It would be impossible to fully discuss all that Dyer mentions in this week’s readings, but I will say that I was fascinated with how he takes ideas like objectification and narcissism and combines them with a bit of 1950s history and social context such as the typical family structures of the time to show the impact icons like Marilyn Monroe (and even Grace Kelly) had on the ideas of sexuality of the time.The sexual revolution in the United States, though we tend to think happened in the 1960s, actually began in the 1950s—and the star power of Marilyn Monroe played a significant part in the evolution of sexuality from taboo to normalcy. Prior to this, while sexual desires were recognized as a fact of life, American society sought to contain sexuality within the confines of marriage. The strict ethical and moral codes of the 1950s very much created a paradox because we were a society wanting to restrain sexuality but also a society which was beginning to become obsessed with sexuality. For example, despite the outrage over the Kinsey reports in the 1950s (mentioned by Dyer in Heavenly Bodies), when the reports were published they experienced great success in bookstores. Similarly, Hugh Hefner’s Playboy was seen as quite controversial, but enough of society must have enjoyed it or Playboy would not have grown into the empire it is today.
Society, which tried to stop sexuality as much as it was obsessed with it, needed a star, and Marilyn Monroe with her smoldering sensuality but child-like innocence more than fit the bill. She is an icon of the time because she represented the popular cultures precise feelings about sexuality. It’s also interesting to think about how Monroe came to be such an icon. At this time, the movie studios were still very much into manufacturing stars. They needed someone who was sensual but also innocent to fulfill this role needed as a result of the push/pull popular society had with sexuality. Perhaps Monroe’s stardom was created by the industry to fill this role, her sensuality and charm seems so genuine and natural that I don’t think this was entirely manufactured.
In Heavenly Bodies Dyer calls Monroe a victim as a sex object. I’m not sure how I feel about this statement. On one hand, I can see how Monroe could have been typecast as nothing more than an object of sexual desire. But as a previous blogger as noted, someone like Megan Fox today might fill that similar role. However, there was something about Monroe that allowed her to command a scene and drew audiences in, whereas I feel like Fox is more of a “hot girl” filler than a leading lady. It is true that in all of her films, Monroe is the object of the “male gaze” (theory of Laura Maulvey) but in these films Monroe is the or one of the leading characters—the movie aren’t really about the men. Also, is it fair to call her a victim? Is this onscreen and offscreen persona what she wanted? There’s so little known about her, which may as well lead to her mystery and of course, our fascination with her.
Discussion Questions:
The way society looked at sexuality in the 1950s and the way society looked at sexuality today are quite different. How have peoples' attitudes about sex changed over the past five-six decades? Are these changes beneficial or detrimental?
We all know Marilyn Monroe was the ultimate sex icon of the 1950s. How did Marilyn Monroe embody the combined desires for sexuality and innocence in American society? Is there someone like her today?
Do you think Marilyn Monroe would have been the same caliber of icon had she existed in another time period? Was her star power enough to work a few decades earlier, for example?
No comments:
Post a Comment