Reading Response # 2 - Wayne Outside the Western

In Garry Willis' introduction to his book "John Wayne's America," he describes Wayne as the iconization of America -- a man who through his persona came to stand for what we hope America means and what it means to "be a man." Emblematic of America and the rugged individualistic male permanently associated with the American frontier, Wayne went further than perhaps any other star in becoming an icon, not just a star or a type. Indeed, when Wayne first passed away, a Japanese obituary declared "Mr. America is Dead," which suggests that Wayne not only represented what Americans felt their country should mean, but how others perceived the United States. Although Willis discusses this iconicity as being mostly specific to the Western, suggesting that Wayne's other roles are more forgettable or unusual, I believe that Wayne is a perfect example of persona informing another genre by contradiction,as detailed in Andrew Britton's article "Stars and Genre."

My favorite Wayne film, and what I always associate him with is strangely, not a Western, but rather John Ford's love letter to Ireland, "The Quiet Man," which is more a hybridization of romantic comedy/romantic melodrama than anything else. However, when considering Willis' description of Wayne, it becomes clear that it is Wayne's iconic persona that allows this film to function so well. It is a case of, as Britton describes,"deploying one genre in order to resolve or soften tensions exacerbated by another . . . a different strategy for dealing with the same ideological tensions" (204). Though Wayne may not ride a horse in this film or wear a white hat, he is essentially still "the cowboy." He plays an American returning to his birthplace in Ireland, and ironically, in order to succeed, he doesn't need to assimilate to Irishness, but rather assert his Americanness, by proving his virile masculinity, as he drags his deserting wife across 2 miles of sheep field and finally gives her bullying brother the punch he deserves.

Thus, Wayne still functions within the film as the American cowboy, taming his personal "frontier" with his masculinity and asserting himself to allow him to take his rightful place as the dominant male. However, rather than needing to defeat Native Americans to protect the American frontier, he faces domestic issues of a more intimate nature that nevertheless, require the same iconic aspects of his personality to be successfully overcome. However, by placing him in a romantic comedy, it allows Wayne's brash masculinity, exacerbated in Westerns like "Red River" and "The Searchers," to be softened by his domestic goals. Thus, while the film still relies on his star persona, it places Wayne in a highly atypical genre allowing him to soften his extreme masculinity in a time when the postwar sensitive male dominated films. Thus, Wayne can still represent America, but changing genres allowed him to accomodate a social need for a slight softening of some of the tensions created by his persona.

1)How does Wayne's role in "The Searchers" fit into Willis' analysis of him? By playing a bigoted, hateful, and often frightening, man, how did Wayne not completely distort/destroy his persona? Was maintaining his look, walk, and talk enough to prevent ths film from disrupting Wayne's image?

2)How can stars that we come to love for playing "themselves" (i.e. Julia Roberts)successfully function as "embodiments of contradiction in their films"? Particularly, how does this work when a beloved star suddenly plays outside their genre/type?

3) Would "North by Northwest" have worked as well with Jimmy Stewart (the man who Hitchcock initially promised the role)? Or is there something specific to Cary Grant's masculinity that makes the film definitive in a way that Stewart's performance could not have achieved?

Wayne and Grant as Men of Genre

When analyzing Simon & Schuster’s John Wayne’s America and Steven Cohan’s Masked Men: Masculinity and the Movies in the Fifties, we see two very contrasting images of a “real” man. Wayne is invincible: he represents “America” as a concept, his rugged handsomeness relating directly to the unconquered frontier. In his films, he did not stand for the social and national fears or problems of his audience, “He stood for an America people felt was disappearing or had disappeared, for a time ‘when men were men.’” Grant, however, was a different story. Though he was still dubbed “an authentic American hero,” his persona was not one of invincibility – rather, he portrayed many of the insecurities and instabilities of “manhood” the society of the 1950’s. Rather than being a firm, non-changing image of a “man” when traditional manhood is faltering, in North by Northwest, he portrays exactly what society is fearful of – and resolves his instable position at the end by proposing to Eva Kendall.

How is it that two men, both overwhelmingly popular in the 50s, stand for two very different images of “ideal manhood?” It is possible that the answer lies in the genre that each one occupies. As Andrew Britton writes, “Popular American movies presuppose an enormously sophisticated intimacy with the conventions of genre – an intense awareness of the logic of this dramatic world as distinct from that one.” The rules and conventions of the Western dictate that John Wayne’s character does not have any shortcomings that he must overcome: the Western hero is an unwavering, unchanging man who can overcome all obstacles. In Stagecoach, Wayne’s Ringo knows exactly what he wants, and the only thing stopping him from his goals are his captors and the Indians. From the first moment he sees Louise, he knows he wants to marry her. The suspense thriller, however, is all about the unstable – after all, to create suspense, there must be insecurity and instability. Cary Grant’s character in North by Northwest, then, embodies and mirrors the greater instabilities of the movie by channeling the anxiety towards the image of a “man” and by donning many masks (and, like the way in which a suspense thriller is often set up, he sheds his masks one at a time throughout the course of the movie). The enemies in a suspense thriller are not clear-cut like those of the Western. Who, then, does the hero of the movie have to fight and prevail against? The end, of course, resolves all tensions about masculinity: Roger saves Eva from a precarious situation and proposes.

Questions:

1) John Wayne has remained in the top 10 list of favorite stars decades after his death. Why was this not the same for Grant? What does this say about American ideology?

2) While Wayne’s roles were almost exclusively set in the Western genre, Grant moved more between genres. How is star image affected by the respective decisions of these men?

3) Who are relevant stars today that harken the “manly” images of either Wayne or Grant? How do the more modern male stars reflect the challenges of present-day society?

Westerns: The John Wayne Genre (Blog Post #2)

John Wayne to the western is as important as bread is to a sandwich. You can change or add some elements (for example turkey, ham, lettuce, cheese, bacon, tomato), but you always end up needing the bread. His walk, his talk, everything about him was rugged, which worked well within the western genre. After the release of Stagecoach established John Wayne as a force to be reckoned with within the western genre, Wayne would spend the rest of his career essentially carrying the genre. Andrew Britton’s “Stars and Genre” article talks about the distinctions between a star vehicle and genre, but in Wayne’s case, his star vehicles defined the western genre. His performances and characters gave way to archetypes that would forever be associated with the genre, and weaved into the storylines of other westerns. Writers and producers would create characters that looked, felt, and acted like John Wayne, but while they could imitate, they could never duplicate. Wayne’s signature voice, walk, and the general atmosphere he created in each scene were so natural that the chemistry he had could not be recreated.

The article “John Wayne’s America,” by Gary Willis, says John Wayne was not born John Wayne, but a persona that had to be invented. I disagree with this statement though because just doing outside research about John Wayne, it is clear to see that his real life mirrors the characters he portrays on screen. Wayne was a celebrated football player so one can assume he was rough and tough in real life, much like the cowboys in the Wild West must be. Even scenes like the one in Stagecoach where Wayne’s character faces off against the native Americans, can be applied back to his real life. In the film he is essentially the white man who defeats the savage minority from threatening the white way of life. Wayne in the same sense embodies these racist undertones in his daily life, and this can expressly be seen in a Playboy interview where he suggested that blacks should not be treated as equals until they learned how to be responsible. (http://www.playboy.com/articles/john-wayne-interview)

John Wayne is especially the character that we see on screen, and elements of his real life inform the characters he plays in westerns. His ability to put so much of himself on screen makes him believable as a cowboy, and it is this sole reason that has afforded him success.

Questions
1. What in particular has made John Wayne the Western's biggest star?
2. Are the racist undertones in Western films a sign of the times, or just another example of Hollywood undermining minorities by making them enemies and/or servants.
3. What does the Western genre offer the culture at large, is it just fun escapism or does it have a deeper message?

The "Apology" of Tiger Woods

Many are divided on whether Tiger Wood's apology was sufficient or sincere enough. I am on the side of the argument that says it is nowhere near close enough to what it should have been. You could say I was nowhere as moved as this guy (http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/blog/devil_ball_golf/post/Charlie-Rymer-cries-on-The-Golf-Channel-when-dis?urn=golf,220917). One of my main peeves about a press conference is when the speaker continuously stares down at a piece of paper, which is exactly what Tiger Woods did the entire presser. He knew what he wanted to say, so why doesn't he look truly sincere and throw away that piece of paper and speak from the heart. Another thing that bothered me about the presser was the he refused to take questions. This came off to me as a cowardly act, refusing to "face the music" if you will. In baseball, many steroid users have been completely forgiven because they admit what they did and take their lashings from the press. Not Tiger, he got up there read from a piece of paper most likely prepared by one of his PR people and then stepped away without one person asking exactly what happened. The whole thing seemed truly robotic and scared to me and Tiger has a long way to go to repair his once sterling reputation.

Weekly Reading Response 2/22/10

Willis told the story of when Raoul Walsh found John Wayne: he explains that Wayne had an “'I own the world' way of walking.” That was exactly what Walsh wanted for his Western film. "That sonuvabitch looked like a man." Though Wayne was well aware of the way that he walked, talked and posed (like Michelangelo’s David), it was his natural movements, gestures and easy control of his large body that Willis seemed to think conveys the “man’s man” image. In his films, his authority transcends that of any other character in the film. For example, in Stagecoach, he is seen – as an individual – fighting against an entire group of Native American’s who seemed to have lots of power (until he got involved... and took care of them). With his lack of vulnerability, he fights off the entire group allowing the coach to continue its trip. However, the reading does also explain that “Wayne was not born Wayne. He had to be invented.” Wayne was well aware of that.

The other reading, “The Spy in the Gray Flannel Suit” from Masked Men explains that Cary Grant’s masculine image, especially in North By Northwest, was equally as developed (including his clothes and roles played in films to help further define his masculinity.) If masculinity is defined by the roles that one plays in a film, then can masculinity be strategically developed? (One of the texts explained that the producers of the Dirty Harry films planted homosexuals for Harry to mock, therefore dissociating himself from them in fear of him coming across less masculine.)

Or was it that John Wayne and Cary Grant knew how their personae were being fabricated – and therefore agreed to live their lives and play their roles accordingly? Can Bruce Willis in Die Hard be compared to the fabricated masculine personae? Since John Wayne refused to play “less masculine roles”, it is hard to determine what he would be like in them. Bruce Willis, on the other hand, has played emotional father figures as well as authoritative (police/detective) figures. Is his masculinity at risk because of the wide spectrum of roles that he plays? What makes him less masculine than John Wayne? It may be interesting to point out that Bruce Willis did not make the “Favorite Star” list at the beginning of “The Most Dangerous Man” reading. Could that have to do with anything... possibly being less masculine than the others on the list?

Weekly Reading Response 2/22/10

Willis told the story of when Raoul Walsh found John Wayne: he explains that Wayne had an “'I own the world' way of walking.” That was exactly what Walsh wanted for his Western film. "That sonuvabitch looked like a man." Though Wayne was well aware of the way that he walked, talked and posed (like Michelangelo’s David), it was his natural movements, gestures and easy control of his large body that Willis seemed to think conveys the “man’s man” image. In his films, his authority transcends that of any other character in the film. For example, in Stagecoach, he is seen – as an individual – fighting against an entire group of Native American’s who seemed to have lots of power (until he got involved... and took care of them). With his lack of vulnerability, he fights off the entire group allowing the coach to continue its trip. However, the reading does also explain that “Wayne was not born Wayne. He had to be invented.” Wayne was well aware of that.

The other reading, “The Spy in the Gray Flannel Suit” from Masked Men explains that Cary Grant’s masculine image, especially in North By Northwest, was equally as developed (including his clothes and roles played in films to help further define his masculinity.) If masculinity is defined by the roles that one plays in a film, then can masculinity be strategically developed? (One of the texts explained that the producers of the Dirty Harry films planted homosexuals for Harry to mock, therefore dissociating himself from them in fear of him coming across less masculine.)

Or was it that John Wayne and Cary Grant knew how their personae were being fabricated – and therefore agreed to live their lives and play their roles accordingly? Can Bruce Willis in Die Hard be compared to the fabricated masculine personae? Since John Wayne refused to play “less masculine roles”, it is hard to determine what he would be like in them. Bruce Willis, on the other hand, has played emotional father figures as well as authoritative (police/detective) figures. Is his masculinity at risk because of the wide spectrum of roles that he plays? What makes him less masculine than John Wayne? It may be interesting to point out that Bruce Willis did not make the “Favorite Star” list at the beginning of “The Most Dangerous Man” reading. Could that have to do with anything... possibly being less masculine than the others on the list?

Reading Post 2

Garry Willis, in his article “John Wayne’s America,” argues that “Wayne was not born Wayne. He had to be invented” (15). It is interesting that so many elements of Wayne’s persona as a Western film star were things that he created for his on screen image. However, I feel like many of the pieces of Wayne’s character were extensions of himself that he simply extended on in order to make a more concrete star image; Wayne wasn’t so much invented as he was an exaggerated version of himself. The added elements of horses, costume, and Western lingo are just added concepts of his character and not Wayne’s persona.
The main example of his natural personality translating into his “John Wayne persona” is his presence and walk. The article states that he was aware just how powerful his on screen presence was and used it towards his own benefit. Willis states that his “air of invincibility gave Wayne his special status in Westerns” (17). Wayne used his ability to command a crowd and focused it towards commanding others in a Western setting. It is not an invented characteristic; it is one of his talents as an actor that he used to better his characters. His body language and walk are other ways that he utilized natural abilities in his filmic persona. With a large, commanding body, it is easy to see Wayne as a Western cowboy caught in a shoot out.
Another iconic star that I feel exaggerated his own personality traits in order to create a cohesive on screen persona is Elvis Presley. Elvis’ persona can be best summed up by his sexuality and bad boy appeal, but these characteristics did not just come out of nowhere. Like Wayne, Elvis used his attractive features and body in the best ways that he could—by dancing and making woman across the world swoon. Perhaps he was not quite the delinquent that he portrayed in the majority of his early films, but his every day demeanor certainly made the characters believable. Similarly to the way that audiences focus on Wayne’s walk, people are reminded of Elvis’ lip curl while he spoke. Although his slight curl of the lip was most likely exaggerated for the screen, the root of it is based on who he is. In these ways, Elvis also is not so much invented but added onto his own personality.
Some questions to consider are: How much of a star’s persona rely on aspects of their characters? (Like how dependent is John Wayne’s persona is a horse.) Also, the opposite—how dependent is a star’s character on aspects of the star himself?

Where Have All The Cowboys Gone? (Reading Post #1)

In a genre that constantly displayed chaos and disarray, John Wayne became the constant, the order and the authority. The western genre was celebrated during early filmmaking but has recently disappeared. Through this week’s readings and viewing of Stagecoach it becomes more apparent why this genre has gone to the waste side and that reason seems to be the death of John Wayne. As the Gary Wills article pointed out, Wayne used his body unlike any other star of that time. That use and particular movement that was unique to Wayne is part of his attraction and reason for his success as a western hero. The play up of his body and movements was seen in Stagecoach since there were very few close ups of Wayne. The director decided to utilize the long shot in order to capture Wayne’s entire body and emphasize just how at ease he looked in the Wild West.

The article written by Andrew Britton also links the star to their particular genre. He said that genre is a way in which the audience can figure out the star in an easier way since they portray the same type of character in the same genre most of the time. Wayne was very much the characters that he played on screen and the audience fell in love not only with his characters but with him as a person as well. I believe that his death led to the decline in mainstream western films and television shows. The fact that he was the favorite actor long after his death shows that the audience still needed John Wayne and all of the ideas he stood for but since no other star has mirrored his image, the western has lost its value.

John Wayne was the west and along with his death went the western film. Through the readings and the image we saw of Wayne in Stagecoach it is easy to see just how linked together Wayne and western style films were. His gestures, smile, kindness, masculinity and even his towering body were all characteristics that America needed and wanted at that time. However, since his death no other celebrity has been able to fill those specific needs.

Do you think the western genre could be popular today? Explain.

If the western could become popular once more, which actor could fill the role of a present day John Wayne?

Do you think that actors who stick to one genre are limited with their acting ability or smart because they create a very specific image?

When Men Were Men (post #1)

John Wayne is undeniably an American icon. His popularity, even long after his reign of stardom, is unparalleled by other actors. However, as Garry Wills points out, he is out of place as a cult icon that not only reinforces the establishment, but serves as its poster-child. Wayne became a symbol of American policy in Vietnam, a war hero who never entered the war, and a remnant of a bygone time, “when men were men.” His star power stemmed from his embodiment of traditional American mythologies of manifest destiny, self-reliance, and masculine power. Though it may seem that he finds his counterpart in the hyperfemininity of Marilyn Monroe, she differs from Wayne significantly in the public’s knowledge of her own personal faults and scandals. Wayne himself remains almost completely inextricable from his on-screen persona. It is this all-encompassing character that captivates America.

Knowing what the source of John Wayne’s star power is, it is still difficult to pinpoint who it is Wayne appeals to. Through Willis’ account, we know that various political figures, including Nixon idolized everything from Wayne’s masculine confidence and staunch defense of justice, to his famous walk. The question is that if most cult idols, including those as successful as Madonna and Michael Jackson, utilized youth counterculture as a way to gain popularity, how did John Wayne gain his notoriety? Velvet Goldmine illustrated the way young people use stars to form their own sense of identity and express rebellion in an acceptable way. It is difficult to come up with any modern stars that are able to capture the attention of young people by reinforcing rather than challenging traditional values, however, in recent times, stars like Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson have used virginity as a way to gain the support of a more conservative crowd, though we know that in both cases, this gimmick and the popularity that it triggered, did not last.

In a time when stars like Lady GaGa rule the airwaves and red carpets with shamelessly eye-catching music videos and clothing, I wonder if an actor in the style of John Wayne could still make such an impact. Perhaps this brand of conservatism is just waiting to make its reappearance. Like all genres and styles, this character type is likely to be re-circulated when the time is right. Though I agree with Willis’ recognition of the studios and directors being far more responsible for the fame of John Wayne than he was himself, I argue that a third element, timing, is the most important variable in the equation of stardom. Wayne was there when the country needed regain a sense of confidence in the face of crippling failure, and likely there will always be some embodiment of American values when ours begin to decay.

1) To what extent are stars simply products of studios? Could John Wayne’s role have been filled by another man?

2) To what segment of the population do you think John Wayne appealed to most?

3) In what ways does John Wayne encapsulate traditional American mythologies? How did he manage to maintain this appearance both on and off screen?

The need to know every aspect of a stars life

http://www.seeing-stars.com/

I found the above website today which apparently is "The Ultimate Guide to Celebrities and Hollywood". The website is comprised of an index ranging from "where the stars play" to "churches of the stars" with everything imaginable in between.

Why is it that we have such an obsession about knowing every intricate detail of the lives of celebrities? What does anyone else think about this guide? 

For me the inclusion of the churches stars belong to and their mailing addresses takes the website away from being a frivolous site for those vacationing in Hollywood, who want to go site-seeing to a somewhat stalker-ish site created to aid those who are a little too obsessed.

TIger Woods to speak tomorrow (Blog #1)

I'm not a huge follower of golf, or any sports really, but as most American's I am aware of the triumphs of Tiger Woods. His excellent sportsmanship has made him not only a celebrity but a millionaire (some report he is a billionaire).

Tiger Woods is in a new phase of celebrity - scandal. Tiger has admitted to cheating on his wife multiple times and tomorrow intends to deliver a statement where he will take no questions from the limited amount of reporters.

It's not because Tiger has done something many powerful men - both famous and not - haven't done, which is cheat on his wife, but its because his star mold was based on the "wholesome family man.". His infidelity completely negates that in the eyes of fan-dom. Fans and the media are now forced put him in a different category.

The controversy is because people don't know what box to put him in now. Who is the new "Tiger Woods"? How will he be marketed now? Is he going to be the new bad-boy of golf instead of the prodigy? Can he possibly reclaim his branding as "the family man?" If in his speech tomorrow, he explains that he is a 'sex addict' or he had to 'grow up too fast' and thus never got to really date or be a bachleor before he married; will we then look at him as "poor Tiger, the troubled talent?" Or will he just an athlete with exception skill? Better yet, can he just be considered human.