Supplemental Post -Objectification in the Studio Era

One thing we briefly touched on is the issue of objectification in relation to stardom -- this is evidenced throughout film history, from the nude photos and skimpy dresses of Marilyn Monroe to the shirtless photos of Rock Hudson and Arnold. However, one thing that has always struck me is the lengths the studio would go to to objectify their stars so as to further make them an object solely for the viewing pleasure of the public. Today, many stars, such as Megan Fox, purposely choose to objectify themselves, cashing in on their sex appeal as a valuable asset. It seems that modern stars understand that objectification, though inherently wrong, makes stars more accessible and attractive to the public.

However, for me, one instance really sums up the objectification of women by the studio system as an attempt to try to build their contractees into stars. Jayne Mansfield, as blonde bombshell of the 1950s, who was set up to be and strove to emulate Marilyn Monroe. She was Warner Bros. answer to Fox's Monroe -- a platinum blonde sex kitten with heaps of cleavage and curves. Though Mansfield never obtained the icon status of Monroe, one can clearly see WB's attempt to situate her as such. Marilyn is well remembered for being objectified -- from her teasing, nearly see-through dresses of "Some Like It Hot" to her constant reiteration of the role of object of pursuit for the male. Warner Bros. in their attempt to push Mansfield to a similar level of stardom objectified Mansfield in an even more blatant and extreme manner. While re-housing photos at my job at the Warner Bros. Archives, I was working on a file of photos from the Mansfield film "Illegal." Many of the candid and publicity stills show the actors sitting around set in their specific chairs with their names across the back. Though Edward G. Robinson, Nina Foch, and the rest of the cast had their normal names printed on the back of their chairs, Mansfield's had no name. Instead her chair merely said "40-21-35 1/2". Thus, the studio had objectified Mansfield to the point where she required no name -- she was reduced to her measurements -- a number giving us the particulars of her body parts. The fact that the studio decided Mansfield required no name, but rather could be identified the number of her measurements fully highlights the extent to which studios would objectify their actors to try to make them into stars. Indeed, photos of a glamorous Mansfield posing in the chair were distributed as publicity material.

Core Post #4

Dyer describes Rock Hudson as “physically the largest male star of his day.” He explains how publicity shots were framed and angled to accentuate the size of his physique and make him look “pumped up.” The way that Dyer describes Hudson’s image and the way that the public perceived him seems very similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1980’s. Both were larger-than-life representations of American masculinity, the paragon of the American male.

However, compared with the physique and the images of Arnold Schwarzenegger from the period around the making of the Terminator, Rock Hudson seems tame.

The difference between these two stars is striking. Of course, their personas were very different. Dyer says the Hudson represented a “wholesome” and “sanitized” 1950’s vision of masculinity. Schwarzenegger, in his defining role in the Terminator movies, represented a cyberpunk, militaristic, and more violent vision of masculinity.

Still, the difference in their physiques and in the way they were perceived in their eras is incredible. It seems strange that two men with such different appearances could both embody the physical ideal of masculinity. Body building existed in the 1950’s, yet that sort of exaggerated body style did not become part of the Hollywood mainstream. Perhaps it was due in part to the better athletic training methods that existed in the 1980’s. In the late 80’s, the public became familiar with images of Jose Canseco and Mark McGuire, two extremely large and muscular baseball players. These two men, and many others, were eventually found to have been using steroids to artificially increase their size and strength. Both of these men dwarf Rock Hudson.

So, real-life men like these, using performance-enhancing drugs, were filling the eyes and minds of the public.

So, if Hollywood wanted to create characters that are larger than life, that outdo reality, it had to embrace someone like Arnold – someone who is so huge and muscular he appears to be, and can portray, a character that is not human.

1. How do the changes in the standards of male beauty compare or contrast with the changes in the standards of female beauty between the 1950's and now?

2. What role has the use of steroids, plastic surgery, and other artificial enhancements had on our perception of the human body?

3. Does Arnold Schwarzenegger represent a modern masculine ideal? If so, what kind of ideal?

Famous for Fame post #10

It is well-known that there is a class of celebrities who are really only known for being famous. Some, like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, skyrocket to fame after a sex tape "leaks" to the public. Others, like Nicole Richie or Brody Jenner, are the children of semi-famous celebrities. Whatever the case, it is important to ask why these people manage to maintain their celebrity status. Because they typically are not talented performers, one could assume that they have that indescribable star quality, simply without an outlet for it. However, this doesn't seem to typically be the case. Most of these celebrities thrive off of constructing a very specific and somewhat eccentric persona, like Paris Hilton did. She crafted everything from her voice, to her dress, to her pet, and from that, she created an empire.

While most would agree that this class of celebrity is largely disappointing, I think it is important to recognize that these people, perhaps more than other stars, put a great deal of effort into how their image is constructed, and they seem to be some of the greatest scholars of celebrity culture.

Christina Aguilera

After watching Christina Aguilera’s new music video for Not Myself Tonight I started to realize what is fundamentally holding Christina back from competing amongst the most elite women in music; there is something evidently missing from the genuineness of Christina’s image as a performer. Even though she has been performing publicly for twenty years, since being released from Disney, Aguilera’s image and personality have never quite coincided. It’s as if she’s created a public persona, a double consciousness, even a split personality, that she renews every few years. The way I see it, Christina’s image has drastically changed three different times: from “Genie in a Bottle” innocent and naïve Christina à “Xtina” à innocent, a little boring, a little older Christina à renewed “Xtina” but a little less ghetto and a little more cliché “bondage is edgy” type feel. Now, as Madonna has proved for ages, there is nothing wrong with a little artistic renewal. But when it becomes as calculated and predictable as it has in Christina’s case, it becomes only confusing and monotonous. The problem is that when Christina first came on the scene as a teenage solo artist, people questioned why she was so falsely innocent, when she tried to be more sexy people questioned why she took it so far (I mean, naming the song “Diiirty” was a little over the top), and now her return to that raunchier version of Christina has people shaking their heads once again, wondering why a wife and mother is wearing bondage and having sex with another man for the whole world to see. It feels “diiirty” but not in a good way—it feels just… wrong. Christina seems to have two parts that she cannot reconcile, and she is simply “not herself tonight”—onstage or off. And if she’s ever going to survive in an industry that relies so heavily on that very same image, she’s going to need to reconcile these two sides, and fast.

If you want to see what I’m talking about, watch the new video here:

Supplemental Post 4 -- Lady Gaga "Telephone"

We were discussing the Lady Gaga “Telephone” video in one of my classes today, and I thought that it was interesting and very relevant to our class. The video deals with female sexuality and, I think, female empowerment through its depiction of strong female characters within its narrative.
The video opens with Gaga entering an all female prison, where everyone is scantily clad and in very sexualized poses. This is interesting because instead of men having the power to put the women in prison, it is all females that work there. While their outfits and dancing would probably be considered almost pornographic, since the target audience is girls, it seems like the women are not being objectified.
When Gaga is allowed out of the prison, she meets up with Beyonce. Their adventure together is very reminiscent of Thelma and Louise, bringing a sense of girl power and bonding. Together they murder a group of people in a diner. In addition to having the ultimate power to commit mass homicide, they are able to over power all of the men that are seen, especially Tyrese who seems to have wronged Beyonce in some way. This part of the video seems to parody the Kill Bill movies, which also feature all female assassins and shows their power and dominance.
Although the video is very sexual, I do not think that Gaga is objectifying herself in any way. She dresses and dances sexually because she chooses to act that way, and by doing this on her own terms she shows the power of the female form. She attempts to subvert the male gaze throughout the video and shows all the males in the video as much weaker characters.
Some people in my class, however, argue that she objectifies herself in the same way that any other pop star in today’s culture would do. Singers like Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and even Madonna (who consistently reinvents her image much like Gaga does) wear skimpy outfits and dance provocatively. Their images, paired with their music, help them reach such wide stream popularity. Some claim that by acting and dressing as these celebrities do, Gaga is just contributing the objectification of women in mass culture. However, I believe that because she goes above and beyond in her outfits and performances, she is doing more of a parody or commentary on what our culture consumes. She sees that this is what profits in the current music industry and makes the conscious choice to follow their lead, while adding her own critique to it.

Here is a link to the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ95z6ywcBY

Why Such Sad Stars?

The two Dyer chapters for this week explore Judy Garland as a gay/camp icon, focusing specifically on the issue of her authenticity, and how it plays into this icon status. The Meyer article cites the obvious issues of authenticity that Rock Hudson's roles bring up, and discusses what he represents now that both his public and private life are up for scrutiny. Both Garland and Hudson, it seems, are gay/camp icons. My question is, why?

The surface answers are obvious. Both went through hardships, and dealt with having to hide their true selves to work in the industry they loved. However, my issue is that the two stars most associated with gay identification onscreen had such tragic ends. Surely, this is a part of their icon status -- their tragedies make them and their hardships even more famous. But why pick -- as your best point of identification and representation -- two stars who both died so tragically?

This seems to speak to a cynicism, a nihilism ... a "something bad" on the part of the gay perspective. Either the community is settling for something -- Garland and Hudson are the only stars that easily readable as icons for the movement -- or another thing entirely is going on. I am not ready to buy the former explanation. Cary Grant, for instance, is just as effeminate as Hudson onscreen, and his relationship with Rudolph Valentino was more public than any Hudson had with a lover. Why not him? As for Garland's replacements, other musical stars such as Liza Minnelli come to mind. While I believe that Minnelli too is a touchstone for gay culture, she is not nearly as ubiquitously associated with the community as is Garland.

I think the selection of Garland and Hudson that Deyer and Meyer speak to acknowledges the deepest pessimism the gay community has. Compare Garland and Hudson to Jennifer Lopez -- who we were talking about last week as the icon for Latinos. Although she's surely gone through hardships (dating P. Diddy must have been one in itself), she is not a tragic figure. Latinos have faced oppression, ostracization, etc. -- as has the gay community. However, the Latino one chooses a success story as its point of identification, where the gay community goes with cautionary tales.

Perhaps the fear that they will never fit in, never be understood, is more pervasive in the gay community. I can't see any other reason why stars with such tragic ends are the touchstones of gay/camp icons, when this really isn't the case with the other minority groups we've covered.

Gossip Girl Trendsetting (Supplemental Post 5)

My little sister was telling me about a Gossip Girl episode that she saw the other day and how much she liked Serena’s dress that she was wearing. She said she looked all over the internet trying to find it but couldn’t until she went to the CW website, where it allows you to view and purchase clothes that the cast wore on different episodes. I checked out the website myself, and saw that the site has developed a link to view the infamous clothes that are worn through out the different episodes. Keep in mind that the choices are limited, and are on the expensive side for most of the young audience that the show attracts.

Nearly four hundred dollars for a pair of sandals that Serena wore in an episode is the price to pay to live the exclusive life of a Manhattan elite. Since the show’s demographics cater to young girls the CW gains a sense of power over them. These young girls are much more impressionable and easily influenced to think that they need this pricy wardrobe available on the Gossip Girl website. I then started thinking about all of the other product placement items on the show and Verizon Wireless cell phones came to mind, since they are constantly showing the characters receiving messages on their phone the phone begins to play as large of a part as the characters do. The ability to dress like the prestigious characters and use the same cell phone, convinces the consumer that they too can be queen of the playground, and develop that connection with the characters to allow them to feel like are just like them.

Even though they are just characters on a show they have created such an impression on their audience that not only do their fans want to be just like the celebrities but they want to be like their characters as well.