Confusion about Hansen's Analysis of Valentino

I am going to use this “core post” to try to make sense of a reading that utterly confused me! I was most fascinated with (and bewildered by) the Hansen reading about Rudolph Valentino - so much so, in fact, that I ended up researching Valentino afterwards to learn more about him. Perhaps I need to be more open-minded in my analysis of Valentino , but I cannot understand why he intimidated men or attracted women. I would think that because he was a ladies' man, men would look up to him and see him as their icon. But he was somehow left out of the "boy's club." It seems that his alternative type of masculinity (differing from other leading men of the day, such as Douglas Fairbanks) was too new – and people tend to reject what they haven’t seen or don’t understand. The reading asserts that he upset men because he undercut traditional masculine "instrumental rationality" and resisted "everyday pragmatism." I might be too rooted in modern views of masculinity, femininity, and sex appeal, but this just does not ring true with me. I can't understand how these characteristics made him unattractive to men - or attractive to women, for that matter. After all, the overbearing, s
mirking Sheik is not the "Latin lover" I would want. Hansen argues that women were yearning for an emotional man as they dealt with their own insecurities of defining feminine roles in post World War I society. It just didn't make sense to me though! My only explanation is that I am trying to view him too narrowly through modern eyes.

In my attempt to understand Valentino and his affect on America, I found this quote from him: "Women are not in love with me but with the picture of me on the screen. I am merely the canvas on which women paint their dreams." I thought this quote tied in perfectly with our conversation from last week. Stars are not stars because of who they are, but instead who they are constructed to be. And stars are not only constructed by the studios as we discussed, but by the audience members themselves. This explains why Valentino became the type of male lead he was - it was what women wanted and projected onto him. So my confusion once again isn’t about Valentino but instead about the psyche of the early 20th century woman (and man). Any other confusion or thoughts about Valentino.. or is it just me?!