Category Archives: Uncategorized

The reading makes an interesting point, that people make an automatic assumption that all gay people must have some element of performance to their identity. The author’s description of typical gay heartthrobs of the time as being very different from Hudson’s look at the time (muscle man or youth) is interesting, considering he fit perfectly into the female ideal of male beauty. There was nothing subversive about his public image. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Hudson

Watching Lover Come Back fifty nine years after it was first released was certainly interesting. The sexual rules were inflexible. Every woman seemed to be drunk, naive, or nagging. The men are lecherous, manipulative, and power hungry. The tidy ending was essentially shocking based on all the character’s behavior and actions. Romantic comedies from this time seem to rely on single-dimension characterization, and on the surface Hudson’s characterization is the same. He has sexual prowess, women love him, he is confident, he is educated, he is successful, and he knows that other men aspire to be these things. He used these skills to pull himself out of poverty. Hudson’s character is the American dream. As the reading points out, it is only in hindsight that Hudson’s movies become more complex, knowing that the entire time that he was a gay man playing a straight man. 

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rock-Hudson

Many female celebrities of the time seem to be stereotype-defying in some way. For example, Marilyn Monroe was hyper-sexualized; not the ideal housewife, the physical manifestation of heterosexual male fantasy. Hudson’s image was that of a benign (if mischievous and playful) society-approved husband material. His studio supposedly arranged his marriage to his only wife. This is also in contrast to celebrities of similar caliber of the time: Marilyn Monroe was married three times, Doris Day was married four times, Paul Newman twice, Clark Gable five times and John Wayne three times. A single, very short marriage certainly seems atypical.

https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/listened-marilyn-monroe-die-secret-files-hollywood-p-revealed-article-1.1365189

The reading from this week makes me wonder just how many people knew about Hudson’s sexual orientation, and how it was kept a secret. I read that his studio covered up an expose that a magazine was about to release about his homosexuality by releasing dirty information on two other celebrities at the studio. This makes it seem that at least studio officials knew the truth. It seems likely that others in Hollywood society would have also known.The reading implies that many of Hudson’s sex comedies have plots which rely on sexual ambiguity, even though several of his romantic comedies portray him as a serial womanizer. His characters often lacked some characteristic that would have allowed him to be seen as the heterosexual ideal of manliness. Was this purposeful? I would think that to completely obscure any trace of Hudson’s true sexual orientation, his studio would do all it could to cast Hudson in roles as stereotypically straight as possible. So how was it that it was not until his death from AIDS-related complications that it became public knowledge that he was gay?

In the Elle article “Exclusive: Beyoncé Wants to Change the Conversation” by Tamar Gottesman, the author uses the quote “hypervisibility and inaccessibility simultaneously” to apply to Beyoncé’s careful management of her private versus public life. Lemonade certainly feels like the most intimate look into the real life and world view of Beyoncé as a star icon. The use of dream-like music to transition to new parts of the story adds to the feeling that it is a glimpse inside the mind. I admire Lemonade as a beautiful representation of both personal and generational trauma, and as a sort of vindication for anyone who has ever felt hurt and betrayed. The redemption arc is utilized perfectly to express a cohesive narrative, and retells the age-old story of a woman scorned in a new and unique way.

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/04/25/beyonce-lemonade

The critique in the article “Moving Beyond Pain” by Bell Hooks, that Beyoncé’s professed interpretation of feminism is oversimplified, is valid. However, I think that this is a misunderstanding of Beyoncé’s target audience. I don’t think her FEMINIST banner was meant to activate those already conducting critical analysis of the feminist identity. I think for a lot of people, stripping down feminism to the bare bones of “equal rights for men and women” makes the concept more palatable and approachable for those who feel alienated from or ignorant about feminism as an identity. From my point of view, it seems that Beyoncé’s goal is to make people who had never considered calling themselves a feminist think about doing so, and know that it is okay. 

https://medium.com/beyonc%C3%A9-lit-and-lemonade/what-beyonc%C3%A9-says-about-feminism-beyonc%C3%A9-vs-lemonade-842caf841837

I noticed that in Lemonade, Beyoncé compares herself to Malcolm X, and also used the image of Martin Luther King Jr. Later in the film. I think her ethos throughout the piece evokes the ideology of both. In the beginning, her wrathful feelings overwhelm her and make her a destructive force, but ultimately she does choose love and family over holding on to anger and hate. The article by Hooks also criticizes Beyoncé’s use of violent imagery in the visual album. The author claims that it’s just another instance of representing black women in the role of the victim. I think this critique is unfairly applied to this work in particular, and felt empowered by both the violence and the forgiveness. While some art is made for others, Lemonade feels deeply rooted in personal hurt and experience. Violent feelings stir violent action in some cases, and I don’t think Beyoncé is necessarily prescribing violence as the antidote for betrayal.

https://www.thedrive.com/a-list/3187/the-demolished-cars-of-beyonc-s-lemonade

Beyoncé is ultimately a figure so multidimensional that she can be debated from almost any side in terms of her role as a feminist icon, as a black icon, and as a model of consumption. How much of her FEMINIST label is marketing, and how much is true to Beyoncé as a person? I believe Beyoncé’s power is rooted in her ability to challenge dominant ideologies and continue to generate discourse, while also conforming in a way that maintains her desirability and accessibility.

Anna Magnani is particularly compelling to study in comparison to Marilyn Monroe, Marlene Dietrich and Bette Davis because of the very real and unglamorous roles which Magnani was so famous for taking on. It was interesting to learn about the ways Magnani was constructed as a woman of the people, and the role she played in reformulating Italian identity post-WWII. It is as if Magnani became the image of the ideal Italian woman, family-oriented and nurturing, but also strong willed, fiery, and capable of resistance, all traits necessary for survival in a war ravaged country. Contrasting this image with that of her contemporary, Marilyn Monroe, who was almost universally acknowledged as the ideal woman in the 1950s in the United States, reveals the radically different values and needs of the two countries at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Magnani

The way Magnani uses her star body to connect to audiences is distinctly different from the way other female film stars of the time used theirs. With Magnani there is no fantasy, a person you watch because you want to be her or live her life: she is real, a person who affirms and reflects back the harsh realities of life and emotion, but still maintains herself as a pillar of strength and dignity. The quote by Magnani about her being interested in maintaining her authenticity is especially interesting, and I think perfectly represents her as a woman of the people. She knew the audience of her countrymen was not interested in seeing more opulence and waste, but would stand behind a woman representing the people of post-WWII Italy as intelligent, hardworking, creative, and forceful.

In the paper “Popular culture, performance, persona: Anna Magnani between Rome, Open City and The Rose Tattoo” by Francesco Pitassio, the author describes Magnani’s vehicle for representation as histrionic talent. Her actions display excessive emotion because they were meant for consumption by audiences. In many of her movies, her most emotive scenes are set in a crowd, where she has a natural audience within the narrative, who Magnani is performing for. This type of emphasis on Magnani as a loud and conspicuous woman, not afraid to cause a scene, may be the natural response to the end of a time period when visibility and loudness were dangerous and possibly life-threatening. In this context Magnani’s histrionic tendencies could be considered culturally aspirational.

https://teens.palazzograssi.it/usr.php?rec=29&page=opera&lang=en

I feel that the context for the emergence of neo-realism in popular cinema is of particular importance. Reading about how the scene where Pina is shot in Rome, Open City, is a revelation. The fact that is was filmed in Rome in 1945, and that the soldiers in it were real Nazi soldiers taken from a concentration camp, is a testament to Magnani’s and Roberto Rossellini’s bravery and artistic determination. It is always interesting to study the ways in which national tragedies become embedded in the collective consciousness of a people, and how tragedy can transform into founding myths, as people and nations do their best to process and recover from a mutual (and perhaps unifying) trauma.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-rome-open-city-review-20150220-column.html

In the article “Bette Davis: actor/star” by Martin Shingler and Christine Gledhill, the authors present the idea that while other celebrities appeared to be slowly revealing more about their own personalities through their film roles, Bette Davis was revealing something entire different; she showed audiences that personality itself was really just a construct, something to be carefully curated and performed. I think for most people, some aspect of their identity is performative. For many of us to reveal our most authentic selves to strangers is vulnerable. However, I also think that most people will perform only for strangers, and are willing to be completely authentic with close friends and family.

https://talkfilmsociety.com/columns/reel-pride-all-about-eve-1950

It was truly interesting to study Bette Davis through the lens of performative identity, because it seems that in All About Eve, Margo Channing’s greatest performances are for those closest to her. That is the thing about the phenomenon of celebrity; living in the public eye means that giving someone your true self could mean showing everybody your true self. The consequences of this are highlighted in the eventual fate of the character of Eve, who built a fragile persona on lies and was ultimately exploited for it.

http://iveneverdonethat.com/blog_files/allabouteve.html

I found the scene in All About Eve where Davis and Karen Richardson’s character were trapped in a car that has run out of gas and are stranded to be particularly poignant. It is here that Davis seems to let her mask slip a little. Watching her think about her career in the past tense, and dreading the inevitable return to normal personhood, it feels obvious that Davis is drawing from true emotions she must have been experiencing at the time regarding her own career.

https://mattsko.com/2013/12/09/bette-davis-in-all-about-eve-gif/

The idea of character takes on a different shape when applied to Davis. I think the difference can be found in the fact that Davis, in contrast with most of the actors of the day, did not seem to be type-cast. It is my understanding that she plays a wide variety of different types of characters, leading the public to wonder just what characteristics are “real” and which are performed.

The authors of “Bette Davis: actor/star” also claim that before Davis became really famous, she was widely regarded by audiences as homely. They also claim that it took a director at RKO allowing her to play to her strengths in her performance for her studio to reorient the way she was marketed to reflect her skill as an actress. This was a revolutionary idea for the time, to invest in a star not for her personal appearance, but for her talent alone. It is interesting to contrast this with the way Hollywood works today. It seems like competition is so fierce that you have to be beautiful, funny, an amazing actor and probably also a dancer and singer to really gain people’s attention. Beyond that, with the rise of social media, celebrities are also expected to maintain a carefully curated public persona which shares just enough to be believable, but also doesn’t alienate anybody. It would be interesting to see if a young Bette Davis would make it on Broadway or in Hollywood today.

https://templeilluminatus.com/group/the-performing-arts-group/forum/topics/bette-davis-eyes-31-rare-photos-of-an-unforgettable-star?overrideMobileRedirect=1

The appeal of Marlene Dietrich is made immediately obvious in Morocco. Her specific blend of playful, soft femininity and hard, disillusioned masculinity is continuously developed throughout the movie, and in my opinion is the true strength of the film. When she is first presented to us, it is obvious that she is a woman who has lived and suffered. While the specifics of her backstory is never really expanded upon, Dietrich begins the movie emerging from the void to begin a new life alone in an exotic place, something most only dream of being brave enough to do. Although dialogue in the beginning of the movie is sparse, Dietrich’s independence and ability to take care of herself is self-evident.

https://purpleclover.littlethings.com/entertainment/6659-women-mens-clothing/item/dietrich-mensclothing/

Dietrich’s relationship to the men in Morocco is very interesting, and at least original if not completely unique. Dietrich’s beauty and sensuality is intriguing and alluring, but not immediately attainable. She is portrayed as a woman who takes getting to know. That is why it seemed so unusual in the film when Gary Cooper’s character and Dietrich only seemed to need about five minutes in each other’s company to know that they would do anything for the other. The plot explores the idea of soulmates without explicitly saying so. Adolphe Menjou’s character is infinitely more suitable, and a Monroe-type character certainly would have jumped at the chance of marrying him. It is interesting that Cooper’s only way of demonstrating his devotion is abandoning Dietrich, because doing so allowed him to remain an honorable man worthy of her love. Meanwhile, Menjou seems perfectly content to allow Dietrich to pursue her relationship with Cooper to the fullest extent possible, defying common male tropes which would have Menjou jealous, possessive, and hostile.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021156/mediaviewer/rm2747811584

While Dietrich is certainly multifaceted, youth and beauty are still central to her persona in this movie. While stars who died young in a way get to maintain eternal youth since it is their youthful persona which endures, it is probable that Dietrich had to reinvent her persona multiple times over the course of her long career. I would love to have a better idea of Dietrich’s relationship with her own persona as she got older in the public spotlight. She apparently refused to be filmed for the 1984 documentary made about her life, called Marlene. Perhaps she wanted people to remember her as she was when she was young, and not as she was at the age of eighty-three.

Celebrities serve an important function in terms of their ability to reproduce or defy norms. If Monroe’s fame sprung from her ability to perfectly reproduce stereotypical gender norms, Dietrich’s appeal comes from her ability to defy them. As the “femme fatale,” Dietrich represented the renegotiation of gender norms which was happening in the 1930s. The parts of life and culture which she reflects back at us, and the way the character she plays in Morocco negotiates the world around her, are inspiring in the fact that they are nontraditional and gender-bending. With her bravery, her passion, and her unapologetic nature, it is no wonder that she is still considered one of the most enduring celebrities of all time.

When studying celebrities as a cultural phenomenon, the constant consideration seems to be this: person or persona? This seems to be especially relevant when thinking about stars from the early days of movies. While Marilyn Monroe’s persona lives in our collective consciousness to this day, to me the person behind the persona feels distant. 

https://joesmoviestuff.blogspot.com/2017/09/marilyn-monroe-as-lorelei-lee-in.html

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is a perfect example of the specific way Monroe can be considered a feminist icon. In one of the final scenes, when Monroe is with her fiance and her fiance’s father, she points out the double standard which has caused others to label her as a “gold digger.” Throughout the entire movie she uses her sexuality and extreme beauty to manipulate the men around her. However, it is not until this scene that she reveals she has been conscious of it the entire time, and lets the audience know that her femininity is really her greatest source of power. For me, this was the most important turning point in the movie.

https://www.bluscreens.net/gentlemen-prefer-blondes.html

In the book Heavenly Bodies, the author Richard Dyer claims that all Monroe’s film characters are defined by just three characteristics: age, gender, and sex appeal. Some of the women she plays are never even given actual names. It’s interesting to think about this from a historical perspective, and to consider a time when it was widely accepted to present movie characters with no more depth of character than the most surface-level gender stereotypes. Perhaps this is why movies from this time period are considered to not “hold up.” One-dimensionality is no longer considered sufficient.

Dyer also talks about increased cultural curiosity in the more hidden aspects of human existence in the 1950s. He points out the rise of men’s magazines, novels which openly talk about sex, and more references to sex in mass media in general as proof that sex was widely accepted as the deeper truth of the human existence. It feels as though audiences at the time accepted Monroe’s persona as her true and vulnerable self because her whole image was so deeply intertwined with sex. The fact of Monroe’s tragic death, the stories about her difficulties on set, and her very public and turbulent personal life gives this film a very different cast than it must have had when viewed when it first came out in 1953. The image that her studio was trying to present is so painfully obvious and forced in hindsight. 

https://www.themoviescene.co.uk/reviews/gentlemen-prefer-blondes/gentlemen-prefer-blondes.html

It is interesting to me that through various publications at the time, Monroe’s troubled past and the fact that she was no longer connected to her family was widely known. It seems that this vulnerability only made her more desirable. Despite knowledge of trauma in her past, people still accepted that the woman Marilyn Monroe could really be the happy-go-lucky, untroubled, uncomplicated person that she played on screen and in public. This could be because of the attitudes of the day and the facts of the time; because WWI, the Great Depression and WWII had all just happened when Monroe was becoming famous, most people at the time had truly and deeply suffered in some way, and had to continue life despite past problems.

Welcome to your brand new blog at University of Oregon Sites.\n \n To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.\n \n For assistance, visit UO Blogs General Help or contact the Technology Service Desk (541-346-4357).\n \n