;
             (Found in 'The Classical Hollywood Cinema'; 1985)
             This quote could be used in context with Efron who Joshua Gamson refers to in understanding how the celebrity has come from a 'peculiar machine' in Contemporary American culture, created by public relations. It was not just the film industry that was advancing; it was also the process in which actors were becoming known, becoming 'famous.' Corporations began to realise that there was a public out there interested in film actors and their 'interesting' lives. This interest was dramatically endearing because it meant the film industry that owned their stars as commodities from 1920 could distribute their image to promote their films. The production, distribution and exhibition of films were playing alongside designing star personalities through
             'vehicles, publicity, promotion, public appearances, gossip, fan clubs and photography, they built and disseminated the personalities, through press agents, publicity departments and contracts, they controlled the image'
             These practices enable the film industry to manage audience demands for films. The star then becomes a form of capital. Dyer states that Capital was the 'monopolistic character of the Hollywood industry...each star is to some extent a holder of a monopoly and the owner of contracts for the services of a star is the owner of a monopoly product.'
             Jean-Louis Comolli states that we need to consider a socio-economic base and the technological significance of this base to understand the conditions of film practice existence. He argues that film production of meaning has an ideological function that exceeds communicative meaning and reinforces contradictions of ideological factors of its time. I would argue that it is not only the films that produce on screen ideologies but also the stars themselves.
             Paul McDonald refers to Richard Dyer in understanding how ...