I didn't know much about Rock Hudson before reading the Meyer article. All I knew was that he had been gay, but not out. I had no idea he had gotten AIDS and died from it. I thought it was interesting how the article saved that bit of information till the end, setting up the strength and vigor associated with him in his earlier career, and then effectively destroying that image by describing his physical decrepitude in his last months.
I was also interested in the article's emphasis on his body, and how clean people thought him to be, and as Sarah mentioned, how ironic it is that the interest in his body was so great and yet his image was so asexual. He was "less threatening" and "less sexual," and yet the article focused so much on his stature and sex appeal. I can't really grasp Rock Hudson, as a persona, because of all these different contradictions. I think it must be the enigmatic nature of his stardom that helps make him popular.
Despite being intrigued by his contradictions, I'm preoccupied with several questions: Why this obsession with his body? How was it that despite his size he was so unthreatening? And even though people admired him so much, why was he not more sexualized? Why the emphasis on his cleanliness?
What is it about these characteristics that makes them so appealing? Was it just back then that people felt that way, have we changed in how we view stars? I feel like the stars today that are the most popular (Britney, Paris, Lindsay) are "dirty," pretty much. Where are the wholesome, cleanly stars? Why have we moved away from that type of persona? Was it because we were "burned" by him ending up having AIDS, and now we can't trust that sort of personality? I would say that someone like Zac Effron tries to get into that category of "wholesome," and all people can do is hypothesize about his sexuality. Also, does a "wholesome" star have to be heterosexual?
Sorry about all the questions, but this reading made me think of a lot more questions than it answered!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your questions made me remember something I read on Perezhilton.com earlier today. There was a post noting that Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor had recently been spotted having drinks at a gay bar together. I thought on that for about two seconds before I concluded, "Naw, that doesn't mean anything - they're just having a good time." You could suggest that I came to that conclusion because Ewan is married and Jim is dating Jenny McCarthy...but if Zac Effron had been in that bar with anyone, I would have said "Curious..." even though he is dating Vanessa Hudgens. Now that you've pointed it out, I can definitely see that my response has a lot to do with his wholesome image.
Ditto on the not knowing too much about Hudson, accept he was the closeted gay in Hollywood in the 50’s. It’s interesting how you positioned cleanliness and being wholesome. I mean, I didn’t comment it on it yesterday—the fact that Meyer does focus on Hudson’s star construction as the “fantasy of sanitation.” It does make me wonder who today’s “fantasy of sanitation” is. I feel that the 40’s-50’s spent so much time trying to construct images that were focused around family values and anything that falls into the categories of wholesome values, while today it doesn’t matter as much. The good side of that is we can see Stars in a clearer picture. We see who they really are, not just the carefully manicured image the studios want you to see. But then again, for our time I feel like not that much is really that shocking. I dunno, could it be fanzines grew a heart and realized that by allowing the studios to construct a certain image of a star for the American people left them (the public) feeling burned? So why not save the public the heartbreak and sensationalize the Stars flaws…then the public won’t feel so cheated when their favorite star turns out to be human, like the rest of us…just a thought…mostly a very tired and irrational one. (I know fanzines and studios don’t have hearts)
I think it's interesting what you say about being wholesome and "clean." Disney stars definitely came to mind when you asked who a cleanly star today was. But the people we see as "dirty" (Britney, Lindsay, Paris) are not people who may be refered to as "stars." They're barley working and have hit rock bottom. I think people who are more wholesome maintain a certain ambiguity because they are still at a point when no one has dug any dirt on them yet. Vanessa Hudgens was "wholesome" until the nude photos came out. Now she has become more personable because she had to shamefully deal with that. It makes me wonder if we even like wholesome stars anymore...or do we just want to know every star's deep and dark secrets so we know that they're not super-human (case in point, people want to know if Zac Efron is gay)?
Post a Comment