A few years ago in one of my first cinema courses, I watched the film All That Heaven Allows. It was my first encounter with melodrama and romance movies in the 50s. Romance films have always been my favorite and I think it’s because of the raw human emotion that they deliver. When I watched that film in class, we were focused on the genre of melodrama and not on who the actors were. This means I watched my first Rock Hudson film without even knowing who Rock Hudson was. 

Now, to my surprise, I have been assigned another one of his films, however, this time we are focused on the actor. Lover Come Back was a fun movie that is extremely playful and takes a play on transforming the innocent into the suggestive. Carol and Jerry are witty and fun. However, today We are talking about Rock Hudson. Like most of the public in the 50s, I too was surprised when I learned that he was gay. However, after thinking about it for a little while, it all made more sense to me and I realized that there was no reason for me to feel surprised. He was a gay man in the 50s who probably did everything he could to hide who he was out of fear. This made me think of all the modern stars who are gay and hid it for years. This also made me realize that before anyone knew Rock Hudson was gay – he was a star and a fan favorite. He was handsome, talented, and an all American man. Nobody questioned him or doubted his character until he was out as a gay man with AIDS.

There are so many famous male actors that have come out as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, that I either had no idea about or that typically played masculine roles. To name a few: Victor Garber, Wentworth Miller, and Matt Bomer. Wentworth played a scruffy prisoner and Matt played an ex-con turned FBI agent. However, after learning that these men were gay – nothing changed for me. They are great actors who have a part of very well known productions. 

It saddened me to see some of the responses to Rock Hudsons coming out. Stars who had shared onscreen kisses with him were terrified and people questioned his character. It’s important to recognize Rock Hudson for who he was, but I also feel like his acting portfolio is so impressive that it shouldn’t affect how he is now viewed.

In the Dyer reading for this week, it was discussed how Rock Hudson was often in toles that revolved around sexual ambiguity. I found this funny while watching Lover Come Back, because of when Jerry pretends to be innocent at the strip club and even plays with the pasties that were thrown his way. It seems like Rock Hudson was a private man, but he wasn’t scared of making suggestions to the audience. And if they didn’t pick up on that, well that was their loss.

I really resonated with the Bell Hooks reading this week. Intersectional feminism is such an important movement and is always overlooked. Intersectionality is a term that I didn’t learn about until college and I can’t believe it’s not taught at a younger age. Feminism that isn’t intersectional is oppressive and is simply not feminism at all. While Beyonce is a great artist and female icon, she does lack a well-rounded perspective when it comes to the meaning of feminism. 

In our class lecture, we watched a clip from a Ted Talk where Chimamanda explains that Beyonce’s definition of feminism is not the same as hers. In her interview with ELLE, Beyonce defines a feminist as “someone who believes in equal rights for men and women.” and doesn’t understand “ why it should exclude the opposite sex.“ This way of thinking is dangerous because it still gives the power to the men. Bell Hooks says: “Her vision of feminism does not call for an end to patriarchal domination. It’s all about insisting on equal rights for men and women.” Beyonce’s lack of understanding continues to instill this idea that women’s rights are bound to men. I also found her explanation rather troubling, because she approaches feminism in an extremely binary way. She strictly says men and women. Whereas intersectional feminism stresses the importance of supporting trans women, non-binary individuals, and everyone in between. 

In the ELLE interview, when asked why she chose to use the word feminist in her concert, Beyonce replied by saying: “I’m just exhausted by labels and tired of being boxed in.” However, calling yourself a feminist is, in fact, a label. This made me think that Beyonce’s lack of understanding runs deeper than I even thought. To call your self a feminist is important and it’s not something that should be thrown around as synonymous to “girl power.” It is not the same thing. 

However, despite this criticism, I do think Lemonade is a really powerful art piece. She puts black female bodies at the center and displays a diverse set of women. She highlights police brutality and other aspects of when life is like for black people in this world. Bell Hooks shared a very interesting point of view on the visual album.

“From slavery to the present day, black female bodies, clothed and unclothed, have been bought and sold. What makes this commodification different in Lemonade is intent; its purpose is to seduce, celebrate, and delight—to challenge the ongoing present day devaluation and dehumanization of the black female body.”

I thought this was really important. This album is a celebration of black beauty and black women in general. She allows these women to be their strong and beautiful selves while combating difficult problems with our society. 

Lastly, I think Bell Hooks really hits the mark in her closing. She explains how The message of Lemonade can be troubling for the progression of black women, despite its efforts to do the opposite. She explains that regardless of what women do unless men do work in themselves the emotional violence against black women will never end. Our patriarchal society needs to see a shift in the men for change to really happen. And with Jay Z lovingly holding Beyonce in the end, this doesn’t seem like the message Beyonce is trying to convey.

Anna Magnani was an Italian actress who became known for her explosive and authentic acting. There is no ignoring her power on screen. I had never watched one of her films, but after viewing Mamma Roma, I have a newfound appreciation for Anna as an actress and a woman. She is a strong actor and stays true to herself. Her performance has been described as “an overwhelming eruption” (Pitassio 374). Her performance is definitely melodramatic, yet convincing.

In Mamma Roma, I could see the eruption coming from Magnani. Her laughter took over her whole body and her sadness creeped into the corners of her face. She feels like a real person when you watch her. In our reading, performance is defined as “the bodily expression conveyed in a film” and performance style as “the consistency of this expression” (Pitassio 376). This strongly relates to Magnani because she uses her whole body to express her emotions and it is more than just her face.

She is also a very authentic person. We learned about this in class and we talked about how she didn’t care about her appearance but about her integrity. I find this aspect of Magnani very respectable. She focused on her craft rather than her fame. Our reading explained authenticity as “the outcome of a personally experienced reality”(Pitassoo 380). She must have experienced hardship in her real life in order to convey it as well as she did. She used her reality in her acting so that she was never really acting at all.

In our other reading, by Tony Mitchell, Anna Magani is described as the world’s greatest actress. Mitchell explains that Magnani was exactly what postwar Italian cinema needed: “not starts, but people of the streets” (Mitchell 5). In class, we learned that people considered Anna Magnani as the most beautiful ugly woman ever seen. She wasn’t conventionally beautiful, but she was real. She was a real woman. She gave their films a sense of realism because it was believable that she was truly the character that she was playing.

I want to take a moment to talk about Mamma Roma as well. While I did enjoy Anna Magnani’s acting, I spent a lot of my time watching the film confused. I don’t know if this is because of the cultural/language barrier, but I didn’t understand the wedding scene at the beginning as well as who that man was that was following her for some time. I went back and read the movie description, and only then did I understand that Mamma Roma had been a prostitute. I found that the film didn’t explain a lot of the characters’ backgrounds, which left me confused. I also had a bad feeling that her son, Ettore, would die. However, the ending was so strange to me. Carmine threatens to expose who she really is to Ettore, but then Ettore dies before that can even happen. And for some reason, they all believe Ettore was in jail? Maybe I need to rewatch it? You tell me.

In our reading, “Bette Davis: Actor/Star” the authors describe Davis’ star identity in three parts: personality, persona, and image. They considered these components as “complex, interrelated, and, to some extent, interchangeable”(67). Additionally, they defined persona as: “a more crafted and consolidated public projection of the person, in which film roles and media appearances play a part in creating the mask that ensures consistency, which can be used as an element of performance”(67).

Now that we have an understanding of what a persona is, we can look at it in the context of Bette Davis and the film All About Eve. Persona is the creation of a character that an actor uses both on and off-screen in order to create a familiar image for their audience. Similarly, Eve creates a “character” to deceive Margo. This is often done by actors because it helps them feel secure in their classes and image of stardom. All About Eve showcases this relationship between the individuals involved that can make or break a film career and how it is a huge game of attempting to satisfy your audience with the right image.

Not all personas are harmful or manipulative, however, All About Eve gives us a look inside how it can be used with malicious intent. Eve intentionally manipulated Margo for her own benefit and this shows how important it is in the film world to appear as likable and change who you are to match the expectations of those around you.

There is also a connection to be made with our other reading, “Part Two: Stars As Images.” There is the notion that stars are made out of ordinary people with a special quality that makes them irresistible. Eve plays into this stereotype when she creates this image that makes her out to seem plain, yet unique, and this lands her the understudy role.

All About Eve has a super meta moment where Margo seems to shine a light on the idea of persona and even how that applies to Bette Davis herself. Margo talks about the duality of stardom and how she has both a public image, but is also just a woman. She expresses that she doesn’t expect a man to love her when she doesn’t even really know herself. The dichotomy of a personal and realty can become extremely difficult to decipher over time and stars can become lost in who they are trying to be.

In the Bette Davis reading, they explain how Davis saw her own persona. By playing several roles of liars, “what Davis was revealing, bit by bit and from role to role, was not the secret of her own personality…but rather the secret of personality itself: that it is a fabrication, designed, constructed and performed”(75). Davis is even admitting herself that her persona is completely made up. This even seemed to attract more fans because they resonated with someone who felt they needed to “perform” daily to fit into the world around them.

Persona is natural and innate, yet it’s also artificial and fabricated. Actors create this image for others to see, which often is to make them appear more likable and to sell more tickets. However, there are also these personas that we act out every day for our own personal advances. We are all a little bit like Eve and we use our ability to alter our persona in order to get what we want from certain people.