How appropriate that in the week of our take-home midterm on Dyer and cultural contradictions, we read about the King - the King of cultural contradictions that is. Sweeney and Spigel describe an icon that is both "a saint and a sinner"; a Demerol-addicted drug enforcer for Nixon, a sex-driven Gospel singer, a White Trash pop icon, and one of the most popular stars in America, who was never quite accepted in the "in crowd."
Spigel focuses on one aspect of the King's fame - his impersonators. She calls them the “holders of unofficial history” who comment back on the "confusion and alienation of our time." They embody popular memory, opposed to historical truth. This dichotomy between historical truth and popular memory is introduced on p. 180 and developed throughout the article. Whereas popular memory is defined by its multiplicity and subjectivity, historical truth is based upon a linear, black/white presentation. However, as I understand it, I don't think this delineation is accurate. Popular memory has that same sense of linearity and black/white fact as historical truth. Imagine if an Elvis impersonator were to show up in a tailored suit asserting that Elvis was, at heart, a businessman. This history of Elvis would not be permissible. Other impersonators and fans would question this depiction asking for proof or any type of evidence. They would challenge this depiction by looking at the multiple other impersonations, all of whom seem to resemble one another thereby affirming that their majority depiction of the King must be accurate, must be “the truth.” It is popular history (even more so than historical truth) that has a clear desire of answering "what really happened." American’s obsession with autobiographies, celebrity blogs, even a very class like ours that sets to understand and dissect celebrity personas are all attempts to get to the "truth." So I think to say that popular memory embraces multiple versions or interpretations of the past is incorrect - we are all still striving to embrace the one "true" story of the past. Subjectivity and multiplicity do not define popular memory, they complicate it. Do you think this is true, or do you feel that popular memory is in fact more subjective than historical truth?
Also, just a few other questions to consider that arose with the readings (perhaps we can talk about them in class):
- Sweeney mentions forms of White Trash that are accepted by mainstream (and even upper-class) audiences, what are the characteristics that make this transition possible?
- impersonators legitimize their act by having seen Elvis perform, does this mean impersonators will cease to exist once the current generation of impersonators (the last one to see Elvis perform) die? how can post-1950s fans legitimize an impersonation other than watching his films?
- Spigel asserts that Elvis impersonation mirrors religion through identification and over-identification with Elvis/God, gender hierarchy, etc., how do cults fit into this comparison?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment