Were people fascinated with Valentino due to his ability to be femininely attractive and seductive but also masculinely tough? Isn’t it the same case with Chuck in gossip girl? Are we fascinated with and drawn to sexual ambiguity?
Do men hate Valentino, instead of identifying with him as they usually do with male leads, because his race delegates to a state of “otherness” and sexual deviance? Men might be jealous of him, but don’t they also not identify with him because his race represents a lack? And, like the monster in horror films, doesn’t this “difference” and “lack” make him identifiable with the women, and the therefore someone that the men would hate?
“The more he protested his virility, the more he assumed the role of a male impersonator” (266). How is this different from the feminine masquerade? When men perform “masculinity,” and their performance points to it’s construction, how does this affect male audiences versus female audiences?
Is the jealously of males towards Valentino due to his simultaneously erotic and emotional spectacle present in females towards femme fatales? Do females criticize today’s femme fatales in movies such as the James Bond series for the same reasons men criticized Valentino?
With regards to Valentino’s otherness, what does that signify for masculinity – the fact that he is considered the “other”, a feature that has often defined the ”woman”, and yet is still centre stage?
“The figure of the male as erotic object undeniably sets into play fetishistic and voyeuristic mechanisms…feminization of the actor’s persona”. What does this mean for the male spectator, and indeed the male actor? Does it feminize the masculine spectator, or spectacle?
Talking about the two different types of audiences, Hansen says, “the textually constructed spectator-subject of classical cinema and empirical audiences that were defined by particular and multiple social affiliations and capable of sharing culturally ad historically specific readings.” The textually constructed spectator is recognized in society and must then serve as a sort of representation (consciously or not). There are certain characteristics that society has deemed suiting to men and others suited towards women and these characteristics have intrinsically constructed men and women. Wouldn’t the constructed spectator do the same sort of thing—construct the real spectator? Does the textually constructed transcend into reality and make reality inherently constructed as well?
Hansen describes America’s reaction to Valentino and his public image. In essence, men felt threatened by him and women were obsessed with him. Therefore, did male’s critiques of Valentino and his “otherness” have less to do with his race and his concern with physical appearance and more to do with the fact that women were now able to gaze at their own object of desire with pleasure equal to a man’s, which went against traditional conventions within Hollywood cinema and therefore threatened patriarchal dominance?
Did Rudolph Valentino’s ethnic “otherness” enable the discourse of his sexual otherness or would his sexual identity have been the discourse it was even if he were a mainstream American? How are the two related?
Hansen explains that when women films place a male hero as the erotic object “it sets into play fetishistic and voyeuristic mechanisms accompanied by a femenization of the actor’s persona”. Is it possible for women spectators in the film or women in the audience to look at a sexualized and completely masculine spectacle? Why and when exactly is the man spectacle feminized? Is it because he becomes the spectacle and this is a femenine position, or because he is sexualized?
If Valentino was an example of the other, and projected an image of effeminacy, was it that Women found pleasure in the taboo of his foreignness (erotic, exotic spectacle) or found parallels that allowed them to identify with him? Do examples of his effeminacy undermine his position as the male, whilst reinforcing old models of the spectacle? Or was Valentino, just the first of a new line of “male beauties”?
What is it about the erotic and the emotional male form of masculinity that attracts us?
Were people fascinated with Valentino due to his ability to be femininely attractive and seductive but also masculinely tough? Isn’t it the same case with Chuck in gossip girl? Are we fascinated with and drawn to sexual ambiguity?
scratch that last question.
if “jealousy” was the reason men hated Valentino, why were they so afraid of acting like him and commanding the same feminine attention?
How does a star (such as valentino) ever break away from his or her stage persona? Is it society who has all the control to label an individual?
Do men hate Valentino, instead of identifying with him as they usually do with male leads, because his race delegates to a state of “otherness” and sexual deviance? Men might be jealous of him, but don’t they also not identify with him because his race represents a lack? And, like the monster in horror films, doesn’t this “difference” and “lack” make him identifiable with the women, and the therefore someone that the men would hate?
“The more he protested his virility, the more he assumed the role of a male impersonator” (266). How is this different from the feminine masquerade? When men perform “masculinity,” and their performance points to it’s construction, how does this affect male audiences versus female audiences?
Is the jealously of males towards Valentino due to his simultaneously erotic and emotional spectacle present in females towards femme fatales? Do females criticize today’s femme fatales in movies such as the James Bond series for the same reasons men criticized Valentino?
With regards to Valentino’s otherness, what does that signify for masculinity – the fact that he is considered the “other”, a feature that has often defined the ”woman”, and yet is still centre stage?
“The figure of the male as erotic object undeniably sets into play fetishistic and voyeuristic mechanisms…feminization of the actor’s persona”. What does this mean for the male spectator, and indeed the male actor? Does it feminize the masculine spectator, or spectacle?
Talking about the two different types of audiences, Hansen says, “the textually constructed spectator-subject of classical cinema and empirical audiences that were defined by particular and multiple social affiliations and capable of sharing culturally ad historically specific readings.” The textually constructed spectator is recognized in society and must then serve as a sort of representation (consciously or not). There are certain characteristics that society has deemed suiting to men and others suited towards women and these characteristics have intrinsically constructed men and women. Wouldn’t the constructed spectator do the same sort of thing—construct the real spectator? Does the textually constructed transcend into reality and make reality inherently constructed as well?
Hansen describes America’s reaction to Valentino and his public image. In essence, men felt threatened by him and women were obsessed with him. Therefore, did male’s critiques of Valentino and his “otherness” have less to do with his race and his concern with physical appearance and more to do with the fact that women were now able to gaze at their own object of desire with pleasure equal to a man’s, which went against traditional conventions within Hollywood cinema and therefore threatened patriarchal dominance?
Did Rudolph Valentino’s ethnic “otherness” enable the discourse of his sexual otherness or would his sexual identity have been the discourse it was even if he were a mainstream American? How are the two related?
How does the “question of masculinity” in Rudolph Valentino signify the “threat” of male sexuality?
I think Joyce wins…
Hansen explains that when women films place a male hero as the erotic object “it sets into play fetishistic and voyeuristic mechanisms accompanied by a femenization of the actor’s persona”. Is it possible for women spectators in the film or women in the audience to look at a sexualized and completely masculine spectacle? Why and when exactly is the man spectacle feminized? Is it because he becomes the spectacle and this is a femenine position, or because he is sexualized?
If Valentino was an example of the other, and projected an image of effeminacy, was it that Women found pleasure in the taboo of his foreignness (erotic, exotic spectacle) or found parallels that allowed them to identify with him? Do examples of his effeminacy undermine his position as the male, whilst reinforcing old models of the spectacle? Or was Valentino, just the first of a new line of “male beauties”?