Celebrity Bromances

Front matter

Routledge Research in Cultural and Media Studies

CELEBRITY BROMANCES

CONSTRUCTING, INTERPRETING AND UTILISING PERSONAS

Contents

1 Introduction to celebrity bromances: constructing, interpreting and utilising persona 1

2 Bromance history, identifying traits and the markers of authenticity 24 3 Constructing bromances 54 4 “Utilising” bromances 87 5 Beyond bromances: comradery capital 108 6 Conclusions and reflections on celebrity bromances 134

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

Introduction to celebrity bromances 21

Driessen, O. (2012). The celebritization of society and culture: Understanding the structural dynamics of celebrity culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(6), 641-657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877912459140

Dyer, R. (1979). Stars. British Film Institute.

Dyer, R. (1986). Heavenly bodies. British Film Institute.

Dyer, R. (1991). A star is born and the construction of authenticity. In C. Gledhill (Ed.), Stardom: Industry of desire (pp. 136-144). Routledge.

Enli, G. (2015). Mediated authenticity: How the media constructs reality. Peter Lang Publishing.

Fair, J. (2017, November 20). Former president Barack Obama wishes Joe Biden happy birthday —- in meme form. USA Today. www.usatoday.com/story/news/ politics/onpolitics/2017/11/20/former-president-barack-obama-wishes-joe-bidenhappy-birthday-meme-form/881948001/

Fillitz, T., & Saris, A. J. (2013). Introduction: Authenticity Aujourd’ Hui. In T. Fillitz & A. J. Saris (Eds.), Debating authenticity: Concepts of modernity in anthropological perspective (pp. 1-26). Berghahn Books.

Fuchs, C. J. (1993). The buddy politic. In S. Cohan & I. R. Hark (Eds.), Screening the male: Exploring masculinities in Hollywood cinema (pp. 194-210). Routledge. Gamson, J. (1994). Claims to fame: Celebrity in contemporary America. University

of California Press.

Giles, D. C. (2000). Illusions of immortality: A psychology of fame and celebrity. Macmillan Education.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.

Gorin, V., & Dubied, A. (2011). Desirable people: Identifying social values through celebrity news. Media, Culture œ Society, 33(4), 599-618. https://doi. org/10.1177/0163443711398695

Hamad, H. (2020). Bromance. In K. Ross (Ed.), International encyclopedia of gender, media, and communication. John Wiley and Sons.

Harbidge, L. (2012). Redefining screwball and reappropriating liminal spaces: The contemporary bromance and Todd Phillips’ The Hangover DVD. Comedy Studies, 3(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1386/cost.3.1.5_1

Harris, R. (in press). Murray stories and Keanu memes: The role of offline encounters in online celebrity identity construction. In C. Lam, J. Raphael, & R. Middlemost (Eds.), Fame and fandom. University of Iowa Press.

Hermes, J., & Stoete, L. (2019). Hating Skyler White: Audience engagement, gender politics and celebrity culture. Celebrity Studies, 10(3), 411-426. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19392397.2019.1630155

Holmes, S., & Redmond, S. (2006). Framing celebrity: New directions in celebrity culture. Routledge.

Kjer, K. M. (2019). In/authenticity and food-celebrity relationships in Michael Pollan’s in defence of food and Jamie Oliver’s Jamie’s food revolution. Celebrity Studies, 10(3), 332-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2019.1630119

Magrath, R. (2017). Inclusive masculinities in contemporary football: Men in the beautiful game. Routledge.

Magrath, R., & Scoats, R. (2017): Young men’s friendships: Inclusive masculinities in a post-university setting. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(1), 45-56. https://doi. org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1388220

Marshall, P. D. (1997, 2014). Celebrity and power: Fame in contemporary culture. University of Minnesota Press.

Marshall, P. D. (2010). The promotion and presentation of the self: Celebrity as marker of presentational media. Celebrity Studies, 1(1), 35-48. https://doi. org/10.1080/19392390903519057

Marshall, P. D. (2021). The commodified celebrity-self: Industrialized agency and the contemporary attention economy. Popular Communication, 19(3), 164-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2021.1923718

Marshall, P. D., Moore, C., & Barbour, K. (2019). Persona studies an introduction. John Wiley & Sons.

McCormack, M. (2011). The declining significance of homohysteria for male students in three sixth forms in the south of England. British Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 337-353.

McCormack, M. (2012). The declining significance of homophobia: How teenage boys are redefining masculinity and heterosexuality. Oxford University Press.

Nayak, A., & Kehily, M. J. (1996). Playing it straight: Masculinities, homophobias and schooling. Journal of Gender Studies, 5(2), 211-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09589236.1996.9960644

Nichols, B. (1991). Representing reality: Issues and concepts in documentary. Indiana University Press.

O’Shaughnessy, M., & Stadler, J. (2012). Media and society (Sth ed.). Oxford University Press.

Potter, A. (2010). The authenticity hoax: Why the ‘real’ things we seek don’t make us happy. HarperCollins Publishers.

Rennett, M. (2015). Bros, BFFs, and the new romantic foil: Homosocial relationships in the emerging-adult film. Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 32(6), 568-583. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509208.2015.1046352

Robinson, S., Anderson, E., & White, A. (2018). The bromance: Undergraduate male friendships and the expansion of contemporary homosocial boundaries. Sex Roles, 78, 94-106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0768-5

Sobande, F. (2019). How to get away with authenticity: Viola Davis and the intersections of Blackness, naturalness, femininity and relatability. Celebrity Studies, 10(3), 396-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2019.1630154

Trillling, L. (1971). Sincerity and authenticity. Harvard University Press.

Turner, G. (2004). Understanding celebrity. Sage.

van Krieken, R. (2012). Celebrity society. Routledge.

Williams, M. L. (2020). Social media’s commodified, transgender ambassador: Caitlyn Jenner, celebrity activism, and social media. Celebrity Studies. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19392397.2020.1782236

Films

Black, S. (Director). (2016). The nice guys [Film]. Ratpac-Dune Entertainment, Silver Pictures, Waypoint Entertainment.

Hamburg, J. (Director). (2009). I love you, man [Film]. De Line Pictures, Montecito Picture Company; DreamWorks SKG, Paramount Pictures.

McKay, A. (Director). (2008). Step brothers [Film]. Apatow Productions, Mosaic Media Group; Sony Pictures Entertainment.

Milestone, L. (Director). (1960). Ocean’s 11 [Film]. NPV Entertainment; Section Eight Ltd; Jerry Weintraub Productions.

Introduction to celebrity bromances 23

Mottola, G. (Director). (2007). Superbad [Film]. Apatow Productions; Sony Pictures Entertainment.

Phillips, T. (Director). (2009). The hangover [Film]. Green Hat Films; Warner Bros Pictures.

Ross, G. (Director). (2018). Ocean’s 8 [Film]. Warner Bros. Pictures; Smoke House, Village Roadshow Pictures.

Soderbergh, S. (Director). (2001). Ocean’s eleven [Film]. Village Roadshow Prod., Jerry Weintraub Productions; Warner Bros. Pictures.

2 Bromance history, identifying traits and the markers of authenticity

History of celebrity

Bromances

Bromances have a long history and have conceptually adapted to social changes, including how they are utilised in the media for promotional purposes. Bromances can highly impact the brand of individuals, pairs and groups. Across film and television, bromances are formed both on-screen and off-screen, but also overlap into other areas of celebrity, including sports and music. We focus predominantly on Hollywood bromances, although it is a global phenomenon and can be applied to many cultures. While the term bromance is relatively modern, the concept has existed for many decades. It is this history that has helped it to gain significance today.

Pre-bromance: packs and buddy films

Although not called bromances, male bonds between celebrities have existed since the beginning of Hollywood. Before the term “bromance” was coined, the media would still generate hype around close male friendships and their banter. However, it increased overtime with actors having more media appearances and an opportunity to repeatedly work together.

While some bromances are constructed between two people, others are between three or more. In the 1950s and 1960s, there was a bromance between Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis, as well as the formation of the Rat Pack, which also included Dean Martin, along with Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr, Peter Lawford and Joey Bishop. The Rat Pack bromance went on for many years and helped form much of the comedy behind their interviews and live performances. This will be explored in more detail in Chapter 5.

In the 1980s, the term Brat Pack was created to describe the close bond between Emilio Estevez, Rob Lowe, Judd Nelson and other stars of that time who appeared in films together. This can also be considered an early foundation of the bromance culture, which fans and the media enjoyed consuming.

While women were associated with both the Rat Pack and Brat Pack, it was predominantly focused on the male bonds, especially in regard to the Rat Pack, whose brand was focused on the drinking, smoking, gambling and inappropriate humour. The role of women will be discussed further in later chapters, as we move beyond bromances. In the 1960s, Paul Newman and Robert Redford began their bromance with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (Hill, 1969). This friendship was later used to promote The Sting (Roy & George, 1973) when the actors once again shared the big screen. They publicly spoke of their bond with the media, adding to the narrative of their friendship. The classification of their first film as the ultimate buddy film reinforced this image, confirming their on-screen friendship flowed off-screen as well.

The significance of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969), as well as films Easy Rider (Hopper, 1969) and Midnight Cowboy (Schlesinger, 1969), has been highlighted by Michael DeAngelis (2014):

Certainly the films offer deviations from the classical Hollywood model, focusing upon homosocial rather than heterosexual bonding in narratives in which protagonists reject the prescribed life paths of heteronormativity by remaining rootless, socially and culturally marginalized, and often engaged in criminal behaviour.

DeAngelis also refers to the influence of the American Dream and the political climate of that period. He argues that the buddy film genre from the 1970s has historical significance in the origins of celebrity bromances, suggesting this of buddy films:

Whether or not one accepts their designations as male love stories, it is indisputable that the narratives comprise character studies that focus almost exclusively upon the relationships between the central male protagonists, whereas female characters figure into the stories only tangentially, as needed to relieve the men’s sexual tensions.

As acknowledged by DeAngelis, homophobia was dominant at this time. This was a period when celebrities such as Rock Hudson had to act both on-screen and off-screen as heterosexual. However, buddy films had strong themes of hyper-masculinity and strength. In the case of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969), the characters are rugged cowboys with weapons going on a journey and rebelling against the law. This helps to reinforce the perceived ideology of a heterosexual relationship, making it acceptable to audiences at that time. DeAngelis (p. 10) also explores on-screen representations of homosexuality, which gained prevalence in the 1980s. However, during the height of the AIDS scare, this pushed back much of the progress made. Contemporary society is far more accepting of homosexual relationships, yet there seems to be an increasing fascination in bromances. It is a relationship that can be marketed to the LGBQTIA+ community and heterosexuals of either gender, which makes it a strong promotional tool. As DeAngelis notes:

The buddy film and the bromance are certainly similar in that both feature a homosocially grounded “male love story,” but in bromance this designation of “love story” is always bracketed by scare quotes, signaling a romance that is never actually or intentionally romantic but that gains cultural currency by adopting the pretext.

Some films explore both a heterosexual love story and a bromance, such as Hanover Street (Hyams, 1979) starring Harrison Ford, Christopher Plummer and Lesley-Anne Down. This film is about Down’s character choosing to have an affair with Ford’s character, but through circumstances, her husband, played by Plummer, ends up on a journey with Ford’s character. It is an ultimate love triangle between the three characters, with Ford’s character bonding with Plummer’s character. Thus, bromances have been a significant part of Hollywood history both on-screen and off-screen.

Birth of bromance: on-screen relationships

The term bromance can be traced to American skateboarding subculture in the 1990s to describe intense relationships between men. However, the term did not gain prominence in the popular press until the 2005 release of Judd Apatow’s film The 40- Year-Old Virgin (DeAngelis, 2014). The use of the term has grown exponentially in the past decades and is used excessively in media reporting. In Reading the Bromance, DeAngelis and other authors contribute a great deal to the understanding of bromances on-screen. Jenna Weinman (2014) describes the sexual undertones of the 1964 film, Send Me No Flowers, labelling it an early example of a bromantic film, before the term was in use. Weinman explains that many of the bromantic films of this period were set in the context of men trying to escape marriage or enjoy their last moments of bachelor life. The latter is also reflected in the contemporary film The Hangover (Phillips, 2009).

What was originally defined as buddy films, which was inclusive of women like in Thelma and Louise (Scott, 1991), is now referred to as a bromantic film or brom-com as they take it a step further by increasing the sexual undertones between male characters. As Hilary Radner (2014) explaines:

The contemporary bromance makes explicit something that was always implicit in the buddy film, most notably the intensity of the masculine bond, something that was left unsaid at the time but now can be discussed overtly.

Radner goes on to give a case study on the film Grumpy Old Men (Petrie, 1993), defining it as an example of a bromantic film, defined as such after release.

David Greven also contributed to De Angelis’ book with a chapter analysing the film Scream (Craven, 1996) and its role in bromance history. Greven (2014) notes; “Scream redeploys the long-standing American tradition of a homoerotic bond between a pair of young male killers” (p. 87). He compares the film to others of its genre and examines the characters, costumes and tropes included in the film. He also draws comparisons between Scream (1996) and films such as Pineapple Express (Green, 2008) and Superbad (Mottola, 2007), suggesting that on-screen violence often plays a role when expressing male intimacy (Greven, 2014, p. 105). This element is not replicated in the off-screen bromances.

Nick Davis (2014) considers how bromances appeal across diverse national audiences, which is crucial with Hollywood films that expect a global audience. This is also the case in off-screen bromances being expressed in global interviews. Davis (2014) argues:

Miramax Films had turned Gus Van Sant’s modestly budgeted therapy drama Good Will Hunting into its most lucrative crossover hit to date, largely by hawking the lifelong friendship between stars and cowriters Matt Damon and Ben Affleck as vigorously as they advertised the film’s plot and characters.

Davis goes on to compare this strategy to a Mexican film; ultimately, drawing comparisons between the on-screen and off-screen relationships and how they affect the promotion of a film within different cultures.

Similar to Davis, Meheli Sen (2014) has explored bromances in Hindi commercial cinema, exploring its transition from the 1970s to a contemporary culture. Ultimately, on-screen bromances are not a Western world—based tool, nor is it completely modern as a technique. As Ron Becker (2014) suggests:

As homosexuality became less socially stigmatized and expressions of homophobia less culturally acceptable (at least in certain circles), discourses surrounding masculinity and male bonding have shifted. In the 1990s, such changes fuelled the spate of mistaken sexual identity plots that became a common feature of many primetime sitcoms.

Ken Feil (2014) also raises an interesting point of the popular phrase “metrosexual,” which also plays a pivotal role in leading to the popularity of the term bromance. “The concept of the “metrosexual” arose in the mid-1990s, identified by British journalist Mark Simpson” (p. 172). Feil (2014) went on to explain:

Discussions about “bromance” that erupted in 2009, when both I Love You, Man and the MTV reality show Bromance premiered, the term signifies as a “simultaneous admission and denial” of the queerness underpinning intense male bonding in the metrosexual era.

Both the terms “bromance” and “metrosexual” appear to be a reflection of the change in society from the mid-1990s to today, and its perception of masculinity. However, one does not need to be well groomed to partake in a bromance. Metrosexuality became a more widely used term earlier on and helped to transition people’s mindsets from assuming homosexuality based on certain traits. In fact, on-screen bromances are often perceived as more comical when the characters are physically more rugged. An example of this is Pineapple Express (Green, 2008). Feil provides examples of Dude, Where’s My Car (Leiner, 2000) and I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (Dugan, 2007). The latter, he explains, play off the macho image of firemen.

Similarly, Peter Forster (2014) drew comparisons across this film and I Love You, Man (Hamburg, 2009). Forster stated, “Uncertainty is the enemy of the bromantic comedy” (2014, p. 200) and analyses this in context of the film Humpday (Shelton, 2009). Ultimately, bromances must sit in a comfortable position between sexual undertones and a heterosexual male bond. Forster also raises the issue of the role of women in a bromantic comedy. He refers to “the threat of women’s agency and their power to control — “change (‘pussy-whip’) — their men” (2014, p. 207). This is often the representation, if the women are included at all in the narrative. In an off-screen setting, this differs, but they are typically secondary to the male bond. For example, Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman frequently mention their wives as a part of their bromance, but they are not the focus. This case study will be explored in depth throughout the book.

Ron Becker (2014) provides a great list of on-screen bromances in television, specifically including characters in Scrubs (Lawrence, 2001-2010), House (Shore, 2004-2012), How I Met Your Mother (Bays & Thomas, 2005-2014) and Entourage (Ellin, 2004-2011). Murray Pomerance (2014, p. 271) gives a detailed analysis of the bromance in House; “Bromantic male-male affiliations can only work if they are ultimately resolved through some definitive commitment to heteronormativity” (p. 234). Within television, there is room to flirt with this notion. Similarly, Dominic Lennard (2014) examined the bromance in The Wire (Simon, 2002-2008) and the shift in television quality with the rise of popularity in HBO. However, bromances existed in television long before this. As Hanna Hamad (2018) notes, bromances have been expressed in television long before the term was used so generously, providing the example of Friends (Crane & Kauffman,

1994-2004) characters Chandler Bing (Matthew Perry) and Joey Tribbiani (Matt LeBlanc). Similarly, before Friends, it was seen in Full House (Franklin, 1987-1995) with Jesse (John Stamos), Joey (Dave Coullier) and Danny (Bob Saget) and in Beverly Hills, 90210 (Star, 1990-2000) with Dylan (Luke Perry) and Brandon (Jason Priestly). In each of these television series, the male bonds are able to be developed much more thoroughly than in a film and many cross over into on and off screen bromances. There is ample opportunity for the characters to form their masculinity on-screen so that it becomes non-threatening when they express their bromance. These characters are often shown hugging or expressing their love for one another, some in a more sexual form than others. With long-spanning television shows, they often return to the bromance throughout the series rather than it being the sole focus of the show, like it may be for a film. Hamad’s (2020) example of the Wedding Crashers (Dobkin, 2005) is an instance where the film is based purely on their bromance. This is also an example of on-screen and off-screen bromance.

Fictional bromances evolved from shifting attitudes towards masculinity and male intimacy in American literary and popular culture (DeAngelis, 2014, pp. 4-6). As a film genre and discourse, it offers a way through which male intimacy can be explored and expressed in a “safe” heteronormative context, while simultaneously highlighting the role of female characters in attenuating the closeness of male homosocial bonding and reasserting the heteronormative norm (Alberti, 2013, p. 165). However, real-life bromances have received less attention, apart from evidence of the concept in wider popular culture (DeAngelis, 2014, p. 2). The way in which characters express their bromances on-screen differs to that off-screen. They are limited by a script, genre and chemistry of actors. Authenticity is less significant in an on-screen relationship than that of an off-screen bromance.

Real-life bromances: media and promotion

Over the years, bromances have been increasingly utilised to create film and television hype, even before the term itself became commonly used. An example of this is Hugh Jackman and John Travolta promoting Swordfish (Sena, 2001) on Rove Live in Australia (Rove, 2016). In this appearance they sang a duet from the film Grease (Kleiser, 1978), suggesting the two had bonded while filming. This created word-of-mouth and also enhanced the brands of the actors, making them seem likeable and relatable to fans. If the interview had occurred in today’s converged media environment, such a video would have gone viral online immediately and provoked fan interaction. In fact, 15 years after it aired, it was shared online receiving almost 10,000 views. Evidence of how videos like this go viral in today’s social media culture is the 2014 interview uploaded by Beyond the Trailer in which Jackman danced with his X-Men co-stars to the song Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke and Pharell Williams, reaching 372,241 views as of September 13, 2021.

Ultimately, a fun atmosphere in an interview makes for an enjoyable viewer experience (Lam & Raphael, 2018). Fans relish seeing performers enjoy one another’s company, as they want the dynamics within the film itself to have some authenticity. They want to believe that the chemistry is real, even if the plot and characters are not.

An example of this is the George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon bromance, which was generated from the 2001 film Ocean’s Eleven (Soderbergh, 2001). A series of junket interviews set the tone for their bromance, as they engaged in strong banter between them. This clearly was established to reflect the tone of the Rat Pack, who were in the original Ocean’s 11 film. Their banter carried on through an ongoing prank war between the actors, which is still regularly mentioned in interviews. Even the reluctant head of the Brat Pack, Emilio Esteves explained his hatred for the title and compared himself to the Ocean’s Eleven cast. Speaking to Hadley Freeman in an interview with The Guardian, Esteves notes:

It’s annoying because Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Matt Damon have worked together more than any of us have. We just made two movies and somehow it morphed into something else.

Thus, their friendship is extremely well known among those in the industry, as well as in the media and across fans.

However, in 2014, when Clooney got married without Pitt at his wedding, fans and entertainment reporters became concerned that their bromance was over and questioned its authenticity (Jordan, 2015). Both actors have since claimed to still be friends and the media have tried to reinforce that their “bromance” is still prevalent (Vulpo, 2014; Keegan, 2014). After winning a SAG award in 2020, Pitt was asked by an Entrainment Weekly (2020) reporter if Clooney would contact him since they were “friends in the past.” Pitt laughed at this, stating; “Friends in the past? We’re still friends. We’ve been friends for a while . . . he’ll probably send flowers” (Entertainment Weekly, 2020). However, this situation raises an interesting point of how involved the media is in developing and celebrating bromances. While Clooney getting married after so many years of being the top bachelor in Hollywood was a big news item, to some the bromance seemed more significant than the romance.

The media is so fixated on bromances that even the BBC acknowledged the term and offered the breakdown of how bromances are expressed using “the four c’s” (BBC, 2021). They refer to them as comedy (comedic duos that share the same humour), compassion (sharing pains), camaraderie (family-like closeness) and consistency (long-lasting) (BBC, 2021). They also acknowledge physical affection as a part of the bromance. While we agree with these aspects of what a “bromance consists of” and how they are expressed, they do not analyse the authenticity and origins, or the impact it has on media, fandom, celebrity culture and advertising. These four c’s also exclude other key aspects of a bromantic relationship. Thus, we propose that a real-life bromance is identified by the following types of dynamics performed:

(1) Frat-boy: This fraternal bond is expressed in a juvenile and hypermasculine

tone. In the UK, this would be described as laddish. It often revolves

around pranks and competitions. Examples of this is James McAvoy and

Michael Fassbender (juvenile), George Clooney and Brad Pitt (pranking),

and Mark Wahlberg and Mario Lopez (hypermasculine).

Fake-feud: This is a planned performative approach where a narrative

is built to pretend that people are fighting in a humorous way, when

they are actually friends in real life. Examples of this are Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds, and Matt Damon and Jimmy Kimmel.

Familiar: This is a more subtle and less performative approach. This

is evident when people are comfortable with one another and show

knowledge of one another’s personal lives, while also expressing a

loving intimacy. They acknowledge spending private time together.

Examples of this are Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe, and Leonardo

DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire.

(4) Flirty: This is often expressed in a slightly homoerotic way. It can be verbal or physical. Examples of this would be Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart, and James Franco and Seth Rogen.

(5) Funny: Having a natural banter between people shows their chemistry. Examples of this is Anthony Mackie and Sebastian Stan, and Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr.

(6) Familial: In some instances, the bond goes beyond a close friendship between two men to express a sibling or family-like relationship among a pair or group. They often interact with one another’s siblings or family members. Examples of this is Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston, Will Smith and Alfonso Ribeiro, and Paul Walker and Vin Diesel.

w

These subtypes can often overlap or shift over time. While a fake-feud could be performed temporarily, they may then become flirty in another setting. Or what may begin as a frat-boy relationship could mature over time to become more familial. A bromance is never stagnant but is always expressed through at least one of these traits.

Looking at the history of bromances, it is evident that it predates Web 2.0. However, with mass media convergence and the need for two-way communication through blogs, vlogs and social networking sites, bromances can now thrive online. They have an extended life beyond one interview and can allow for fans to interact with the footage. Bromances now go outside interviews and are used through Twitter and Instagram interaction between celebrities. However, the way in which a bromance is used can affect its authenticity. Thus, it is important to identify the origins of a bromantic relationship to understand their promotional purpose. This chapter will explore the way in which markers of authenticity transform how we perceive real-life bromances.

Markers of authenticity

Richard Dyer’s markers of authenticity are situated in a conceptualisation of authenticity that lies between the star-as-image and the star-as-person. Specifically, Dyer argues that the indexical link between the image of the star and person captured to produce it is potent due to the fact that stars exist as a consequence of representation in the media. Dyer (1991) notes:

In part, the star phenomenon is defined by an in-built means of authentication. Stars appear before us in media texts — films, advertisements, gossip columns, television interviews and so on — but unlike other forms of representation stars do not only exist in media texts. To say that stars exist outside of the media texts in real life would be misleading, but stars are carried in the person of people who do go on living away from their appearances in the media, and the point is that we know this.

While there is an awareness that both representations of a star, or celebrity, in an image can be manipulated, as can the presentation of the person who exists outside of the image, the search for the “real” continues. In particular, the focus on that which is beneath a manufactured image is what ultimately authenticates the image, regardless of whether it is actually “real” or not. In effect, working both “real” and “representation” into a self-supporting tapestry of the star’s identity, serving to “reinforce the authenticity of the star image as a whole” (p. 140). At other times, the star’s on-screen and off-screen images are matched:

Many star images were authenticated by showing that the star really was like he or she was on the screen. In other cases, the off-screen reputation is either suppressed (as in the endless word of mouth about which indelibly heterosexual love gods and goddesses were in reality gay) or just does not get widely incorporated into the image’s popular currency (e.g. every interview and biography assures us that James Cagney was of a gentle and kindly disposition, but it seems to have had no impact on his image).

Authenticity is thus paradoxically performed. It is a rhetoric, which Dyer argues, is effective so long as it is not “perceived as a rhetoric” (p. 141). In media texts, this rhetoric is communicated through markers to “indicate lack of control, lack of premeditation and privacy” (p. 141). In contrast to the planned, organised and public aspects of the self, presented through what Dyer terms “the surface” (p. 141), authenticity is located in the moments that reveal the inner self.

If mapped to a celebrity figure, these markers are visible in behavioural traits like gestures and speech patterns, improvisation and unplanned actions, which reveal the “real” individual behind a public persona. Dyer’s deconstruction of Judy Garland’s performance in the 1954 film A Star Is Born (Cukor) highlights how the narrative authenticates both Garland-as-star and Garland-as-character in a “reality” associated with the actor. Movements, gestures and apparently unplanned moments (being caught on camera) imply lack of control and lack of premeditation, which “can be taken to ‘betray’ neurosis” (pp. 142-143), by then associated with Garland off-screen. The on-screen representation of the character is authenticated and legitimised through its association with “an authenticated individual [who] is acting as the guarantor of the truth .. . of her stardom” (p. 143). This authenticating process draws heavily on knowledge of the private lives of celebrities, accounting for its inclusion as a marker of authenticity. It is also located in the notionally private moments of a celebrity caught before a performance, when they are not “on” (in front of a camera or on stage). In the liminal space between the on-stage and off-stage, the transition from “real” to performed selves is a glimpse of the authentic individual.

The authentication of celebrity pairings likewise considers that which is “behind or below the surface” (p. 140). However, unlike authenticating processes involving individual celebrity figures, the truth that is sought is not that of a single entity; rather, the truth of a relationship is what is pursued. Bromance pairs are joint persona, established through the combination of separate public persona each with their own cultural meanings. These joint personas are amplified by media representation (Lam & Raphael, 2016) and replicated or integrated into discourse within audience and fan communities (Jerslev, 2018; Lam & Raphael, 2018). Ultimately, many contemporary bromance pairs are commoditised, the dynamics between the celebrities involved presented in such a way as to retain attention. Seeking authenticity in this highly performative and commoditised context is perhaps futile, yet we argue that authenticity can be located and can account for the creation of a successful bromance partnership.