Louise Brooks played quite the important role as a celebrity of early cinema.  I think one thing that Hastie’s essay really proves is that whatever Louise Brooks was doing, she was doing it right.  Most of the essay (and from what I gather most of the writing about Brooks) is a whole lot of “is she a lesbian? is she not a lesbian? was she sexual? wasn’t she sexual?”  I think regardless of the answers to those questions, what is important is that people were talking about Brooks, and that in 1997 there are still 20 pages essays debating the sexuality of the actress.  Brooks wanted people to discuss her and she was a master of giving enough information while still being vague enough to keep her name under discussion.  In an era today where celebrity gossip is a huge industry it is interesting to read about how it functioned in that era.  Brooks managed to accomplish on her own what only a small number of celebrities (who probably spend lots of money to hire people to do it for them), to be not only in a movie that people talk about but to be an actress that people talk about.

The second concept that this article brought to mind for me was the idea of the self-aware filmmaker.  The idea that Brooks may be a lesbian as was considered somewhat a sexual icon added to her identity in the film Pandora (or at least Hastie argues).  I think the concept of real life actors/directors affecting the way we take in a film is a very interesting one.  I see many films being released today where who the director is, or what an actor has done in the gossip pages, or even genre bending occurs.  These meta-films, where the film reflects upon itself to achieve more, is an interesting current trend, but it is also clear from Hastie’s article that it was something that was present in the era of Brooks and Pabst.