Zac looks so tired, of course, I would be too.

LOL at that NPR article! I liked it, though.

a nothing appearance in the nothing movie New Year's Eve (Ouch)

A funny thing happened in Hairspray: his eyebrows came of age, cinematically speaking.

"I'm crying on the inside; my tattoo and I aren't too happy you had to see us this way" kind of pain.

that really was a weird article! after the HSM photo of "the Zac Efron face" i literally was laughing out loud. it is just so weird. interesting to hear the perspective of a non-fan, though...

I know way more people who aren't fans (okay like 5) who have way more respect for Zac than the people who wrote this article.

I always felt like people secretly know Zac is a good actor; they just don't want to admit it.

i think most of the non-fan people i know don't even give Zac a chance, they don't watch his movies at all...so they don't know he's a good actor. :p

I like find ways for people I know to see like 17 Again, M&OW, or Miracle Run (be it in class where they HAVE to sit through it or something else), and they're always hesitant at first but after the movie, they're usually like "Okay, okay he's a good actor" But then again, maybe that's just the people I know.

that's great, but i can't really do that with my 23-year-old brother. :p i think i had my parents watch M&OW once or I tried but i don't remember if they watched it and if they did if they liked it...

Valid point.

Poor Zac looks so Tired Need some rest After promo hope he gets that long rest.

Strange article, to be sure.

So, today I am home doing various household chores - laundry, dishes, etc. It's POURING down rain, so there's really nothing else to do. And because I haven't gotten enough of Zac this weekend after seeing TLO 3 times, I am watching CSC on HBO. LOL

I feel like we've seen so much of this body guard that we should be on a first name bases by now lol.

Zac must be SOOO jet-lagged. He's been all over the place in such a short amount of time.

"I feel like we've seen so much of this body guard..."

Ha ha, I wish this guy would post a tell-all daily journal. He must have one of the strangest jobs in the world. I wonder what personal quallities he has that makes Zac so loyal to him (a good poker player?).

Yeah I have to wonder what makes him keep using him. Maybe he's just someone Zac feels he can trust?

Funny part is Vanessa uses the same guy when she does promo haha. O_o

Yeah, me too! :)

Here's what I posted on the NPR blog about the "Zac's Beard" article:

First, let me congratulate you for doing your research. You are clearly well informed about Efron's past work. (Or are you a secret Zac fangirl, hiding behind a snarky style?)

Several oblivious reviewers of High School Musical 3 opined that Efron had nowhere to go after this Disney franchise except to Dancing With The Stars (one thought Ashley Tisdale was the standout performer, another thought Lucas Grabeel had the most potential; where are they now?). Yet in a few weeks Efron will have a movie in competition at Cannes. Don't sell this guy short, he has a long way to go but he's going to go a long way.

What's funny is idk that they are that informed. They seeemd to have looked at his imdb page, yes. But they got the order of his films essentially wrong because though MAOW premiered at TIFF in 2008 it didn't really open until late 2009 after 17 Again. And they largely ignore the 'emotional fragility' in CStC. So idk. It's a really weird article and it is structured very strangely.

Probably just confusion or inattention regarding production dates and release dates. But there are other hints that she has watched the movies. In this particular article, I think the desire to write in a particular style may have overpowered attention to factual details.

'hiding behind your snarky style?' haaahaaaa! for real

It was a strange article, a little funny, a bit too much underhandedness and more mis- representation of Zac.

It seriously annoys the HELL out of me when people don't credit his emotional depth in CSC. That movie really hit a nerve for me.

Well, she was essentially critiquing th marketing of a teen actor moving into adult roles, not really his acting abilities. I don't pay any attention to off-hand comments about acting in a particular movie because every individual's response is so subjective, depending on the subject of the movie, the director's style, etc. etc.

What annoys me is the fixed bias against the acting in HSM et seq. The acting was excellent - for the nature of the movies and their intended audience. You don't act in a musical comedy for 12-year-olds as if you were doing Hamlet; now *that* would be bad acting.

You guys, I think, missed the point.
The article is an intelligent look at how Zac Efron's body is representative of the historicity of gender. Borrowing the literary method of examining the body as signifier for the body politic (Queen Elizabeth's body in Renaissance literature, or Leo's body in Haggard's She), the writer explores how Zac Efron's body is morphed and manipulated into an object of desire for girls, and how it is transformed into an object of desire for women simply through inversion (from emotional vulnerability / sexual strength to sexual strength then emotional vulnerability.)
Because of her chosen method, she begins at the start of his career and interprets how his body is met by a chosen audience. The beard, of course, is the ultimate signifier for adult sex as it represents Zac's transition into full manhood.
Yes, there is an uncurrent of deep cynicism in the article, but its not so much based on Zac's capacity as an actor as it is based on the Hollywood power structures that write their messages over him. Holmes almost sees Zac's body as a blank slate, and his appearance and acting a product of gendered expectations that have been carefully researched by powerful executives. For her Disney is a giant power structure that produces and reiterates an object - Derrida's "repetition" with a difference - through time. Think Efron, then Bieber. The problem here is that repetition erodes the value or aura of the original object, which is why Bieber is not and will never be Zac Efron.
While I think she's right on one level, that the actor is produced by and within the entertainment industry, I also believe in the inherent agency and authenticity of the individual. This is very old school, hearkening back to the truth self, an innate soul that modernity disparages or ignores. But I think this selfhood is the very thing that will make a difference with Zac. Why is it that Bieber's mimetic devices fail to achieve the same effect as with Zac? Zac has something different in him - he is not merely there reflection of our desires, but there is a surplus, an excess that overflows out of him, and that is what is going to make the difference.

Now where do I turn my paper in for grade?

"While I think she's right on one level, that the actor is produced by and within the entertainment industry, I also believe in the inherent agency and authenticity of the individual."

I would award an "A". What the writer misses, or doesn't acknowledge, it that actors mostly have to take the work they can get and make the best of it. Zac described his initial motive in doing HSM as "work for the sake of work." Neither he nor his corporate overlords expected such a big hit.

In the Catholic TV interview, Zac talks about being in the right place at the right time more often than he deserves. But he doesn't mention his intense ambition, drive, persistance, and commitment. He has been self-motivated since he went looking for his first professional job, he has never given up, and he has made the best of every opportunity. So while the industry is shaping Zac Efron, he is also shaping his own image and career path.

Exactly! Thank-you; so glad someone understood what I was trying to say. (-:

I want to thank you whole-heartedly for posting a link to that article. I've been stewing for months on what to write for my letter of intent for my Phd; I knew I wanted to write about the devaluation of art under capitalism, and encourage an "art for art's sake" (although when Gaultier wrote that, he was writing against art for the church's sake and art for the secular humanist's sake) and suddenly - here it is; this is it: the mechanism by which capitalism penetrates, manipulates and erodes art, and how it inhibits and restrains the artist in his flight from self (what IF there were only minimal limitations or expectations on Zac as an actor. What if he were allowed to become an actor the way he wants to become an actor, and what if I were allowed to become a writer the way I want to become a writer (without pandering to every tom, dick and harry). What would happen if we freed art from its burden to produce the most amount of money possible?