Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock: Persona and promotion

ABSTRACT

Media interest in the relationship between Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock has been consistent since their first collaboration in 1994. Despite only appearing in two films together, and while their characters vary from Speed (1994) to The Lake House (2006), their romantic on-screen pairings have resulted in media desire for a mirrored off-screen relationship. In 2018 and 2019, both actors revealed on Ellen that they had crushes on one another, feeding this media interest. The presentation of a public friendship raises questions about its authenticity, especially if it is used to promote works. We argue that while the Reeves/Bullock relationship is commoditised, it nonetheless relies on markers of authenticity to enable it to succeed as a form of promotion. This paper proposes an extension of Dyer’s markers of authenticity as a means to interrogate the authenticity of celebrity pairings. It additionally articulates the presentation of a close dynamic as ‘buddy banter’, often expressed through suggestive and flirtatious interactions, which is utilised by celebrity pairings to communicate a sense of fun and levity. The perceived genuineness of the buddy banter contributes to the successful celebrity dynamic and ultimately to the utility of the dynamic as a form of promotion.

KEYWORDS:

• Celebrity couples
• banter
• promotion
• advertising
• Keanu Reeves
• Sandra Bullock

Introduction

Keanu Reeves is known for having close friendships with both male and female cast members, such as River Phoenix, Winona Ryder and Sandra Bullock. The origins of these various relationships are often located in on-screen pairings, with the actors either playing close friends or romantic partners. Notions of a close connection are reinforced during press tours promoting film projects, which can be interpreted as the design of marketing strategies. Indeed, achieving a continuation between on-screen and off-screen dynamics is a common feature of contemporary publicity campaigns aiming to capitalise on character dynamics such as on-screen bromances (Raphael and Lam 2019, Hamad 2020). However, in the case of the Reeves/Bullock dynamic, media interest in their relationship has persisted despite the absence of clear campaigns to which it is attached.

Unlike his collaboration with Ryder (appearing in four films to date), Reeves and Bullock have shared screen time twice, initially in 1994 for Speed and reuniting in 2006 for The Lake House. Despite playing couples on-screen, the two have not been romantically linked, but present a close friendship off-screen. This bond has led to media interest in the potentiality of a romantic relationship, with questions about their affection for each other a common feature of interviews. Two recent talk show appearances on the Ellen DeGeneres Show (Ellen) (2018, 2019), in which both admitted to crushes on the other during the 1990s, heightened this interest. While media interest in Hollywood couples is not a recent occurrence, the pairing of celebrities who are not romantically linked in pseudo-romantic ways has become common, evidenced by the frequent creation of celebrity bromances; Sebastian Stan and Anthony Mackie from the Marvel Cinematic Universe are a case in point. These pairings are extensions of individual celebrity persona, merged to create new joint personas that are expressed during publicity campaigns. The authenticity of such celebrity pairings can then be called into question due to the commoditised context of promotion.

This paper analyses video interviews with Reeves and Bullock to examine the way celebrities, and the media, construct their persona. It extends Richard Dyer’s ‘markers of sincerity and authenticity’ (Dyer 1991, p. 141) to argue the authentication of celebrity pairings lies as much in the narrative of a shared history as it does in the ‘lack of control, lack of premeditation and privacy’ (p. 141) of on-screen presentations. Juxtaposed against the public presentation of friendships that coincide with the promotion of films, these markers of authenticity mitigate notions that celebrities capitalise on their relationships.

Authenticity in celebrity studies

A consequence of the performative nature of celebrity culture is the persistence of questions concerning authenticity. Scholarship highlights the symbolic potential of figures emerging from the Hollywood star system (Dyer 2004), the performative and constructed nature of public persona (Gamson 1994), and the everyday practice of persona curation enacted on online platforms (Marshall 2010, Marwick and boyd 2011, Marshall et al. 2019). Accompanying this awareness is a search for the real or authentic, expressed through fan and media interest in the private lives of celebrity figures and a desire to go beyond a celebrities’ public image (Holmes and Redmond 2006). Authenticity exists in tandem with performativity; it operates as a conceptual tool to deconstruct the celebrity figure and, in this capacity, to evaluate the effectiveness of the performance. The etymology of the term ‘authentic’ highlights its evaluative potential. First used in the 14^th century in reference to authority (now obsolete), the Greek roots of the word indicate originality and genuineness (through authentikos) derived from a notion that to be authentic is to act under one’s own authority (from authentes; autos as ‘self’ and hentes, ‘doer, being’). Since the mid-14^th Century, the term has been used to indicate a conformation with that which is factual or original (in reference to reproduction of cultural artefacts) or to be ‘true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character’ (Merriam-Webster nd). It is in the latter that authenticity is operationalised in studies of celebrity figures, derived from the centrality of the individual as a site of validation.

A tenet of a modern worldview is the rise of individualism (Potter 2010, Fillitz and Saris 2013). As the intellectual domination of institutions such as religion are loosened, the individual is increasingly viewed as the new centre of truth (Potter 2010). The individual becomes the place where ultimate reality can be located. Philosophers such as Lionel Trilling support the notion that individuals are possessive of ‘inner selves’ deemed to be truthful states of being. The confluence between the true, real ‘inner self’ and external expression is seen as a sign of sincerity and authenticity (Trillling 1971). Accounting for notions of authenticity in the field of anthropology, Thomas Fillitz and A Jamie Saris likewise note that ‘direct correspondences were valued as sincere, pure, real, natural and their opposites were, of course, maligned’ (Fillitz and Saris 2013, p. 8).

Richard Dyer argues the ‘basic paradigm is just this – that what is behind or below the surface is, unquestionably and virtually by definition, the truth’ (Dyer 1991, p. 140). Like the inner self of the modern individual, the reality and therefore authenticity of the star is located in that which is ‘behind’ the public. Scholarly, media and fan interest in the private space of celebrity figures is motivated, in part, by a search for authenticity. The search for the individual ‘behind the manufactured mask of fame’ (Holmes and Redmond 2006) is both a response to knowledge that the public personas of celebrities cannot be interpreted superficially and a desire to validate the public persona through alignment with the private self (Dyer 1991). Celebrity studies scholars have examined authenticity for its ability to legitimise public persona (Sobande 2019), interrogate the mechanisms of celebrity production (Gamson 1994), and question how ‘real’ a celebrity figure is (Hermes and Stoete 2019, Kjær 2019). However, few have centred authenticity as a site of investigation, with the exception of Richard Dyer. In his 1991 analysis of Judy Garland, Dyer attempts to untangle what he calls the ‘hall of mirrors’ (p. 140) of the star-as-representation and star-as-person that is implicated in the creation of the star image.

Authenticity is conceptualised, as something not manufactured, therefore ‘true’ and ‘genuine’. Yet, where authenticity is located (or sought) potentially destabilises its conceptual foundations; manipulation can be read in any number of sites of the apparently authentic. Dyer articulates it thus:

Corroboration that a star is really like she/he appears to be may work, but may be read as further manipulation; showing that the star is not really like she/he appears to be may itself be taken up into the image … but it could shatter the illusion altogether (p. 141).

The search for an authentic individual behind a performance presumes that the private individual is devoid of manipulation. This is the reason unmediated access to a celebrity is accompanied by connotations of reality; the mechanisms for manipulation (mediated through a camera lens or editor’s pen) are minimised in favour of a directness that potentially reveals the ‘true’ inner self. Yet, Dyer notes the inherent instability of determinants of authenticity that are based on the external perception of another’s self-hood. He notes that authenticating processes grounded on impressions of reality are ‘a rhetoric of authenticity’ he describes as ‘markers of sincerity and authenticity’. While the markers can become ‘signs of hype and artifice’, they are effective ‘so long as it is not perceived as a rhetoric’ (p. 141). Thus, while authenticity is conceptually located in the non-performative space, its manifestation will always involve an element of performativity as the intangible internal qualities of an individual are measured against tangible external expression. Whether the ‘inner self’ conforms to outer expression is evaluated based on cultural codes of authenticity that need to be ‘performed’ in order to be observed and interpreted.

Dyer’s explication of authenticating processes draws from the notion of finding the true self in private moments, which are mapped to readings of both the on-screen and off-screen images of the star (Dyer 1991). The examination of joint celebrity persona in this paper likewise explores markers of sincerity and authenticity. However, rather than questioning the sincerity of a celebrities’ selfhood (whether celebrities really are who they claim to be), this paper examines the presentation of a joint persona and explores the conditions under which celebrity relationships are interpreted as genuine or not.

Markers of authenticity

Grounding authenticity in ‘notions of the truth being behind or beneath the surface’, Dyer suggests sincerity is indicated through ‘markers that indicate lack of control, lack of premeditation and privacy’ (p. 141). When mapped onto an individual celebrity figure, these manifest in behavioural traits such as speech patterns and gestures or moments of improvisation, which reveals something of the ‘real’ individual behind the persona. In his deconstruction of Judy Garland’s performance in the film A Star is Born (1954), Dyer notes how the film authenticates both the off-screen Garland, and the on-screen presentation of star-making by grounding it in a ‘reality’ associated with the celebrity. Physical gestures, and seemingly unplanned moments in the film indicate lack of control and premeditation that ‘can be taken to “betray” neurosis’ (p. 142–3), which by then was associated with Garland’s off-screen persona. In this process, 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). The processes of legitimisation for individual celebrity figures are, naturally, concerned with the individual and draw on knowledge of their ‘private’ selves to situate authenticity.

The creation of celebrity pairings in contemporary celebrity culture occurs within an economy in which attention, and not only the celebrity figure, is commoditised (van Krieken 2012). The relative monetary value of a celebrity figure has always, indirectly, been associated with their cultural capital (Marshall 1997). The more well known a celebrity is the more potential returns they bring to a project, which translates to monetary value. Exposure on social media platforms provide a direct means of monetising celebrities’ cultural capital by offering advertisers immediate access to potential consumers. Celebrity use of social media creates what Peter Turner terms an ‘interstellar community’ (Turner 2019, p. 470) in which celebrities enhance their star value through demonstrating their position within elite celebrity circles. The attention that a celebrity figure captures and retains is a quality which can be commoditised. Recent strategies to create joint celebrity personas have attempted to capitalise on the attention generated in order to promote associated works.

Judging the authenticity of celebrity pairings thus takes place within a context in which joint personas are, often, deliberately constructed in order to promote specific works featuring the celebrities in the pairing. Joint personas combine two established public personas with their attendant individual cultural meanings and degrees of authenticity. The presentation of the joint persona is then amplified by media (Lam and Raphael 2016) and audiences (Jerslev 2018, Raphael and Lam 2018), and the dynamics between the celebrities involved commoditised in order to sustain currency within the attention economy. While seeking authenticity within this highly performative and commoditised context may be a futile exercise, we maintain that authenticity can be gleaned in the celebrity dynamic and indeed that it contributes to the successful creation of joint personas and becomes a means to promote affiliated works. To do this, we extend Dyer’s three markers to account for how the ‘truth’ of a relationship (rather than individual) could be conceptualised.

First, we interpret Dyer’s lack of control and lack of premeditation through unplanned physical interaction and banter. Verbal banter could be both planned or unplanned, however, the presentation of a friendly dynamic relies on what we have elsewhere termed ‘buddy banter’ (Raphael and Lam 2016) to convey a sense of closeness. As an articulation of group dynamics, buddy banter refers to interaction between cast mates comprised of mixed and same-gender pairs and/or groups. Often suggestive and flirtatious, it is utilised by celebrity pairings to communicate a sense of fun and levity. Privacy as a marker of authenticity translates, in the context of a relationship, to continued off-screen contact and involvement in personal milestones.

In addition to the adaptation of Dyer’s original markers from individual to relational contexts, another marker is relevant to establishing the authenticity of celebrity pairings. A narrative of history, either off-screen or through confluence between on-screen and off-screen dynamics, works to legitimate the celebrity pairing by suggesting the existence of a genuine relationship. This is particularly the case when audiences read current celebrity pairings through the lens of past on-screen dynamics, as Anne Jerslev notes in her examination of fans of Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda’s comedy series Grace and Frankie (2018). A point of enjoyment is the bickering between the characters, reflected in the off-screen chemistry between the actors during interviews and seen as a continuation of their dynamic in the 1980 film 9 to 5 (Jerslev 2018). The relationship between Reeves and Bullock is presented under similar contexts, with media interest increasing during the promotion of films. The following discussion explores the markers of authenticity, which operate to both establish the existence of the pairing, as well as ensure its sincerity.

Reeves and Bullock Background

Media intrigue around Reeves and Bullock’s relationship began following the filming of Speed (1994), encouraged by the public performance of their friendship. They then re-united on-screen in the Lake House in 2006. However, their off-screen interactions in interviews promoting films and award ceremonies also received media interest. Some of the most significant mediated moments include Reeves and Bullock winning the 2006 Best Liplock at the Teen Choice Awards, and Reeves giving Bullock the Decade of Hotness award at the Spike TV’s Guys Choice Awards in 2014. Privately, they also shared intimate moments such as Reeves attending Bullock’s wedding in 2005 and writing letters to one another as well as catching up for dinners over the years. These private details have been made public through interviews, as they are often asked about their relationship whether they are together or in solo interviews. Most recently, they have declared that they have had crushes on one another on Ellen – Bullock in 2018 and Reeves in 2019. In doing so, they have maintained media and fan interest in their close friendship. However, there are many years in between these events when their bond was not publicised. Unlike other pairings in Hollywood, there is no defined campaign behind their relationship and they do not use social media to keep it active. However, the intrigue surrounding their flirty friendship has continued for almost three decades.

The elusive nature of authenticity has previously been discussed, as has the paradoxical need to perform authenticity in order to demonstrate credibility. It is therefore difficult to conclusively determine the sincerity of the interaction between Reeves and Bullock. Indeed, there is good cause to interpret their dynamic as only a performance designed to promote their works. However, we argue that the commodification of a joint persona is only effective if there are elements of authenticity in the presentation. These elements are discussed through the framework of Dyer’s markers of authenticity, which are extended and applied to a dyadic relationship.

Lack of control and lack of premeditation

Dyer’s first two markers relate to the notion that the truth of an individual resides beneath surface representations. A lack of control or lack of premeditation potentially reveals glimpses of this ‘truthful’ person. By describing it as a ‘rhetoric of authenticity’ (Dyer 1991, p. 141), Dyer highlights the constructed and performative nature of these glimpses, as well as the negotiated interpretation of their presentation. The behavioural traits associated with lack of control and premeditation may be read as genuine by some observers and artificial by others. Notwithstanding, markers such as physical gestures and spontaneity are deemed to be revealing of the ‘true’ individual as they are unplanned.

Applying this to a dyad, unplanned interactions potentially indicate both the ‘true’ nature of the individual and their ‘real’ feelings about each other. As with the spontaneity of the individual, unplanned interactions occur in both physical and verbal form. Unplanned and informal physical interactions, such as touching or hugging, demonstrates both physical affection for the other partner and a sense of familiarity. Bullock, and to a lesser degree, Reeves, demonstrate high degrees of spontaneity during junket interviews. A notable example is an incident when Bullock interrupted Reeves during an interview for Speed. As Reeves answered questions about his opinion of Bullock and described her acting talent, Bullock rushed in and hugged him then began stroking his body and hair in an exaggerated sexualised embrace (Feilongfan 2009). Reeves joked, ‘excuse us for a moment’ to the interviewer, as if they needed some privacy. Reeves then complimented Bullock on her clothing and after a brief conversation she ran off camera. Bullock’s action of rushing in to hug Reeves is clearly performative, even though she does not acknowledge the interviewer or camera. However, the fact that Reeves comfortably joined the embrace reflects a sense of familiarity that transcends conventional etiquette and accepted public behaviour between cast mates. This type of intensely intimate embrace (even in jest) is generally enacted in private. Bullock’s direct and unabashed behaviour thereby not only suggests a level of intimacy between the two but the presentation of a normally private behaviour in a public arena offers glimpses into an imagined set of private interactions. These interactions are imagined, as neither celebrity acknowledges being in a relationship and the playful nature of Bullock’s actions at once foreground and humorously dispel any such reality.

Similarly, verbal banter can be read as planned or unplanned, with the interpretation of repeated on-set anecdotes likely to shift to ‘planned’ the more times a story is told/heard. On-set anecdotes are a staple of press junkets and are likely to be perceived as disingenuous. However, verbal banter is spontaneous and often draws from the joint history of the pairing. It also relies on a live dynamic or rhythm of speech that requires close chemistry to enable it to succeed. Reeves and Bullock demonstrate consistent and continuous verbal banter during their junket interviews, where they cultivate a joint persona that playfully engages with media desire to read their relationship as romantic. In a 1996 ET interview, where the actors are shown laughing and dancing together, Bullock referred to Reeves as ‘suave’ and joked; ‘I’m pregnant and Keanu [slight pause] is not the father, and that’s the problem’ (Dives 2011). Reeves agreed. The pause allowed for a moment of assumption and the reference to having a sexual history adds to the narrative of the pair having an off-screen relationship. However, the humour behind Bullock’s statement shows the actors mocking the media interest in their personal lives. These moments following the filming of Speed are prime examples of buddy banter, with humour and intimacy crossing over to a form of entertainment.

After the release of The Lake House, Reeves and Bullock won the ‘Best Liplock’ at the Teen Choice Awards in 2006. During a red-carpet interview, Bullock joked that they rehearsed the kiss a lot and wanted to win the award (Sandykeanufan 2006ee). The actors had previously been nominated for the MTV Best Kiss in 1995 for Speed, which one interviewer raised, further highlighting the media’s interest in their chemistry (Sandykeanufan 2006ee). When accepting the award, Reeves stated; ‘I’m nothing without you’; Bullock agreed (Sandykeanufan 2006f). Reeves was then interrupted by an audience request for them to kiss again. Bullock stated:

You say do it again, but you know I’m a married woman now … it’s kind of bitter sweet getting this award because kisses that are really you know, are really hot … warm and tight, like that, I can’t do anymore. I can’t do them, because I’m married and they all go to my husband …

Reeves responded; ‘Weren’t you married when we did that kiss?’ Bullock responded with an overly performed guilty expression on her face as the crowd cheered. Reeves added: 'How are you going to get out of this’, followed by a cheeky laugh and teasing, ‘You’re in trouble’. The two were clearly playing up a love triangle narrative for the audience in a humorous way. By winning the award and hearing the audience reaction as they accepted it, fans are shown to have an ongoing interest in their relationship on-screen and off-screen. Their acceptance speech was another example of their buddy banter – with verbal affection and jokes of cheating. In this instance, Reeves took the flirtier role in the narrative of their ‘forbidden love’. Accepting this award, Reeves and Bullock gave a more over-the-top performance of their dynamic than had been cultivated in earlier interviews.

This trend continued in an interview promoting The Lake House on the television show This Morning. Reeves and Bullock answered questions about what it was like to be back on screen together to which Bullock responded jokingly; ‘Electric … sexual tensions … I had a good time’ (Sandykeanufan 2008). Reeves laughed at Bullock’s response and described it as ‘fantastic’ and ‘lovely’. Throughout the interview, they continued to laugh together as Bullock teased Reeves about his fear of long-term relationships and messed with his hair. Here, Bullock created a flirtatious conversation and pulled Reeves into the performance, which is reflective of their differing public personas. Reeves is known for being more reserved in interviews, while Bullock is witty and confident. This contrast in personalities also adds to the intrigue behind their buddy banter, as Bullock is able to show audiences a different side to Reeves’ identity.

The verbal banter displayed by Reeves and Bullock in press appearances is often flirtatious, as is indicated by references to ‘kissing’, ‘pregnancy’ and ‘sexual tension’. Yet, the potentiality of a relationship, although the focus of media interest is negated by the playfulness of its presentation. Simultaneously, the consistency and levity of the banter suggests a sincerity to the relationship that underscores the performance. Continuous media interest encourages the banter, thereby creating a demand for the dynamic, and providing a platform to publicise both the Reeves/Bullock pairing and their affiliated works.

Privacy

Privacy, as the conceptual antithesis to publicity and the performativity of public persona, is conceptualised as the site of the authentic individual. Dyer articulates his third marker of authenticity through reference to the private spaces in which the individual is viewed or captured. Individuals seemingly unaware that they are being filmed are likewise considered to be ‘caught’ in private moments where the veil of performance is momentarily lifted (Dyer 1991, p,140). Behind the scenes spaces are similarly conceptualised as private for their ability to reveal how actors interact while not performing as their characters. In this regard, the Reeves/Bullock relationship can be evaluated through two modes of privacy: behind the scenes access, and off-screen interactions in private spaces.

In an interview promoting The Lake House with MSN, Reeves and Bullock were asked about the most memorable day of filming, to which Reeves replied: ‘The first kind of kiss, that was the most memorable filming day for me’ (Sandykeanufan 2006b). Reeves turned to Bullock jokingly waiting for a similar compliment, adding a flirtatious tone. Recounting a behind-the-scenes moment provides insight into the private interactions between the actors while at work. At the same time, Reeves’ focus on an on-screen romantic moment feeds media interest in the potentially romantic subtext of their ongoing relationship. This is further reinforced at the end of the interview where Bullock noted: 'Oh God! You got so many good clips in that’. In making this acknowledgement, Bullock showed an awareness of media interest in their relationship.

The privacy marker likewise manifests in the private spaces of joint celebrity persona. However, rather than seeking a ‘real’ individual in the private space, privacy refers to interactions in off-screen spaces out of the public eye. Revelations of these interactions in public during interviews could variously indicate degrees of genuineness. Knowledge of personal details about the other person indicates intimacy not afforded to casual acquaintances or co-stars. However, recounting personal details during interviews could be construed as contrived, especially if the same details are repeated across interviews.

Seeking celebrities’ thoughts on each other is often a means to provide further insight into an imagined private relationship. When the insights provided align with ongoing media speculation and interest, it can function to prolong the reading of a joint celebrity persona, in this case, as potentially romantic. A resurgence of media attention in the Reeves/Bullock relationship occurred during Bullock’s promotional run for Bird Box (2018). Appearing on the talk show Ellen, she revealed a past crush on Reeves:

I think about how sweet Keanu Reeves was, and how handsome he was … It was hard. It was really hard for me to really be serious. He’d look at me and I’d [giggle] … I think we’re probably friends for that long because we didn’t [wink] (TheEllenShow 2018).

The entire conversation has a comedic tone rather than a dramatic revelation, however it contributed to the on-going reading of their relationship as romantic. This reading was further reinforced in 2019, when Reeves appeared on Ellen to promote John Wick: Chapter 3. When questioned about Bullock’s declaration, Reeves disclosed that while unaware of her crush, the feelings were mutual: ‘She obviously didn’t know I had a crush on her, either’ (TheEllenShow 2019). The studio audience reacted with gasps, and ‘woo’ sounds, indicating viewer delight and desire for this specific interpretation of their relationship. When Ellen asked why they did not get together, Reeves provided the excuse that they were working, thus in the professional context did not pursue one another. Ellen closed the narrative by stating; ‘I believe she’s in a relationship now. The window closed. You had a chance’. Again, this conversation adopted a light tone, with Ellen suggesting that their on-screen chemistry was a result of their real-life crushes on one another, echoing the media and fan desire for romance.

After winning an MTV award for Bird Box, in 2019, Bullock was interviewed by ET and asked about making a third instalment of Speed and Reeves’ love life, which were not relevant to the film being celebrated (Entertainment Tonight 2019), but likely the result of the two actors declaring their past crushes. Thus, regardless of the film being spoken about, the media has a vested interest in their joint persona. The fact that both Reeves and Bullock publicly professed their past feelings while promoting films that did not relate to the other actor is evidence of their decision to capitalise on their friendship. While it appears to be authentic, Reeves and Bullock also perform their friendship publicly as a form of promoting their joint films and individual careers.

The declaration of past crushes can be posited as playing up to media interest if revealed through a publicly mediated platform such as a talk show (more so if the declaration is prompted by questions from the host). This echoes Dyer’s suggestion that markers of sincerity and authenticity are easily displaced and discredited, prompting the search for other means of authentication (Dyer 1991). Yet, the private ‘backstage’ space remains a site for genuineness. In particular, revelations that celebrity pairings interact and continue to interact, while there is no need to promote works, during their ‘private’ time indicates some degree of sincerity in their reported affection towards each other.

A year before The Lake House was released, Reeves attended Bullock’s wedding, removing the chance of a real-life romance between them yet adding authenticity to their friendship. Bullock stated in an interview with GMTV; ‘The only people who were allowed to be there were the people that I knew if I needed help would be there’ (Sandykeanufan 2006). Bullock turned to Reeves and added: 'He was there, you’d help me … and you were one of the last ones to leave. You hung out with me until the very end’. Reeves disagreed on the timing and Bullock rebutted; ‘We left at exactly the same time! You were in the marital bed, don’t you remember? You were the third party’. The interviewer then commented on their rapport and Bullock replied: 'We do, I think, actually like each other’. Bullock then turned to Reeves and jokingly stated: 'I know I like you, do you like me?’ Reeves responded: 'I sure do, pumpkin’. Even while discussing her wedding, their flirty banter continued. Stripped of the obligation to appear in public together, the choice to connect in private connotes heightened sociality and intimacy and therefore lends credibility to their public presentation of a close friendship. Although Bullock’s telling of the story about Reeves at her wedding is dramatised for comic effect, the fact that he was present is already an indication that even though sharing the story is performative, there is a genuine connection beneath it.

Participation in personal milestones such as weddings contributes to an ongoing narrative of closeness, regardless of actual romantic outcome. In a similar vein, participation at professional milestones (which are publicised) achieves a similar effect. In 2014, Reeves presented Bullock with the Decade of Hotness award at the Spike TV’s Guy Choice Awards. Flanked by Hugh Grant and Matthew McConaughey (Bullock’s other former co-stars), Reeves spoke of his admiration stating: ‘Sandra, your heart, your soul, your light, your talent that you share with all of us is amazing and wonderful and extraordinary. You are one of a kind and you are definitely, definitely hot!’ (Willis 2014). His inclusion in the event brings their friendship back into the media after approximately 8 years. In doing so, their close friendship remains relevant and reignites fan obsessions with their dynamic. His words highlight his affection for her and her eyes welling up with tears reflects that he also means a lot to her. This also contributes to an ongoing narrative of history regarding the celebrity pairing that reinforces a sense of closeness and adds credibility to public presentations of intimacy.

Narrative of history

In addition to the adaptation of Dyer’s original markers from individual to relational contexts, an additional marker is relevant to establishing the authenticity of celebrity pairings: a narrative of history. We have elsewhere argued that the existence of a history of association between celebrities in a pairing mitigates claims of disingenuousness even if clearly presented as a form of promotion (Raphael and Lam 2019). This is due mostly to the ability for the promotional presentation to be incorporated into a longer narrative of history, becoming subsumed beneath the narrative of friendship rather than being perceived to capitalise on it.

The Reeves/Bullock relationship is similarly presented as a long-standing friendship through their repeated appearances at award ceremonies and in private moments (the aforementioned wedding attendance), despite only appearing on-screen together twice. The length of time between on-screen appearances fed media desire for their reunion, and their portrayal in The Lake House of long separated lovers further reinforced a reading of their relationship as close. Indeed, it is the narrative of a history that enables the presentation of a relationship that is unambiguously non-romantic that is nonetheless highly suggestive, yet genuine. In between their two films, Reeves and Bullock claim to have kept in touch. In a Reddit session in 2014, Reeves stated; ‘Through the years we kinda get together, have a dinner, catch up, see how it’s going’ (Bueno 2019). Bullock supported these claims with similar comments such as:

We kept in touch over the years – I actually wrote him letters to see how he was doing … We have some mutual friends and we had a few dinner dates … I am glad to work with him again. I don’t know what it is, but I love being around Keanu. I really do. He is such a good person (Bueno 2019).

Their consistent intimate friendship narrative adds credibility to the presentation of their relationship. Bullock mentioned writing letters, which could be perceived as an extra publicity manoeuvre for their film The Lake House. The film is about a romance that develops between a doctor and an architect who live in a house 2 years apart yet communicate through sending letters in the house’s mailbox. In mentioning letters as a part of their real-life story and form of communication, Bullock romanticises their offscreen relationship and draws parallels between their on-screen and off-screen personas. However, the mentioning of letters is also an example of insight into their private lives, adding further authenticity.

In another promotional interview for The Lake House on The View, Barbara Walters noted: 'People are so delighted that you are together again’ (Sandykeanufan 2006cc). They were then asked about maintaining contact and Reeves claimed they have ‘kept in touch’, to which Bullock laughed and replied; ‘you make it sound like you were so good at keeping in touch’ and then placed her hand on his shoulder, which lingered. Bullock explained, she would write him letters because Reeves does not have a computer. Reeves confirmed this noting he keeps the letters in a special place. The interview mirrored the themes of the letter writing from the fictional narrative but relied on the perception of (or media desire for) an ongoing communication between Reeves and Bullock. Dyer’s analysis of Judy Garland’s performance in A Star is Born (1954) suggests that confluence between on-screen themes and off-screen performer works to authenticate both on-screen and off. In a similar way, the ongoing history between Reeves and Bullock serves both to authenticate their off-screen connection while grounding the themes of the film in a ‘reality’ associated with their joint celebrity persona.

In the same interview, Reeves was asked about his dating life, which he did not want to divulge. Bullock chimed in ‘do you want me to share some of your stories?’ This suggests Bullock knows his secrets, adding a sense of intimacy. Reeves is later asked if he had anyone in mind to settle down with. Bullock again jumped in stating: 'Other than me. You can let go of me as the example … and you can’t compare to me anymore, it’s not going to help’. Reeves laughed and agreed; ‘it won’t help at all’ (Sandykeanufan 2006d). While the media is often directing their narrative, Bullock unnecessarily chimed in to joke about them being more than friends, showing that the public desire for an intimate relationship is also a performance they choose to emphasise.

As outlined, Bullock’s intervention and suggestion of herself as a potential object of affection indicates a sense of intimacy. However, it also demonstrates how markers of authenticity operate to reinforce the credibility of their relationship in a highly performative context where characterisation as romantic partners serves a promotional purpose. Bullock’s knowledge of Reeves’ past romances suggests they connect privately. Her interjection and attempt to answer a question not addressed to her is seemingly unplanned (indicating a lack of premeditation); the performance is concluded with a round of verbal banter that recalls the media tendency to construct their joint persona in romantic terms. As they had already established a narrative of history founded on flirtatious friendship, she is able to do this without fear of the relationship being misrepresented as ‘real’. Here, Bullock ‘saves’ Reeves from pressure to answer questions about his private life, using the media characterisation of their relationship to deflect the question. In the process, she also fuels speculation about their closeness, thereby adding to the value of their commoditised joint persona.

Conclusion

The public presentation of the Reeves/Bullock relationship often coincides with promotion of their joint and individual works. As such, the public presentation of their friendship occurs in highly performative contexts in which their interactions can be perceived as a means to commoditise the media interest in their joint persona. Through analyses of interview videos, this paper highlights a number of markers of authenticity (building on Dyer 1991) that enhances a sense of sincerity and increases the plausibility of the presented relationship. Their shared persona benefits their individual identities, by creating intrigue and hype while also displaying their charismatic personalities. This performance is evident through their flirtatious media appearances. Their banter, body language, physical interaction, sharing intimate stories, reuniting on-screen and reaffirming they have kept in touch over the years, fuels the media-driven narrative of a flirty dynamic. This buddy banter then becomes an ultimate form of advertising as it generates media interest and forms its own entertainment, creating publicity for Reeves’ and Bullock’s work and enriching their personas.

While the public presentation of the Reeves/Bullock friendship undoubtedly contains elements of performance and is utilised to draw attention to both celebrities and their affiliated works, the success of their dynamic relies on the presence of perceived authenticity. Without the presence of markers that indicate the presentation is underscored by a genuine friendship, neither the joint persona nor its utilisation as a commodity within the attention economy would come to fruition.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jackie Raphael

Jackie Raphael is a Senior Coordinator in Student Integrity at Murdoch University and an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Western Australia. She is also an Executive Board Member at Fame and Persona Research Consortium (FPRC), an Advisory Board Member at the Centre for Media and Celebrity Studies (CMCS), and Editorial Board Member at WaterHill Publishing. Her main fields of research are celebrity culture, iconic status, endorsements, brand identity, fandom, bromances and social media. Some of her recent publications include Aussie Fans: Uniquely placed in global popular culture (2019), Authentic Activism: Challenges of an Environmental Celebrity (2019), Personas and Places: Negotiating Myths, Stereotypes and National Identities (2018), Disassembling the Celebrity Figure: Credibility and the Incredible (2018), X-Men Bromance: Film, audience and promotion (2018), The function of hosts: enabling fan–celebrity interactions at pop culture conventions (2017), and True bromance: the authenticity behind the Stewart/McKellen relationship (2017).

Celia Lam

Celia Lam is an Associate Professor in Media and Cultural studies at the School of International Communications, the University of Nottingham Ningbo China. Her research interests include the impact of digital media on media production and consumption, audience reception and fan studies, and digital aesthetics. Her work has been published in journals such as Continuum, Convergence, Northern Lights, and Wiley’s International Encyclopedia of Gender, Media, and Communication.