Rock Hudson (Core Post)

Shh... Don’t ask, don’t tell could have been the tag line for many of Hollywood’s most successful actors in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Homosexuality was a concept that movie studios tried to keep hidden from the public through the use of lawyers and skeptical marriages. Rock Hudson was just one of many actors to have lived this life of secrecy. His good looks, charm, and masculinity launched Hudson’s career. However, gossip surrounded Hudson and when his homosexuality was going to be exposed he hastily married. The industry kept it quiet and the public didn’t care to confront this screen icon’s life off the big screen. Within a few years this marriage ended. Although his early movies didn’t prove to be blockbuster hits, his star persona kept him in front of the camera. Hudson was best known for his roles in romantic comedies. It was here where he felt most comfortable. He presented his studio-manufactured image, that of the handsome, ladies’ man while also showing his somewhat whimsical side. An excellent example is the movie Pillow Talk, starring Hudson and Doris Day. Hudson’s character, Brad Allen, has a fascination with interior decorating and is seen raising his pinkie finger while sipping tea. Although these traits do not mean one is homosexual; society has often assigned these activities as extremely effeminate characteristics. Is it possible that Hudson used these subtle ways to show his homosexual leanings without opening admitting them? Eventually, Hudson opened up to the public about his homosexuality and his diagnosis of being HIV positive.

Supplemental Post: Re-crafting of a Star Image

Two weekends ago, I helped out with the Iron Man 2 junket as part of my internship. During the international press conference, one journalist asked Robert Downey, Jr. a simple questions, "Did you used to dress up as superheroes when you where a child?" Instead of giving a typical answer, RDJ wittily answered, "Well, in my childhood, no. But in my thirties and right before I was about to get arrested...absolutely." A large wave of good-natured laughter filled the audience.

The intense transformations of star identities - RDJ's image from being perceived as a drugged-out has-been to a suave A-list actor, for example - occur all the time, and the public seems to pass over and accept the almost instantaneously. How is it that these stars manage to do this? Do they just have really good PR people? Or do that completely disregard their past?

I think that the answer is a complex one, and one that many don't think too deeply about. Robert Downey, Jr.'s answer to the reporter is especially telling. He relates back to his "old self," thereby acknowledging a not so bright past, but also simultaneously separating his current image from what it used to be. This mention of his past actions also bring a sense of authenticity to his personality - he admits who he used to be, but he also affirms that he is no longer that person. Therefore, in bringing his dark past to the forefront, he both shows that he is a real person and distances himself from what his older star persona - more so, even, than if he were to not mention it at all.

Supplemental Post

I am responding to Michael Gores' question: Does Arnold Schwarzenegger represent a modern masculine ideal? If so, what kind of ideal?

I do not think it would be incorrect to say Arnold Schwarzenegger represents a modern masculine ideal. As we learned in this class, there can simultaneously be many ideals of masculinity during a particular period of time. But while not everyone looks to size and strength as the necessary requirements to be considered “masculine,” muscle definitely plays a part in the views of many.

Perhaps the steroid look may no longer be as revered as it once was, society does see size and athleticism as a significant aspect of masculinity. Without a doubt, popular athletes of generation (from football to basketball and even tennis) are getting bigger and bigger, both in terms of body size and strength as well as in terms of popularity. And if a woman is unusually muscular, she is called “manly.” Clearly, society sees muscle as an important aspect of masculinity.

When analyzing the masculinity of stars, it is important to consider all aspects of a star’s persona. In Schwarzenegger’s case, the brawn and physique is what made him a star, but it is not all he is known for, particularly now. He is no longer at his physical peak, yet I would definitely still consider him an ideal figure of masculinity.

The ideal that I think Schwarzenegger fulfills is one that has built upon his action star, playboy ideal of a few decades ago. Now I think the ideal he fulfills is one that consists of more aspects of his life, including qualities I think society has found to be important in categorizing masculinity. Just like I think I am not alone in considering President Obama and other politicians a new kind of masculinity, I think Schwarzenegger remains an ideal figure of masculinity because he is a husband, a father, and a politician, among many other things. I think especially today, masculinity consists of a variety of things, and that Schwarzenegger, despite being past his hey-day of 80s action films, continues to be recognized as a masculine figure.

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: