes: "Characters may have been written as upper class, but traditionally most performers have been anything but. Historically, you would be hard pressed to find a man or woman from a "respectable" background prancing about on a stage or in front of a flickering camera. This was greatly discouraged. I recall reading about a time when actors were not allowed a burial plot on hallowed ground. However, people of extremely poor backgrounds were often capable of achieving the highest success creating characters that reflected cultured, monied backgrounds. Who could imagine Cary Grant any other way? Yet he was born poor in England and joined the circus. He freely admitted that he invented and gradually grew into that cool, suave, debonair guy we all know and love on the screen. I know there are exceptions, Grace Kelly being a notable one, but from what I have learned about theatrical and cinematic history, this has been the general rule." In actuality, this is true. But for at least some time, especially the silent era and early sound era, there seemed to be a penchant for believing that actors were of noble, high-class or at least suitably exotic "foreign" backgrounds. Consider the life stories and personas that Eric von Stroheim and Josef von Sternberg created for themselves, the Garbo mystique, and so forth. This kind of thing is alluded to directly by studio publicist Libby (Lionel Stander) in the original A STAR IS BORN and it's deliberately mocked in Don Lockwood's "life story" at the beginning of SINGIN' IN THE RAIN. It might be interesting to see if there are any specific studies of the changing roles of the perception of the star persona--and to place all that within the context of Walter Benjamin's remarks about the star system as a type of "false aura" to replace the quasi-religious "aura" lost in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN) ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]