Cohan frames many of Astaire’s duet dances as “equal” and “egalitarian.” How does dancing represent a different reality that we don’t see in today’s society in media? Why did they decide to show men and women interacting in a non stereotypical manor? What makes dancing the exception (if it is in fact an exception in this example) to popular media and societal paradigms?
Why has the popularity of musical film decreased? It seems that Fred Astaire and others of his genre were developing a new image of men, why is this image less popular today? Are there new ways in which men are viewed as spectacles? Such as action movies, in which the male figure can be seen performing astonishing physical feats in a more “masculine” manner?
How does the male spectacle work for male viewers? Do they voyeuristically and sexually view the feminized male on display? At the same time, do the women who watch this genre view the male as an erotic figure or one who they can identify with due to his increased stereotypically “feminine side?
To what extent does the nature of the spectacle performance in musicals (singing and dancing) contribute to the “femininization” of male musical stars? Were they to stop the show and be the spectacle as they performed a non-diegetic traditionally masculine act, would Cohan say they were being femininized in the same way? In short, does the femininization lie just in the performance as spectacle, or does the activity contribute to this effect?
Musicals promote the feminization of male characters and dancing is culturally viewed as being quite feminine. Cohan argues that the feminization of males in musicals allows them to be looked at. He also says that women get pleasure with the spectacle of the male character’s body. What kind of scopophilias do the women have? Voyeurisitc or narcissistic? How would a women get pleasure from a feminized male? Or would it be a more narcissistic gaze because the male has been feminized? And would the male character ever take a narcissistic gaze upon himself?
Steven Cohen notes that “an assortment of aging, balding, skinny, tubby, jug-eared, pug-faces… none of the big musical stars… were likely candidates for pin-ups or action heroes. So when musical nevertheless made a spectacle of them, these male stars offered an alternative representation of masculinity.” I would argue that this is typically the case for all male stars– not just musical ones. From Bogart to Gene Hackman, male stars are much more likely to have diverse body types and facial features (that are not always in accordance with society’s standard of beauty). However, female dancers in musicals (like Cyd Charisse) are typically stunning. So, are musicals really giving men an alternate form of masculinity to admire, or are they further promoting the idea that it’s okay to be a goofy looking man in Hollywood, but unacceptable to be anything other than drop-dead gorgeous if you’re going to be a leading female?
Did this musical masculinity which conflicted with the reductive binoraism of active/passive female promote a new masculinity? Did talent not undermine the redefinition of gender role? Thus was Astaire popularity not based on his masculinity but on his talent and charisma, did this not render the need to assess his masculinity obsolete? So undermining the notion men’s roles were altering. Surely this shows that male, as spectacle was scarcely open to all.
Cohen speaks to the male spectacle in musicals, a Hollywood genre that use the “spectacle of its stars” to make sense of its musicals, however hasn’t performance of the male spectacle changed since then? In musicals, the male spectacle attracted the female with talent and charisma but hasn’t the male spectacle changed into a more sexual object? In musicals, the male used his body when he dances to attract the female but presently, hasn’t the male’s body become the spectacle? Hasn’t men also been “cut up” in media?
Why does the fact that a man takes a solo in a Hollywood musical make him the spectacle? Isn’t this “to-be-looked-at-ness” merely a side act, and has nothing to do with the relationship between the man and the woman in the work?
Just because the musical man stops the show does to sing a number, why does that mean he is suddenly the one to be “looked at,” as Cohan claims? Isn’t he just being the person that males can relate to and identify with because, as Cohan says, he returns the gaze? Is he the one being overtly sexualized? The answer to this is no. So then, just because he sings, why is he the object of the male gaze?
Steven Cohan maintains that Hollywood musical allowed the production of masculinity and feminity « alike out of highly theatricalized performances of gender ». What are the exact implications of having a genre that « takes the performance of a star’s masculinity…so openly as spectacle »? How does the male viewer feel? Does this have a liberating power for male viewers who, for once, can « unshamedly » assume their to-be-looked-at-ness while conversely, feminists have fought against the structure of movies presenting feminity as equal to the spectacle?
Cohan notes that musical theatre “is the only genre in which the male body has been unashamedly put on display in mainstream cinema”. Are musical theatre productions given enough credit for gender representation? It seems we have blindly ignored, as a society, the treatment of the male spectacle in musicals, rather, only notice the female spectacle, and as a subordinate position. Why is Fred Astaire, for example, not considered subordinate, then? Does the show-stopping feminized male jeopardize the performer’s identity in any way? Does he suffer from possessing stereotypically feminine characteristics, is he ‘demasculinized’? Or does it reinforce that he is comfortable with being the object of “to-be-looked-at-ness”? Is it in fact a source of empowerment for men?
Cohen explains how when the two characters that are dancing have a brother-sister relationship their equality is highlited and they have a comparable status as spectalces. (They both fall due to the unstable ocean liner for example). Cohen also points out that because of their sister-brother relationship talent, instead of desire and a sexual difference between them, is stressed. Why can’t two characters have the same status as spectacles if they are involved in a romantic relationship? Is the act of one of them looking and the other one being looked at what defines their sexual difference and potential for a non sibling relationship? Why can’t talent be stressed too when desire is portrayed. Are desire and talent mutually exclusive? can’t talent be highlihgted in a romantic relationship?
With the male as spectacle in Hollywood musicals, does this encourage homo-erotic voyeurism in its male viewers, or are Hollywood musicals catering to the woman’s heterosexual desire just as slasher films predominantly cater to the desires of adolescent males?
Cohan frames many of Astaire’s duet dances as “equal” and “egalitarian.” How does dancing represent a different reality that we don’t see in today’s society in media? Why did they decide to show men and women interacting in a non stereotypical manor? What makes dancing the exception (if it is in fact an exception in this example) to popular media and societal paradigms?
Why has the popularity of musical film decreased? It seems that Fred Astaire and others of his genre were developing a new image of men, why is this image less popular today? Are there new ways in which men are viewed as spectacles? Such as action movies, in which the male figure can be seen performing astonishing physical feats in a more “masculine” manner?
How does the male spectacle work for male viewers? Do they voyeuristically and sexually view the feminized male on display? At the same time, do the women who watch this genre view the male as an erotic figure or one who they can identify with due to his increased stereotypically “feminine side?
To what extent does the nature of the spectacle performance in musicals (singing and dancing) contribute to the “femininization” of male musical stars? Were they to stop the show and be the spectacle as they performed a non-diegetic traditionally masculine act, would Cohan say they were being femininized in the same way? In short, does the femininization lie just in the performance as spectacle, or does the activity contribute to this effect?
Musicals promote the feminization of male characters and dancing is culturally viewed as being quite feminine. Cohan argues that the feminization of males in musicals allows them to be looked at. He also says that women get pleasure with the spectacle of the male character’s body. What kind of scopophilias do the women have? Voyeurisitc or narcissistic? How would a women get pleasure from a feminized male? Or would it be a more narcissistic gaze because the male has been feminized? And would the male character ever take a narcissistic gaze upon himself?
Steven Cohen notes that “an assortment of aging, balding, skinny, tubby, jug-eared, pug-faces… none of the big musical stars… were likely candidates for pin-ups or action heroes. So when musical nevertheless made a spectacle of them, these male stars offered an alternative representation of masculinity.” I would argue that this is typically the case for all male stars– not just musical ones. From Bogart to Gene Hackman, male stars are much more likely to have diverse body types and facial features (that are not always in accordance with society’s standard of beauty). However, female dancers in musicals (like Cyd Charisse) are typically stunning. So, are musicals really giving men an alternate form of masculinity to admire, or are they further promoting the idea that it’s okay to be a goofy looking man in Hollywood, but unacceptable to be anything other than drop-dead gorgeous if you’re going to be a leading female?
Did this musical masculinity which conflicted with the reductive binoraism of active/passive female promote a new masculinity? Did talent not undermine the redefinition of gender role? Thus was Astaire popularity not based on his masculinity but on his talent and charisma, did this not render the need to assess his masculinity obsolete? So undermining the notion men’s roles were altering. Surely this shows that male, as spectacle was scarcely open to all.
Cohen speaks to the male spectacle in musicals, a Hollywood genre that use the “spectacle of its stars” to make sense of its musicals, however hasn’t performance of the male spectacle changed since then? In musicals, the male spectacle attracted the female with talent and charisma but hasn’t the male spectacle changed into a more sexual object? In musicals, the male used his body when he dances to attract the female but presently, hasn’t the male’s body become the spectacle? Hasn’t men also been “cut up” in media?
Why does the fact that a man takes a solo in a Hollywood musical make him the spectacle? Isn’t this “to-be-looked-at-ness” merely a side act, and has nothing to do with the relationship between the man and the woman in the work?
Just because the musical man stops the show does to sing a number, why does that mean he is suddenly the one to be “looked at,” as Cohan claims? Isn’t he just being the person that males can relate to and identify with because, as Cohan says, he returns the gaze? Is he the one being overtly sexualized? The answer to this is no. So then, just because he sings, why is he the object of the male gaze?
Steven Cohan maintains that Hollywood musical allowed the production of masculinity and feminity « alike out of highly theatricalized performances of gender ». What are the exact implications of having a genre that « takes the performance of a star’s masculinity…so openly as spectacle »? How does the male viewer feel? Does this have a liberating power for male viewers who, for once, can « unshamedly » assume their to-be-looked-at-ness while conversely, feminists have fought against the structure of movies presenting feminity as equal to the spectacle?
Cohan notes that musical theatre “is the only genre in which the male body has been unashamedly put on display in mainstream cinema”. Are musical theatre productions given enough credit for gender representation? It seems we have blindly ignored, as a society, the treatment of the male spectacle in musicals, rather, only notice the female spectacle, and as a subordinate position. Why is Fred Astaire, for example, not considered subordinate, then? Does the show-stopping feminized male jeopardize the performer’s identity in any way? Does he suffer from possessing stereotypically feminine characteristics, is he ‘demasculinized’? Or does it reinforce that he is comfortable with being the object of “to-be-looked-at-ness”? Is it in fact a source of empowerment for men?
Cohen explains how when the two characters that are dancing have a brother-sister relationship their equality is highlited and they have a comparable status as spectalces. (They both fall due to the unstable ocean liner for example). Cohen also points out that because of their sister-brother relationship talent, instead of desire and a sexual difference between them, is stressed. Why can’t two characters have the same status as spectacles if they are involved in a romantic relationship? Is the act of one of them looking and the other one being looked at what defines their sexual difference and potential for a non sibling relationship? Why can’t talent be stressed too when desire is portrayed. Are desire and talent mutually exclusive? can’t talent be highlihgted in a romantic relationship?
With the male as spectacle in Hollywood musicals, does this encourage homo-erotic voyeurism in its male viewers, or are Hollywood musicals catering to the woman’s heterosexual desire just as slasher films predominantly cater to the desires of adolescent males?