skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Big Women: Femininity & the 50s
So I found it fitting that upon finishing this week's Dyer reading, one of my friends who frequents celebrity gossip sites, turns to me and tells me that the man who photographed Marilyn Monroe in her "Golden Dreams" pinup session for Playboy just recently captured Monroe-wannabe Lindsay Lohan in the newest issue of New York magazine. And funnily enough, as I was reading Heavenly Bodies, I couldn't help but try to make connections between Hollywood starlets of yesterday (Monroe) and today (Lohan). It's no secret that Lohan, along with perhaps many other up-and-coming actresses, have looked to Monroe as a personal icon, idolizing and fawning over her success and "natural sexuality". I feel as though I've read countless interviews in which she has spoken to wanting to achieve the same sort of renown and infamy as Monroe- and to a certain extent, she has accomplished exactly that. On paper Lohan and Monroe share similarities in family life and with battling personal demons, having both come from broken families and dealt with drug issues. Dyer comments that Monroe was a habitual user of prescription drugs, lacked familial stability and was a nymphomaniac; the same sorts of accolades that have been attributed to Lohan recently (at least, as mediated through tabloid magazines and especially celebrity gossip sites such as PerezHilton.com). Though in other ways, Monroe is more legitimate in her natural sexuality than Lohan and conversely, Lohan is more of a talent through her acting than by what her body can suggest. Moreover, Lohan isn't exactly type-casted as "the girl" the way Monroe commonly was. However, I find Lohan's case somewhat troubling. Exactly what image is it that she wants the public to perceive her as? As a waif trying to pass for Calvin Klein coke-chic or as a busty playful blonde with a heart of gold? It seems her chameleon-like style and approach to celebrity (note the frequent change in hair color and weight during the height of her career) were all calculated so as to give off the notion of Lindsay as desirable beyond her red hair and freckles in The Parent Trap. No doubt, she's had ample publicity in the press, ranging from image to work ethic and her "hard-partying ways." Yet, after reading the short chapter on publicity in Stardom: Industry of Desire, I can't help but wonder how much of it is true and not true- what was planted and what is an actual reality in Lohan's life. Not too long ago, Lohan was the subject of much uproar over the roller coaster-like fluctuation of her weight. She was practically a spitting body image of Olive Oyl, whose thin and wiry build could only be acceptable in comic strips. Yet once the bobble-headed thin-as-a-stick spectacle passed, then all of a sudden she was singing her praise of Monroe and her overflowing womanly parts. I wondered, was this something her publicist/agent told her to talk about in her interview to quell fears about her weight? But then again who wouldn't speak favorably of Monroe's beauty and natural sexuality? She was undoubtedly gorgeous and would not have been the original playmate to grace the cover of Playboy had she not fit the quintessential ideal body of woman. But today's starlets- and in turn, society as a whole- are not as accepting or heedful of the Big Woman 50s ideal, yet cling to the classic Hollywood ideal of Monroe as the epitome of what is desirable (and bankable) at the box office. I suppose it's not enough to have Kate Winslet and Scarlet Johannson advocating for natural and "big woman" bodies. Beauty, like sexuality, is fluid and on some sort of continuum that no one can really position at any given moment. Looking at what has been seen as beautiful throughout the decades, who knows what other kind of beauty trends will make themselves known in upcoming years.
So I found it fitting that upon finishing this week's Dyer reading, one of my friends who frequents celebrity gossip sites, turns to me and tells me that the man who photographed Marilyn Monroe in her "Golden Dreams" pinup session for Playboy just recently captured Monroe-wannabe Lindsay Lohan in the newest issue of New York magazine. And funnily enough, as I was reading Heavenly Bodies, I couldn't help but try to make connections between Hollywood starlets of yesterday (Monroe) and today (Lohan). It's no secret that Lohan, along with perhaps many other up-and-coming actresses, have looked to Monroe as a personal icon, idolizing and fawning over her success and "natural sexuality". I feel as though I've read countless interviews in which she has spoken to wanting to achieve the same sort of renown and infamy as Monroe- and to a certain extent, she has accomplished exactly that. On paper Lohan and Monroe share similarities in family life and with battling personal demons, having both come from broken families and dealt with drug issues. Dyer comments that Monroe was a habitual user of prescription drugs, lacked familial stability and was a nymphomaniac; the same sorts of accolades that have been attributed to Lohan recently (at least, as mediated through tabloid magazines and especially celebrity gossip sites such as PerezHilton.com). Though in other ways, Monroe is more legitimate in her natural sexuality than Lohan and conversely, Lohan is more of a talent through her acting than by what her body can suggest. Moreover, Lohan isn't exactly type-casted as "the girl" the way Monroe commonly was. However, I find Lohan's case somewhat troubling. Exactly what image is it that she wants the public to perceive her as? As a waif trying to pass for Calvin Klein coke-chic or as a busty playful blonde with a heart of gold? It seems her chameleon-like style and approach to celebrity (note the frequent change in hair color and weight during the height of her career) were all calculated so as to give off the notion of Lindsay as desirable beyond her red hair and freckles in The Parent Trap. No doubt, she's had ample publicity in the press, ranging from image to work ethic and her "hard-partying ways." Yet, after reading the short chapter on publicity in Stardom: Industry of Desire, I can't help but wonder how much of it is true and not true- what was planted and what is an actual reality in Lohan's life. Not too long ago, Lohan was the subject of much uproar over the roller coaster-like fluctuation of her weight. She was practically a spitting body image of Olive Oyl, whose thin and wiry build could only be acceptable in comic strips. Yet once the bobble-headed thin-as-a-stick spectacle passed, then all of a sudden she was singing her praise of Monroe and her overflowing womanly parts. I wondered, was this something her publicist/agent told her to talk about in her interview to quell fears about her weight? But then again who wouldn't speak favorably of Monroe's beauty and natural sexuality? She was undoubtedly gorgeous and would not have been the original playmate to grace the cover of Playboy had she not fit the quintessential ideal body of woman. But today's starlets- and in turn, society as a whole- are not as accepting or heedful of the Big Woman 50s ideal, yet cling to the classic Hollywood ideal of Monroe as the epitome of what is desirable (and bankable) at the box office. I suppose it's not enough to have Kate Winslet and Scarlet Johannson advocating for natural and "big woman" bodies. Beauty, like sexuality, is fluid and on some sort of continuum that no one can really position at any given moment. Looking at what has been seen as beautiful throughout the decades, who knows what other kind of beauty trends will make themselves known in upcoming years.
1 comment:
After looking over the original website post of the Lohan-Monroe pictures, I find (yet again) the reader comments to be much more interesting than the content of the post itself. The general consensus is a scathing review of Lohan as a celebrity. More often than not, the comments criticize her for emulating Monroe as if Monroe were a paragon of beneficence that Lohan's mimicry mocked. When, in reality, as Dyer discusses Monroe was a figure of great controversy...pushing and often breaking the boundaries of social acceptability. She was not beloved as "America's Sweetheart" but beholden as an icon of sensuality and lust.
Perhaps she was more akin to a modern Angelina Jolie in terms of sexuality and social perception (though Monroe markedly less vocal and intimidating in her individuality). Although, I do think Scarlett Johnson is possibly the best equivalent in persona and physicality, Jolie presents a stigma of sexuality that is much more risque yet still incredibly marketable and popular.
But, to return to my main argument, the tone surrounding the Lohan photographs struck me as not just angry but as insulted. The comments read as if the writers were insulted by Lohan and their response was not only an observation but an attack. (The atmosphere felt less like a crowd of "renegade" Gen X-ers and more like the group of caddy ladies-club women from "Stagecoach" running the "hussy" out of town.) The comments often went beyond objections against Lohan to more personal insults. It is no secret that posing nude leaves you open to criticism but I found it telling (if not surprising) that the more harsh comments slammed Lohan's body, calling her "fat" and "sagging". Ostensibly, by attacking Lohan's body (especially her breasts and silohette) they are questioning her beauty and, by extension, her image as a starlet.
I wonder what about Lohan spawns this ferocity? Is it a feeling of betrayal? Of Marilyn Monroe? Of the young virginal actress Lohan once was? Are the ideals of femininity at stake with Lohan's constant abuse of self and image? What is the nature of her threat and why is it so sensationalized?
To go on a sort of tangent - I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that in these particular remarks, they are more deeply criticizing her femininity. Since Lohan's image is contrived to present her as a symbol of feminine beauty (with numerous glamorized publicity spreads) these remarks denote a rejection of her representation of femininity as beautiful. They suggest that the idea of beauty desired is young and thin. A thinner and younger than a 21 year old who still weighs less than the average woman. Where are these ideas created? What does the modern conception of the ideal body represent? And why is the body such a passionate site of social qualification? For both men and women.
- Olivia Everett
Post a Comment