The Makeover in Film and Culture Dissertation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
BEFORE AND AFTER: THE MAKEOVER IN FILM AND CULTURE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Angela Clair Dancey, B.A., M.F.A. **** The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved By: Professor Linda Mizejewski, Adviser Professor Jared Gardner ________________________ Professor Judith Mayne Adviser Graduate Program in English ABSTRACT If the popularity of current reality television programs such as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and Extreme Makeover is any indication, our culture is currently obsessed with the ritualized physical transformation known as the makeover. My dissertation project examines this obsession as it appears in popular cinema. Films such as Pretty Woman (1990), Now, Voyager (1942) and Working Girl (1988) reveal, with particular clarity, the psychological and cultural assumptions that both create and sustain the makeover. My study of these films is guided by the following research questions: How and why is the makeover a source of pleasure for the viewer? Why are certain film actresses associated with the makeover? Why are makeovers almost always performed on white women? How is the makeover in film related to the makeover found in other cultural forms, such as magazines and television? The answers to these questions, I argue, carry far-reaching implications for our understanding of the social construction of identity, visual representation and consumerism. The introductory chapter of my dissertation establishes my theoretical position within current film studies, and discusses the diverse origins of the modern makeover—sources ranging from fairy tales and 19th century American literature to women’s magazines and 20th century beauty advertising. My argument here is that the makeover in consumer culture and the makeover in film engage in an endless cycle of ii creation and vicarious satisfaction of our collective desire for transformation. Unlike the makeover in television and women’s magazines where ‘ordinary’ people are improved through changes in their appearance, the makeover in film presents us with actresses who are essentially disguised, through costuming and cosmetic effects, as these same ordinary people—and not just ordinary, but unattractive or even ugly. When an actress playing the part of an unattractive woman receives a makeover, it becomes simply a reinstatement of her already recognized glamour and celebrity persona. Because of this, I argue, the makeover in film ultimately represents a contradictory ideology. While it asserts that with a little bit of make-up and the right haircut, anyone can be sexually competitive and climb the social ladder, the makeover simultaneously reinforces very strict ideals of physical beauty, as embodied by the female star. In other words, the makeover is egalitarian and at the same time elitist, presenting unrealistic standards of appearance somehow attainable by anyone. In the course of my research, I have discovered that certain female stars are strongly associated with the makeover in film. In chapter 2 I look at three actresses—Bette Davis, Audrey Hepburn and Julia Roberts—whose identities are inextricably linked with the theme of physical transformation. Using the work of Richard Dyer (Stars), Judith Mayne and Jackie Stacey, I argue that these female stars represent certain ideological conflicts that undergird the makeover itself. For example, Hepburn’s publicity emphasized her aristocratic European heritage and strong interest in couture fashion. At the same time, in films such as Roman Holiday (1953) and Sabrina (1954), she was marketed as a “woman’s star,” a feminine role model who was also sexually non- iii threatening. In this way, she was constructed as simultaneously elite and accessible, offering herself up to the viewer for both consumption and emulation. In Chapter 3, I discuss the makeover in terms of the re-engineering of the human body through technology. In order to do this, I provide close readings of two recent films, G.I. Jane (1997) and Miss Congeniality (2000), both of which contain makeovers performed by a larger patriarchal system (the U.S. military and FBI, respectively) on a female protagonist. In Miss Congeniality, the main character is almost scientifically feminized in order to complete an undercover assignment as a beauty pageant competitor; in contrast, her counterpart in G.I. Jane is systematically masculinized as part of her transformation into a lean, mean, combat machine. I want to show that as the body’s potential for refinement through technology increases, the body itself becomes a site of almost unlimited possibility for transformation. However, this malleability has distinct limits based on circulating standards of physical beauty and gender roles. In other words, these transformations still take place within the parameters of ‘correct’ femininity, ‘correct’ masculinity, ‘correct’ whiteness, ‘correct’ blackness, etc. The makeover in film, then, often labors strenuously to establish that the cultural ‘correctness’ of its transformed bodies remains intact, despite contrary visual information. For example, G.I. Jane utilizes heterosexist visual and narrative techniques to reassure us that Demi Moore remains a desirable straight woman after her makeover, despite the fact that she has shaved her head and stopped menstruating as a result of her punishing fitness regimen. Chapter 4 explores the makeover in film as a distinctly feminine discourse, in the sense that it functions as an apparatus defining correct femininity, but also as a undeniable source of narrative pleasure for the female viewer. The films on which I iv focus my analysis—Moonstruck (1987), The Mirror Has Two Faces (1996) and My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)—are typically classified as romantic comedies. Here I read them in terms of the woman’s film, a Hollywood genre first popularized during the 1930s and 1940s and recurring in various forms through the present. The woman’s film, both in its classical form and more contemporary variations, is defined primarily by its female address and concern with ‘women’s issues,’ including motherhood, marriage and home- making. As a condition of its production, the woman’s film reflects a largely regressive ideology and patriarchal value system; however, several feminist scholars have theorized that its narrative holds the potential for what has been termed reading “against the grain.” In other words, the woman’s film offers a space for temporary transgression, where women occupy the story’s center and exercise their own desires. The makeover in film participates in this fantasy by its representation as a tool for self-empowerment and autonomy. Thus, the makeover in film enjoys a special relationship with female desire and its fulfillment, although this relationship is still governed by strict cultural ideas about beauty, sexuality and appearance. In Chapter 5, I discuss the makeover as an apparatus of whiteness that defines and supports whiteness as a category of identity. In the film Working Girl (1988), Tess’ successful performance of class in the workplace is made obvious, while her performance as white is taken completely for granted. And while discrimination is addressed in terms of sex, there is absolutely no acknowledgement of the privilege Tess enjoys as a white woman. In contrast, the Jennifer Lopez vehicle Maid in Manhattan (2003) foregrounds representations of race and ethnicity only to erase their significance in favor of class distinction. The film’s self-conscious acknowledgement of ethnicity in the film does v little to actually address racial difference or challenge whiteness as a construct. Instead, the ethnicity of the main character serves mainly to fortify the existing class difference between her and the male love interest, to render this difference even more visible. My argument is that while Maid in Manhattan represents one of the few cinematic makeovers performed on a non-white woman, Marisa’s transformation actually serves to reinforce whiteness as a category, emphasizing the ability, in consumer culture, to purchase and perform whiteness. Finally, in my conclusion, I offer some possible explanations for the relative absence of male bodies within the makeover narrative in film. While television seems far more receptive to male makeovers, there are a miniscule number of masculine makeovers in film. A possible explanation for this disparity is the lack of narrative in makeover television; does the emphasis on technology over story on shows such as Extreme Makeover make masculine transformation possible? Another potential influence is the fundamental argument made by feminist theory that in visual representation, including narrative film, women are valued primarily for how they look, while men are valued for what they do. But even this observation does not fully explain the makeover’s preference for female bodies; clearly, more research is needed in the area of gender and the makeover in film. vi Dedicated to my family vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my adviser, Linda Mizejewski, for her unrelenting encouragement and inspiration. Thanks also to Judith Mayne, Jared Gardner and Ron Green for their input and guidance. Thanks to Debra Moddelmog and the staff of the English Graduate Program Office for their friendship, support and patience. Susan Williams and her Dissertation Seminar group contributed valuable insights and enthusiasm for my project; I thank Dana