Core Post #4: Western/Eastern Action Heroes

Enter the Dragon reveals a lot about the differences between traditional Hong Kong cinema and Western cinema, and it is evident that combining the two into a cohesive cinematic work is no easy task. The main characters are of particular interest to deconstruct in terms of their cultural and idealistic representations.

As Stephen Tao points out, Lee was not simply an individual – he was a symbol of pride, strength and retribution or a nationalistic China. Yvonne Tasker also highlights this point: “ The assertion of nationalism is very clearly inscribed through the revelation of Lee’s body…so that discourses of masculinity and nationhood are complexly bound up together in his star image.” In the climactic fight between Lee and the corrupt Han, Lee states firmly, “You have offended my family, and you have offended the Xiaolin temple.” Thus, his purpose is made clear: he is not fighting only for himself. Instead, he is reinstating the pride and honor of the people he represents – his family, his temple, his nation.

Roper, John Saxon’s character, comes to the island for extremely different reasons, and in effect highlights Western values and thought processes. Unlike Lee, who works for the greater cause of his people, Saxon comes for a purely self-centered reason: he has raked up an alarming gambling debt and needs a way to come up with the money. Like many western action movies, the action hero is essentially acting on his own ambitions rather than those of another group. He only makes the ultimate decision to “do good” and fight against Han when he is pushed too far: his motivations are self-driven, “There is a point I won’t go beyond.” Even when Han is finally defeated, Saxon can only be concerned with the unfortunate death of his lover – defeating Han only resulted in self-preservation rather than nationalistic pride.

As a result, the “partnership” between Lee and Saxon’s characters is limited and strained. Unlike many Western “buddy” action movies, the two characters have almost nothing in common. They band together because they have a common enemy, though this single enemy stands for different types of threats for each. Saxon isn’t even aware that Lee is a spy for the English government. When Lee returns form defeating Han at the end, he gives Saxon a thumbs up. Though Saxon returns the gesture, the meaning of such a symbol is questionable. Do either of the protagonists really understand the other?

Questions

1. Do Asian action stars today like Jet Li hold the same amount of symbolic cultural crossover as Bruce Lee did? Why or why not?
2. Though Lee’s body is put on display in the film, he is rendered essentially asexual. Saxon, meanwhile, is dedicated to a single white woman, while Jim Kelly’s character indulges in many Asian female. Can these racial stereotypes be subversive? What are different readings that can be interpreted from these characters’ and their (lack of) sexual appetites?
3. If Bruce Lee had not died tragically, how do you think his character and star persona would have transformed?

Jesse James - A Broken Man (Supplemental Post #3)

After Sandra Bullock won the Academy Award for her performance in The Blind Side, her world has turned upside down after it was revealed that her husband, Jesse James was unfaithful. Much has been written and said on how bad Bullock is doing emotionally. Supposedly she has filed for divorce, and is staying out of the public's eye for some time. With all of this happening, James has been portrayed as a womanizer. One can even say that he has been villainized; many are asking how he could have done this to Sandra, especially making this issue public after her grand night at the Oscars.

With this so, the Associated Press released an article, "Friend Says Jesse James Wants to Save Marriage," in which Anthony McCartney portrays James in a more passive way, without attacking him. James is portrayed as someone who is sorry for what he did and wants to mend his mistakes. It is said that James is suffering emotionally and wants to save his relationship with Bullock. This other side of James, the emotional one, is completely different than the one that is being portrayed elsewhere, the macho man who goes around cheating on his good wife. In a way, this article reminds me of Warren Beatty's character in Shampoo, where George, the character, portrays typical masculine stereotypes (womanizer, sexually-driven, etc.), but at the same time is given a sentimental side.

Core Post #1

In Fists of Fury, Tasker describes some interesting parallels between martial arts movies and Hollywood musicals, two genres that are usually seen as being on opposite ends of the cinematic spectrum. In describing the narrative structure of martial arts movies, Tasker quotes Chiao Hsiung-Ping who argues that “the fight scenes become the real force carrying the narrative flow” (442). In a similar way, the narrative flow in a Hollywood musical “has dance as it’s physical center expressed in the set-piece musical number” (442).

The analogy between the martial arts fight scene and the musical number is very interesting. Musicals use songs to drive the narrative, to reveal the interior lives of the protagonists, and to underline climactic moments. The fight sequences in Enter the Dragon are used in exactly the same way. The flashback to the fight in which Bruce Lee’s sister is attacked provides backstory on one of the film’s primary villains. Similarly, fight sequences at the martial arts school are used to illustrate both the circumstances of the film and graphically reveal the ruthlessness of the primary antagonist. For most of the film, Lee’s character remains a mystery. It is through the fight sequences that we see his hidden power, his discipline, and his courage.

The physical similarities between dance and combat are also striking. Each is precisely choreographed. Each demonstrates the skills and agility of the performers. Each one is a spectacle for its own sake, designed to appeal to the audience on an aesthetic level and to impress us with strength, grace, and athletic prowess. Fans of the martial arts genre still marvel at Bruce Lee’s abilities just as dancers still watch and learn from Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly.

Tasker argues that dance is associated with the feminine and fighting with the masculine. Despite this apparent difference, she nevertheless argues that there is an element of homoeroticism at the heart of each genre. Each, she says, provide an arena in which the sexualized male body is on display. Dance, she says, is often linked “explicitly to images of male homosexuality” (442) while martial arts films have “increasingly become used as a space within which to stage homoerotic fantasies, primarily working through issues and anxieties around while male sexuality” (443). The combat and imagery in films like Enter the Dragon certainly present very specific paradigms of masculinity. Freud would probably argue that these films rely, at least partially, on repressed homoerotic desires for their appeal.

1. 1) To what extent are images of masculinity in the martial arts films of Bruce Lee deliberately ho moerotic?

2. 2) What are the key elements of the masculine archetype constructed in martial arts movies?

3. 3) How can Hong Kong martial arts movies be read as fantasies of empowerment for victims of colonialism?

Core Post # 3

According to the Tasker article, Enter the Dragon is Warner Bros tentative attempt to make Bruce Lee a star; “Tentative” being the operative word. While the studio was taking a step to introduce a Chinese actor into Western society, they used various stereotypes of the Chinese, African-Americans and white Americans to do so as evident by Enter the Dragons three Heros, Bruce Lee’s ‘Lee’, Jim Kelly’s ‘Williams’ and John Saxon’s Roper.
Asian men have been feminized and desexualized in the history of Western Culture and like others forced to assimilate. Often the Asian male characters in Hollywood films are smart/wimpy or ninja/assassins/martial artists. Bruce Lee, despite his being a muscled fighting machine, is still feminized him in the film. Lee is covered up in traditional Chinese garb before he fights, so he looks like a tame feminine man, until he takes his shirt off for a fight and we see he is all muscle. When he’s not fighting or wearing traditional clothes of China, the director Robert Clouse, makes sure Lee is wearing Western suits. This is not for Bruce Lee’s level comfort but for Western audiences to be comfortable with seeing an Asian man who can fight. Lee is also desexualized as in the scene when Roper, Williams and Lee are to pick bedfellows for the night. While Roper, being a good white American picks a white woman, and Williams portraying the hyper sexualized black male role, picks four Asian Women, Lee picks one woman that he knows to be a spy. Thus the film reinforces the ideal that Asian me are asexual, feminine “men.”
In regards to Asian characters, Hollywood in the 70s in comparison to today has not made many strides. There are no Asian male stars to speak of, except Jackie Chan and I’m not sure if he is a “star” by American standards. Asian actors have been the designated side kicks, the smart/wimp, the martial artists, or the comic relief. While Bruce Lee had to succumb in a lot of ways to Western ideals of Asian masculinity (or lack thereof), Lee became a star that we haven’t seen in America in a long time.

1. Who are the Asian Male actors today? Jackie Chan?
2. What roles do the play? Martial artist/wimp/asexual
3. Is it different for Asian actresses in Hollywood?

LINDSAY LOHAN DEAD @ 23!!! supplemental post #4

This is the headline that many media companies are preparing for with story templates that will be filled and ready to post the minute it as recently leaked to many celebrity blogs like TMZ, Perez Hilton, and Gawker. This leak caused a lot of attention and made many headlines. CNN analyzed it, the ladies of The View gabbed about it endlessly, and it became a punchline on many late nite talk shows like Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel. But throughout all this coverage no one ever stated that media companies do this all the time. In order to be the fastest with their coverage, and beat the others to the punch news companies always create ready to publish files with missing details, much like a more complicated mad libs, that they will just fill in so that they won't have to waist time writing the complete story. It's also funny that the same news people who reported that companies were creating a Lindsay Lohan death file probably also have their own such file and similar ones for different celebrities. I have a friend who interns for an online news website called The Daily Beast who said that one day she spent her entire shift creating in-memorial photo albums for "dead celebrities" who were most certainly alive and kicking like Britney Spears, Nicole Kidman, Keanu Reeves, etc. All in all, it is contradictory how news companies report on practices that they themselves practice. This proves that there are biases in the media, we can't always trust "the news," and it's also ridiculous that we are even talking about all of this.

East Meets West (Core Response #4)

Bruce Lee did what few Asians in Hollywood could do (even today Asians do not have much of a presence in this town), and that is appeal successfully to the mainstream culture at large. In his article “Bruce Lee: Narcissus and the Little Dragon,” Stephen Teo says that Bruce Lee is “all things to all men.” This is an interesting statement given that Bruce Lee is not your typical white male, Hollywood star. He is clearly an Asian foreigner, more specifically from China, and has a body type that differs from white male stars in that he is short in stature, petite, and does not seem threatening when he’s fully clothed and not doing his kung-fu moves. But, Bruce Lee has been able to transcend his physical appearance by what he does with his fighting and what this ultimately stands for in his films.

The films of Bruce Lee have themes that combat racism and reinforce values like standing up for yourself and having pride for you country. This is done with Bruce Lee’s fighting skills and the sense that he is fighting for something. In each film he puts his life on the line for some kind of change that will do good in the world. And in keeping Teo’s reading in mind, one can think of Lee’s fighting style and the narcissism that apparently goes along with it as something positive because it reinforces pride in oneself. You aren’t supposed to take the narcissism as being conceited, but take it as Bruce Lee being aware of what he stands for and through his fighting he can help his cause. This kind of self-assuredness is what makes Bruce Lee so appealing because audiences want to be able to attain a similar confidence.

The masculinity on display in Bruce Lee’s film also speaks to his appeal because it is all about physical empowerment. Being empowered on the outside seeps back into the inside, which audiences seem to connect with. Yvonne Tasker talks about this in the article “Fists of Fury: Discourses of Race and Masculinity in the Martial Arts Cinema.” Tasker states that the protagonist’s body is his only weapon, and Bruce Lee certainly uses his body to spark ideas about what it means to be an Asian in American culture and how to use that to change negative stereotypes into something more positive.

Questions

1. Is the protagonist’s body the only successful weapon in Hollywood films?

2. Has there been another Asian star that has connected in the way Bruce Lee has with American audiences?

3. Why aren’t Asian Americans depicted as equally as Blacks and Latinos in mainstream films and television shows?

Ripped off by the Titans (supplementary post 3)

So I saw Clash of the Titans the other day, and I can't say enough how disappointing the film was. The initial trailer looked great, but as more and more ads bombarded me, the movie looked like it was going to kind of a drag. I didn't think it would be completely dead on arrival, but the thing that was supposed to lift it up, ruined the movie going experience. This thing was the 3D.

In the adverts for the film, the 3D was highly touted, the actors pushed it when they made the rounds, and the studio was trying to make it into some kind of big event, like it was the next Avatar (and coincidentally the two films share the same lead). But, Clash fails to live up to its predecessor as its 3D feels cheap. the 3D isn't all that great, amateur at best. I've had better experiences of 3D with Michael Jackson's Disney classic Captain EO, and that film was made/released in the 80's. I soon found out that the film didn't even use real 3D. It was shot as a regular feature, but wanting to capitilize on the 3D craze, Warner Brothers decided to put this film through the conversion process and ultimately came up with a film that feels more 2.5D.

After Clash of the Titans took over another titan, American Idol, on Wednesday with crazy last minute promotion and product placement, one could just feel that the WB was getting desperate, and doing crazy last minute pushes to get as many butts in the seats as possible before bad word of mouth spread like toxic poison. After audiences pay three extra bucks for sub par 3D, they will definitely feel ripped off, and the film will go down as just another meaningless summer blockbuster.

Ricky Martin is gay!?!? Supplemental Post # 5

So as many of you might have heard, Ricky Martin has announced that he is homosexual via a his blog Monday, March 29, 2010. This puts to rest the years of "speculation" about his sexuality. I find this announcement to be unnecessary due to the fact that most fans have a "duh" feeling about the announcement. I understand that it can be very difficult to come out, especially as an entertainer in the public eye . Such a declaration can kill a career. In Ricky Martin's case, his career has not been on top in many years, so it seems (despite his words that he finally feels comfortable with himself) that he is using this 'news' to get himself back in peoples minds.

While fans and paparazzi take advantage of and tear down celebrities for their own amusement, celebrities use the media just as much to help reclaim their stardom. Ricky Martin's outing is a hot topic. I wouldn't be surprised if he has an album dropping soon. How often do stars use the media/fans to advance themselves? It's a cyclical relationship with negative and positive traits. I realize this sounds pessimistic but his outing would have meant more if he had done it when he was on top. If he decides to out himself after his star has waned, he probably should have picked a less 'headliner' way to do it.

I do understand why he never said something before...that was a smart career move...but why make a big to do about it now? Most are not shocked that he's gay.

Bruce Lee and Masculinity (Reading Post #4)

Yvonne Tasker argues that in typical Hollywood films the protagonist’s body is their only weapon. However, in the case of most white, male action heroes, their bodies are seen as damaged yet still able to walk around. This idea is not consistent with the body of Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon. Unlike most white male heroes, Lee’s body is not damaged and instead is his only source for betterment, strength and success. Even though he may be small in stature and as Tasker points out, his physical strength may be hidden, he is undoubtedly strong and skillful. The beginning scene in Enter the Dragon demonstrates this idea perfectly. Since Lee is fighting a much larger man it can be assumed that the larger man would typically win a fight. However, Lee shifts this idea when he presents the audience with a skillful display of martial arts, defeating his opponent and introducing not only his character but his body as well.

Another interesting point that Tasker argues is that the idea of physical empowerment that is seen in Hong Kong movies appeal to black and white working class audiences. Since those are the audiences these films appeal to, Enter the Dragon uses these two types of people as characters. The black character of Kelly is seen as the deviant one, which relates back to stereotypes of minorities while the white male character is less skilled at the martial arts, showing the damaging effects the white male protagonist encompasses. The use of these characters relates back to the idea Stephen Teo expresses about Hong Kong cinema bringing the East and West together because the film not only represents Chinese, but also whites and blacks. However, because martial arts are very traditional and the character of Bruce Lee exemplifies those traditions, the film appeals to a wide Chinese audience. Martial arts are most focused on skill than just everyday strength, which contradicts typical images of masculinity in Hollywood cinema, such as John Wayne and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Even though Asian Americans are rarely displayed and represented in Hollywood films, the Hong Kong cinema changed not only American views of masculinity by utilizing a more Eastern approach to masculinity but it also created more of a representation of Asian American men in mainstream Hollywood cinema. Along with Hong Kong cinema, Bruce Lee was a very influential image even though his career may have ended short, his ideas and films continue across generations.

Other than Hong Kong cinema, what other types of films are Asian men represented in Hollywood cinema?

What is a recent film that could be described as a Hong Kong film? If there are no recent films, why?

How have martial arts films influenced Hollywood cinema? Has the idea of masculinity changed because of these films? Why or why not?

Assignment 2: Multiplicity in a star image

Final Project due: Monday May 10 8:00 a.m.
Project Proposal due: Friday April 16 via email. A proposal is required. Your paper/proposal must be approved by me.
Final Project Presentations: April 26 and May 10. A sign up sheet will be circulated later in the semester.

Objective: To “explore complexity, contradiction, and difference” in star images. Your project can take on many forms: a critical/research paper, a video, a game, a zine etc. The one requirement is that your project must offer at least two different readings of a celebrity. These readings should offer distinctly different ways to view the star. For example, in our reading of Marilyn Monroe we saw her both as a figure of sexual objectification and a feminist icon. We also saw multiple ways of reading Elvis Presley: he has been embraced as an embodiment of American Dream ideology, a figure who rejects middle class values/taste culture; an entertainer who is impersonated by working class white men who want to re-experience a perceived or imagined past of white male working class power; and a trans-racial figure who brings together the abject and powerless of all races and classes in a quasi-religious way.

Your project will take the form of either a 10-12 page critical paper OR a creative project with a 4-5 page critical paper. In addition to turning in your paper/project to me, you will present your paper/project to the class at a time TBD. Your presentation should be 10 -15 minutes.

Requirements:
1. Your project MUST offer at least two different readings of a celebrity. You may choose, like Dyer, to situate your star in the social and cultural discourses of the period of their celebrity (e.g. the specific discourses of race, gender, and sexuality he sees Monroe and Robeson through: ideas about sexuality as “natural” articulated by Playboy and The Kinsey Report; notions of black “authenticity” and “naturalness” articulated by black and white intellectuals of the 1930s; racial discourses that saw black men as violent savages . . .). Or, you may want to examine how a celebrity functions BOTH as a brand that is marketed as a specific persona and a personality that fans project desires onto – desires that contradict or resituate the star’s intended marketing (See Dyer on Judy Garland or Miriam Hansen on Valentino.) Or, you may want to do a reading that both examines the pervasive idea of a star and then offer your own “oppositional” or “against the grain” reading of the same star. Or, you could consider how a star helps us understand ourselves as both psychological beings who make our own choices and participants in systems (economic, political etc.) that determine who we are and what we can be (See Haralovich’s exploration of Joan Crawford’s abusive behavior as both evidence of individual pathology and a reaction to working within a studio system that put pressures women to embody impossible ideals.) Or . . . the list of possibilities goes on and on.
2. Make specific use and reference to our required readings. Our readings offer multiple ways to approach stardom and celebrity -- your papers should make specific use of them. Your paper should quote, summarize, and/or cite at least two course readings. You must engage with author’s ideas in a substantive way; merely inserting random quotes in a paper or project is not sufficient.
3. You must turn in a project proposal to me by 4/16 via email.

Your project will be graded on how well you do the following:
• Develop and articulate distinct readings.
• Define your terms. We’ve learned from our readings that “Masculinity”, “Femininity” and other categories/qualities embodied by stars are not abstractions – they are determined by particular ideologies that operate in particular periods and social, cultural, and geographic contexts. (e.g. Julia Roberts and Mary Pickford are both “America’s Sweethearts” but they embody this ideal in distinct ways that are partially determined by the different time periods they were/are famous in. And in any given time period there may be competing ideals (e.g. John Wayne, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart are contemporaries but embody different modes of masculinity.) So, when speaking about how stars are “masculine”, “feminine”, “strong”, “weak” etc. be sure to define what you mean by those terms – acknowledge how they are culturally “constructed” terms.
• Utilize the ideas raised in lectures and discussions.
• Engage with course readings in substantive ways.
• Creatively approach the topic.

Enter the Dragon

The rest of the story . . . part 9 of 12 parts available on youtube. Here's part 9:

Soft Masculinity - Core post #2

At no point in his career have I ever found Warren Beatty attractive. At all. But in so many of his films, he creates a sexual tension with almost every character that is so unnerving, even I can’t deny its existence.
Beatty’s seeming knack for turning a simple exposition scene into the preface of a porno appears to me to be an example of the kind of “naturalism” King speaks of that would so heavily influence the performance and value of a film. Throughout his career, he has been often cast as the object of a female gaze, but even in roles where he would not explicitly be labeled a “sex symbol,” he still brings a certain level of sexualization to the film. As Dyer points out, it is the actor and his performance that greatly alters the aesthetic and entertainment value of any picture.
One of the more disturbing examples of such a relation that comes to mind is another film starring Warren Beatty called the Parallax View. It’s an action/conspiracy thriller with a largely male cast, but every scene Beatty is in is filled with sexual tension. Consequently, watching the Parallax View kind of sucks. Having already been made uncomfortable by Beatty’s nauseatingly soft masculinity in that film (exhibiting almost the opposite of Bozzola’s assertion of Beatty’s relations with women making men uncomfortable), Lester’s assumption of George’s homosexuality was probably my favorite part of Shampoo. Not only would this be an understandable mistake to make because of George’s profession, but because of the soft-core porn ambiance Beatty seems to simply carry with him. It’s like he came out of the womb with bedroom eyes and a slow motion hair tousle.
It’s no wonder he had been typecast in such a way for that extent of his career. His unique brand of masculinity is pure 70s. He is a passive participant, not in any way a threatening gigolo. Just like how Bozzola recognizes his relationship with Joan Collins as precedent to his own rise to stardom, his roles show the women he is with LEADING him.

1. If Beatty’s brand of passive sexuality is still popular today, what stars exemplify it?
2. Can you think of any other films where a celebrity is miscast, and that star’s “mythology” serves to ruin the entire movie?
3. Does the audience’s perception of the star legacy of the WOMEN in Shampoo change at all because of their actions of throwing themselves at someone we’ve already established as a player?

Warren Beatty and Shampoo

Although I didn't grow up with him, after reading about him it is clear to me that Warren Beatty is one of the most openly sexual promiscuous sex symbols Hollywood has ever known. And as Dyer and we in class have discussed his star persona perfectly matches up in one of his most well known film's, Hal Ashby's "Shampoo". In the film, Beatty is involved with many different women, some of which are married and it leads to a somewhat awkward/hilarious scene at the end of the movie when they are all put into one room. The ladies man Beatty plays in "Shampoo" is actually quite similar to his true self as he is famous for dating various starlets such as Natalie Wood, Julie Christie, Diane Keaton, Madonna, and now married to Annette Benning.

In his article on Beatty, Richard Dyer discusses how Beatty uses the method acting technique to play his characters, acting from the inside out. Beatty bedded many beautiful women just as his character George does in the film. Dyer also discusses how Beatty is probably just as famous for dating all the celebrities he did as he is for his film career. In a way his personal life and acting life enabled each other. Another aspect of Beatty that really fascinated me was that he wasn't very open to the public about his relationships, even though they were right out there in the open. To me it seems as if Beatty chose to discuss his views on sexual promiscuity through this film, as he did co-write it with Robert Towne. Many of the actors and actresses today who are famous for promiscuity are more open about it as Megan Fox has repeatedly talked about her affinity for intercourse in various magazine interviews. It is interesting to see how this dynamic has changed.

Dyer and Bozzola also explain how well Beatty marketed himself. Although he did not talk about his relationships, he did not hide them either, and before he was even famous for being an actor, he was famous for dating Joan Collins. It may not have been that Beatty was such a fantastic actor, but rather that he was so good in getting into the public's mind and establishing a desire to see Beatty and his sex appeal on screen.

1. Would you say being a sex symbol today is something that is frowned on or admired?

2. How do you think being a sex symbol has changed from when Beatty was one?

3. Do promiscuous sex symbols like Megan Fox even have the power to express their thoughts on the subject through a screenplay they write?

Warren Beatty: lady killer or strategic construction? Post 4

Warren Beatty’s performance in Shampoo is undeniably sexual, but the question lies in whether this film is believable because of Beatty’s impeccable acting and strategic star construction, or whether it is true, as Edgar Morin says in King’s essay, that “ The cinema does not merely de-theatricalise the actor’s performance. It tends to atrophy it.” In films like Splendor in the Grass, Beatty played a character remarkably similar to himself, and again he was criticized for taking on an unchallenging stud role in Shampoo, but despite the typical notion that to play a character similar to oneself is somehow unskilled, is this really an accurate criterion for discounting an actor’s performance? And more importantly, why do we seem to think that we know who Warren Beatty actually is?

In this case, perhaps Warren Beatty is himself a victim of his own good looks. As Bozzola discusses, before Beatty even set foot on screen, his reputation as a lady-killer preceded him. Though he began acting on the stage, he quickly transitioned to film, and his type was clear from the beginning: a leading man. He satisfies to a T the characteristics listed by King as being pressing for this sort of role, and fulfills them seamlessly, though often self-consciously.

Clearly, despite an amazing performance, a star’s persona, and their physical attributes play a distinct part in how they come across in the film. King discusses the rigidity of physical types in casting films due especially to the use of close-ups in film, and the way that simple physical attributes rather than even expressions come to hold symbolic importance.

What separates Beatty from typical actors, and particularly leading men, is his staying power, and the amount of control he has over his films. Though Beatty has certainly been cast many a time in that leading man role, he has embodied many types of masculinity, all notably precarious. Throughout Shampoo, Beatty’s character is bombarded by women, and not in the usual sense where the man remains in control of the sexual power. Instead, we get the sense that Beatty himself is being used and objectified in what seems to be a traditionally feminine way. The strength of Shampoo, and Beatty himself is the ability to manipulate to both gain female spectatorship, and question ideas of what modern masculinity really is.

1) Does playing a role similar to a star’s persona undermine the skill involved in the performance?

2) In what ways does Beatty’s performance in Shampoo challenge modern masculinity?

3) In what ways does Beatty’s brand of masculinity differ from John Wayne’s?

Acting Styles

Marlon Brando's "Inside-out" vs. Vivien Leigh's "Outside-in" approach to acting on display in Steetcar.


More of Brando's "Method" approach.