← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 8280 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2003-07-20
2003-07-20 02:53 | User Profile
[url=http://www.geocities.com/cactus_st/article/article135.html]http://www.geocities.com/cactus_st/article...article135.html[/url]
Masculine Beauty: The Fall From Gable Substance is absent from our notions of male attractiveness.
Author: PETER WHITTLE Source: LA TIMES, Friday, February 16, 2001
The King is a hundred years old.
Clark Gable, who would be celebrating his centenary this year, died in 1960, but the King of Hollywood, as the actor was known, continues to cast a long, dark shadow over the movie landscape. The kingdom may well not be what it once was, but the figure of the King is set permanently in our subconscious. Even now, whether we like it or not, in our deconstructed, post-modern era, the image of Gable epitomizes the idea of the tall, dark and handsome leading man, the quintessential movie star, the celluloid symbol of ultimate masculinity. But as the kingdom enters its second century, and if Gable were to saunter on to our sound stages anew, sight unseen, would we once again see in him those innate leading-man qualities? Would we still consider him desirable?
As the New York Times wrote at the time of his death: "Gable was as certain as the sunrise. He was consistently and stubbornly all men." Today's leading men would probably give their right arm for a part that enshrined them so firmly in the popular culture as Rhett Butler. Repeated TV showings of "Gone With the Wind" have ensured that younger movie fans, more used to the current screen diet of Adam Sandler, special effects and masturbatory apple pies, are at least aware of his presence on the landscape, though his style, indeed, his very essence, must strike them as being as alien as Scarlett O'Hara's hoop skirts. In his day however, there was nobody who could touch him. Cliche be damned, women loved him and men wanted to be him. His image was the desired one, and luckily for us it was immortalized forever by some of the greatest glamour photographers of the 20th century.
These portraits are currently on display in a wonderful exhibition marking Gable's centenary at the Cinema Arts Gallery in Beverly Hills. Featuring the work of such masters as Clarence Sinclair Bull, Laszlo Willinger and George Hurrell, the exhibition gives us an excellent sense of what it was that made movie fans swoon in the '30s. It gives us an insight into what constituted a beautiful man--what, indeed, was considered sexy in an era before such a vulgar word was commonly used. And the portraits also raise the question: Could he become, in our current graceful parlance, a sex god for our time?
On an examination of the current scene, it doesn't look that promising. Male movie stars remain very much the barometer by which we measure our notions of masculine beauty, and looking at the top 10 or so who are considered "box office," a kinship with either the physicality or spirit of Gable is more or less absent. The one exception--much remarked upon particularly since his performance in "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"--is George Clooney. In the very basics, there is certainly a resemblance. But he is essentially Gable Lite; with his eager-to-please, slightly coy manner, eyes staring up from under improbably long eyelashes, Clooney is Gable by way of Princess Diana, a soft, feminized version with a suggested passivity that, although in keeping with fashion, runs utterly counter to the all-important unself-consciousness and raffishness that were so attractive in the King.
It's likely that if he were to stroll into a casting agent's office now, Gable would probably be told to go get himself a body, put in some pouting practice and stop acting his age. The current unprecedented era of male body worship has meant that every bit-part player or soap star has to have a body ripped to within an inch of his life, a body that he has to unveil at the drop of the smallest hat. The sultry, sexually suggestive yet nonthreatening male has become one of the dominant cultural images--on billboards and in movies, television and pop music. Open any glossy magazine and you will find women, however alluring, increasingly relegated in the fashion ads to supporting parts, drooped adoringly over the central, glistening male torso. Whether this is a direct response to the supposed changes in the status and subsequent expectations of women in wider society, or whether it is simply due to the growing commodification of all things sexual, is hard to determine. Needless to say, in neither turf would a Gable prosper.
This wholesale media display of the male body, with its overt sexuality and often homoerotic undertones, would be alien to Gable's generation and has certainly not been without issues for modern men, not the least of which can involve health dangers. A number of recent books, most prominently "The Adonis Complex" (Free Press, 2000), has highlighted the ways in which this atmosphere has led to an increase in many men of distorted views of their less-than-perfect physiques and the drastic remedies they resort to in order to live up to the desired image, such as steroid use and the development of eating disorders. As is often the case in matters of image and fashion, gay men lead the way in this, and there have even been reports that claim to show a growing jealously and sense of inferiority among straight men for their super-buff gay brothers.
The use of digital technology to further enhance the perfection of current heartthrobs in a way makes the game even less fair, and supposed ideals even harder to attain for most men. But is the cut, pristine, ever-youthful-looking male standard of our time what people really find attractive anyway? Or do they still hanker after the less overtly sexual, more "manly" man of yesteryear? Again we can press movie examples into service. A totally unscientific poll of my nearest and dearest--for the most part straight women and gay men in their 30s--revealed a divergence of responses (along quite traditional lines) to the question of whether Gable and his ilk were, to modern eyes, still sexually appealing. All of them were sufficiently movie-literate to be able to make the comparison.
The women were more welcoming than the guys. "Yeah, he's sexy. . . . He looks like he'd know what to do" was one comment. "He looks like he could be fun . . . nice cheeky smile" was another. The guys, on the other hand, were far harsher. There was no sex appeal about him for them, no clue as to real physical attributes underneath the finely tailored '30s clothes. A picture of a debonair Gable, when placed against one of Brad Pitt in T-shirt and come-hither mode, was cutting no ice. "I wouldn't say he's especially cute," opined one. "He could be my dad.
In direct counterpoint to the '30s, when so much of what was appealing was a matter of hidden allure and the strength of the imagination, much of the governing aesthetic in male heartthrobs today would seem to be directly related to, or heavily influenced by, pornography. With the greatest respect due to their undoubted acting abilities, the generically accessible boy-next-door good looks of current male stars such as Pitt, Matthew McConnaughey, Ryan Phillippe and Ben Affleck is not so unlike that of the male porn star. They are sexual yet strangely vacant; they offer playfulness but with a complete absence of unforced charm; and, most important, they are seemingly conscious of every step, every sexy move that they make in front of the camera. Such narcissism could not be claimed of Paul Newman, Montgomery Clift or, heaven forbid, John Wayne.
But maybe the most important factor in determining beauty has become one of youth, at least so far as the media are concerned. The preferences of 30-something women are not those held paramount today (and the preferences of my gay buddies can be alarmingly similar to those of teenage girls). It's almost astonishing to realize that when Gable was proclaiming wearily to Vivien Leigh that, quite frankly, he couldn't give a damn, he was more or less the same age (38) as our very own Tom Cruise. In a nutshell, this contrast tells us more about the changing perception of male beauty than any other comparison. Gable was recognizably a man of the world, his experience carried in and contributing to his physical appeal. Cruise, on the other hand, is perceived as essentially a juvenile, an unchanging Peter Pan figure with the same weightlessness as a college grad; thus, he works best in roles that call for youthful, naive zest. It's also the quality that prevents him from having truly adult sexual appeal, much less a sense of possible, sexual danger.
Some time ago, I made a documentary for British TV about Leonardo DiCaprio, at the time still riding high off "Titanic." In my interviews with countless fans, it became clear that for teenage girls, the boyish but androgynous look was the one they preferred in their idols--smooth, hairless, lacking traditionally adult, masculine physical attributes and, by implication, sexually unthreatening. This is the age group most targeted by movie makers, advertisers and other cultural purveyors in general. Just as the out-of-control obsession with youth has robbed us of old-style movie glamour (as Joan Collins once said, there's no such thing as a glamorous child), so will Hollywood's sucking up to the youth market ensure that our leading heartthrobs have to be kept in a state of superannuated adolescence. Gable the King may remain on his throne, but his loyal attendants would seem to be getting thin on the ground.
2003-07-20 04:40 | User Profile
Okay.... personal expose ahead.
When I was a youngling, and Star Wars (the FIRST one) came out, I was torn between the two 'kinds' of men. There was the young, tragic, handsome, self-centered and (his own) feelings-centered, winsome, inexperienced, and earnest BOY, Luke (hairless chest and chin); and grown-up, sexual, sexy, sardonic, dangerous, very experienced, funny, ADULT MAN, Han. I think I was, like, 15 -- on the cusp of womanhood (okay, so back THEN, girls grew up more slowly! Hell, I even thought the Beatles were faithful to their wives!)
Up till about that point, about that age, I was mad for Paulie McCartney, Davey Jones, the eldest Partridge (Brady?) kid (geez, I can't even remember his NAME! Wasn't he David something too?), and other "men-lites": the boyish, charming, irresponsible and childish males. Harrison Ford (in his Han Solo persona/character -- I get the impression from what little I've seen of him outside the movies that he is rather boyish as a person) was the first man I remember finding attractive as a MAN. But he was and is one of the few -- MOST "men" in today's movies are boys, playacting at being men, and clearly failing!
Anyway... Just a note of despair about the state of media-supported men...
Oh p.s. George Clooney may LOOK the part, but he's clearly a boy not a man when you see his interviews and actions and so on. He's just not it!
2003-07-20 05:07 | User Profile
In direct counterpoint to the '30s, when so much of what was appealing was a matter of hidden allure and the strength of the imagination, much of the governing aesthetic in male heartthrobs today would seem to be directly related to, or heavily influenced by, pornography.
Hidden allure has always been it for me. I remember when I was in high school and sitting in class with some girls who were flipping through a mag and gushing over the male celebrities. I thought the male celebs looked vacuous. A pretty face without that "hidden allure" or "certain spark", as I called it, is boring.
2003-07-20 05:18 | User Profile
*Originally posted by il ragno@Jul 20 2003, 02:53 * ** In my interviews with countless fans, it became clear that for teenage girls, the boyish but androgynous look was the one they preferred in their idols--smooth, hairless, lacking traditionally adult, masculine physical attributes and, by implication, sexually unthreatening. **
The writer might not recognize this fact, but this all came about in the wake of the Beatles. It was marketing that brought all this on.
After the "British Invasion" took off from 1965 on, record companies discovered the keys to heaven: 12 year old girls were the main purchasers of record albums and 45 RPM singles. Singles were the clincher: In the mid-60s a single 45 RPM record went for around a dollar or slightly less. That was an astronomical mark up when you realize that teenagers could be hired to do real work then for fifty cents an hour. In 1964, the year the Beatles were on Ed Sullivan's old TV show, I was a helper to a boiler repair team. They paid me an astonishing seventy-five cents an hour and I was grateful for such generosity and worked like a little horse.
The "culture" in America did not change then. Marketing to kids changed then. It took a few years for that to seep in and old conservatives howled like grand aunts when they saw the result. By 1975 they were screaming about the "Queerification of America." But they're the ones who decided to treat pre-pubescent girls like nothing but consumers-in-training. Now they think they miss Clark Gable? Spare us all! They threw away both masculinity and femininity for filthy lucre and they're just ashamed for selling out so cheap.
2003-07-20 18:57 | User Profile
So you have the preference of straight men & mature women for masculine leading men in the Gable Mold vs. the wet panty fantasies of teen grrls (and the filthy Sodomites who're so often instrumental in making the hiring decisions) for Buff Hairless Prettyboys.
We can see who whose wishes win out in that little contest.....
:dung:
2003-07-22 06:00 | User Profile
The overt masculinity and magnetic presence which defined the great male stars of the silver screen was doomed by the onset of Televison.
The little screen demanded a more domesticated, less threatening male ideal for Middle America's living rooms.
2003-07-22 23:31 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Howard Campbell, Jr.@Jul 21 2003, 22:00 * ** The overt masculinity and magnetic presence which defined the great male stars of the silver screen was doomed by the onset of Televison.
The little screen demanded a more domesticated, less threatening male ideal for Middle America's living rooms. **
I thought it was the jews who demanded a less threatening White male in America's living rooms. You know, the kind of guy that the jews would want Whitey to emulate. The kind of guy who would never really stand his ground, never intentionally offend anyone. You know, the kind of guy that would let ... jews get away with wailing "poisecution" every time they were caught trying to pull a fast one, or let a pack of screaming boolies run wild through the streets. Do you think a population emulating Clark Gable or Gary Cooper would let things go as far as they have? No, malleable, asexual "womanites" like Phillipe or Affleck are the order of the day. Seriously, the trend in just who is picked as this week's leading man correlates directly with the increasing openess and arrogance of the gay jews in control of a large part of Hollywood. Take a look at one of the latest to be annointed: Colin Farrel. He's a runt, very sissy looking, and was "discovered" on stage by ... Kevin Spacey, not the most masculine of Hollywood's stars. Hmmm. Nah, I won't start the comments.
2003-07-23 00:27 | User Profile
*Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 22 2003, 16:15 * **
Isn't it odd that Jews present womanoids in every variety of media, and then go on to complain about the 'blandness' and 'sexual inadequacy' of 'White males'?
A good friend to the Jewish community might wish to tell them that they're working against their own best interests here.
Or not.
Wintermute **
The jews haven't exactly been known for their ability to really, really, thinks things out in terms of the (far reaching) eventual negative consequences of their actions, have they ;) ? You would think that they'd know better, but that boom or bust mentality, coupled with greed and hatred always ends up shooting them in the foot, and a few other places. As it will again.
2003-07-24 06:11 | User Profile
"I thought it was the jews who demanded a less threatening White male in America's living rooms. You know, the kind of guy that the jews would want Whitey to emulate. The kind of guy who would never really stand his ground, never intentionally offend anyone. You know, the kind of guy that would let ... jews get away with wailing "poisecution" every time they were caught trying to pull a fast one
Well, Roy, whoever that describes, it sure wasn't John Lennon. Right or wrong, he stood his ground, and often intentionally offended many. And according to two of his biographers, one being Albert Goldman and the other being a British writer whose name now escapes me, Lennon was an anti-Semite, who among other things liked to expose Lee Eastman's (Linda McCartney's father) Yiddish identity which he tried to hide behind a Gentile name.
2003-07-24 17:07 | User Profile
Generally I try not to get my sense of history from movies, but unfortunately none can deny their influence, most often for the bad, on the culture and mind-set of today's America.
The appeal of John Wayne's Sands of Iwo Jima to immature minds should appall anyone with anything near an adult mindset. Republican rabble-rouser Newt Gingrich has admitted to seeing the film four times in one day in 1953 when he was aged ten years. Manfully Mr. Newt confessed, "It was probably the most informative single film of my life". When the father of Mr. Gingrich was dying of cancer in 1972, his son visited and lectured him on not feeling sorry for himself.(1) John Wayne would have understood. [color=red]When ex-Marine William Manchester and a fellow veteran saw Sergeant Stryker on Iwo Jima, they laughed so hard they were asked to leave the theater. He cautioned those who liked the Sands of Iwo Jima that they should not tell it to the Marines.[/color] (Manchester was awarded the Navy Cross for bravery on either Okinawa or Iwo Jima.)
For an older generation Clark Gable once had the same attraction as John Wayne. When Patty Hearst was kidnapped, her mother who was from Atlanta complained bitterly that if a real man, like Mr. Gable, had been there, no one would have carried her off. Mrs. Hearst in her youth had been considered for the part of Scarlett O'Hara opposite Mr. Gable.(2) Mr. Gable had been a favorite of Daniel Ludwig, who once was a serious contender for richest man in America. Mr. Ludwig watched movies of Mr. Gable for entertainment. He fondly recalled Mr. Gable as "all man... he stood head and shoulders above those two-bit phonies in Hollywood today".(3)
(1) Newsweek, p30, Jan 9, 1995 (2) New York Post, p19, May 12, 1993 (3) NYT, p26, Aug 29, 1992** All the above is from my book. Very few Americans read, and those that do are outnumbered by those who do not. I suspect when serious and thoughtful books are considered worthwhile that movie viewers outnumber us some 3 to 5 to 1.