It’s funny how even though these articles are based off of the 1940s, not much has changed. LaPlace says that the types of stories women craved then were ones with “good character development” and “human interest.” I think this is funny because after all of these years, women are still fighting for story arcs where woman get “good character development.” We are still fighting for more visibility for women and complex female characters rather than just shallow female arcs that are abundant throughout the film industry. LaPlace also says that most women’s films cover topics of family, domesticity, and romance, which are all pretty shallow. Men run the entire industry even though it’s for women. So, men essentially use women for their own profit and benefit.
Then, men continued to use women for a profit in the field of beauty and cosmetics. Pretty much all of LaPlace’s article is again relatable to today. She discusses how based on advertisements, women developed an idea of the ‘perfect woman’ determined by what they should look like, what they should wear, and what products they should use. If they didn’t follow these guidelines, they were ugly and therefore worthless. That rings true today. Women everywhere struggle with their bodies and images based upon comparisons they make between themselves and women in the media. The difference is that the advertisements LaPlace mentions seem to be in a more positive light than the advertisements today. Back then, the idea was that anyone could be beautiful, so long as they bought the right products. Now, beauty seems unattainable to many women. What’s awful about this situation both in the past and present is that women feel like they must own up to something. They feel like they have to follow a formula to fit in or be attractive to men.
I personally really enjoyed watching the film Now Voyager but I feel incredibly naive in that I did not pick up on anything discussed in the LaPlace article while watching the movie. I watched the film as a love story and didn’t delve any deeper past that. Looking back, it is terrible that Charlotte is presented as insane purely based upon her appearance. Her “dumpy” looks inhibit her from engaging with the world. She achieves normalcy when she has a makeover, allowing her to finally show her face in public. Her transformation seems pretty immediate. Although there are moments where Charlotte is timid on the ship, she is already pretty confident and well spoken, even when expressing that she is uncomfortable and not yet well in the head.
Everything about the structure of the women’s film is unfortunate. It is terrible that a women’s fortune or well-being is so dependent upon men. Even though a woman is the center of the film, Charlotte Vale cannot come out on top without the help of a man. The last phase of her treatment plan is that she must make a man fall in love with her. She must be pursued in order to be cured because she must become desirable and lovable to the public and men.
Even worse than the expectations placed on women is that men cannot accept a powerful women when they see one. When Bette Davis stands up for herself and tries to take control of her own career by breaking her contract with Warner Brothers, people feel the need to justify why she is the way she is. They can’t just accept that she is a strong, powerful woman. Instead, LaPlace discusses ridiculous justifications for why she steps out of her place such as that she can’t help her rebellious nature because she is from New England.
I found it kind of shocking that Bette Davis herself said “What an object lesson I am. It should make all women rise and run to their beauty parlours.” I’m curious about the context of this quote because I’m not totally sure if she is criticizing the film in that it portrays women in a way that says you have to be beautiful to be normal or if she is in support of it. The quote on its own seems like it supports women running off to the salon to fix themselves in order to receive attention and achieve self worth, but that would contradict the image of Bette Davis that is described later and in the other articles we read for this week that present her as a very non-superficial star. They describe her as someone who is very focused on her career rather than glamour. But, I guess it wouldn’t be too surprising if Bette was in favor of women latching on to the trends of the hour and buying the hot products because women stars became such an essential part of marketing. They became the face of many products. Eckerd talks about how women were even eager to wear the exact clothes women stars wore in films, which to me is crazy. I would never think to wear an exact outfit I saw in a movie. I would think it was kind of embarrassing and if other people were doing it, I would be afraid I would be wearing the same outfit as someone else.
I was interested in Dyer’s discussion of stars in terms of being extraordinary or ordinary. I personally don’t think stars are any different than anyone else. That being said, many of them are very talented in certain fields, but so are “ordinary people.” It’s just that ordinary people are often skilled in other fields while the stars are talented at things such as acting, singing, or modeling. Dyer discusses that stars are seen to be the “most” beautiful or the “best.” But, I don’t think they are. I think you achieve fame first and then once you have achieved stardom, you can be bestowed the title of “the best.” Attractiveness comes with being a star. There is a plethora of famous people that probably wouldn’t be thought of as attractive or sexually appealing if they weren’t famous. You don’t have to be extraordinary to be a star, but being a star makes you extraordinary.
No comments:
Post a Comment