Cross-Dressing in Soviet Cinema

CEU eTD Collection

“H In partialfulfilmentforthedegreeof C ELLO ROSS ,

I - AM DRESSING IN IN DRESSING Y OUR Supervisor: ProfessorJasmina Lukic Department ofGenderStudies Central EuropeanUniversity Olga Osinovskaya A Budapest, Hungary UNT S Submitted to T OVIET CINEMA ETYA 2007 !”

By

(Z Master ofArtsinGenderStudies. !) DRAVSTVUJTE :

T HE C ,

J ASE OF A V ASHA CEU eTD Collection cross-dressing asthemain topic. also compare movie, andaspotentiallysubversivetextwhenitcomes togenderissues.Ontheotherhand,I analyze thefilm withintheSovietcontextof the officialSovietdiscourse and whyitwaspop carnivalesque andheteroglossia,Itrytofind movies wherecross-dressingisthemain pl This SovietadaptationoftheplaybyBrandonThomas based onthecomedy Hello,IamYour (Zdravstvujte,JaVashaTetya!)(Titov, Aunt! 1975). This paperisdevotedtotheroleofcross-dr Abstract Hello, IamYourAunt!toseveralmainstream Hollywoodcomedies basedon

out if and how the film was subversive towards out ifandhowthefilm wassubversivetowards i the 1970s,lookingatit ot element. BasedonBakhtin’snotionsof ular withthe audience. essing intheSoviet cinema. Theanalysisis Charlie’s Aunt is oneoftheveryfew both asamainstream In ordertodothat,I CEU eTD Collection problems anddifficulties. family. Theirlove,care,support,confidenceandfaithinme helpme always toovercome any who youare. Jamal, justforbeing Tonya,Chris,Lovorka,Jeff,Tonyaand otherwonderful CEUpeople, breakfasts. Mythanksarealsoaddressedto took greatcareinmy andNina’sphysical believed inme andhelpedtopres Rozhanovskaya, Raimondas IbenskasandRazvan Manta,whoalwayssupportedme, Esztergom andback. final versionofmy thesis(oratleastpretende find outinformation absent their memories andknowledgeorimpressionofth patient enoughtocorrectallmy mistak letting me relax duringthesiswritingperiodandleave til find thenecessaryinformation inwhatIreadand great enthusiasm inmytopic(sometimes much The lastbutnottheleast,Iwouldbewh I cannotbut mention LevanBaratashvili, w I couldnothavewritten my workwithouta I am gratefultoAlexanderRomanov andI I amverythankfultoallpeopleinBudape I alsowanttothankAndrea readpiecesIsenttoher,was Kirchknopf whocarefully First, Iwanttoexpressgrat Acknowledgements from booksandarticles. itude tomysupervisorJasmin erve sanityofmind andgoodmood. es andfounditfuntoreadmy thesis.

George, Ioana,Yana,Li d doingit)formorethan ii bigger thanmyown)andmanaged tohelpme on Miscisinwhotookpainstoproof-readthe condition by providing uswithsubstantial at I am nowandwhere at Iam st andbackhomeinRussiawhobysharing ho wasnotonlyalwaysreadytohelp, but knew. I am also very grateful to her for not alsoverygratefultoherfornot knew. Iam ll myfriendsinCEUandespeciallyNina e Sovietsocietyofthe1970shelpedme to a Lukic,whoalwaysshowed l thelastmoment. uba, Timur, Yura,Iryna, 2hoursonthetrainto I amnowwithoutmy CEU eTD Collection Bibliography Conclusion cross-dressing Chapter 3. Chapter 2 Chapter 1.Cross-dressing ascarnival. Theoreticalframework Introduction Conclusion Cross-dressing andgenderbending ...... 36 Cross-dressing ascarnival H Conclusion Dress code Sexuality and the“SovietPerson”of1970s Masculinity inthedi Femininity intheofficialSovietdiscourse Soviet cinema ofthe1970s The periodofStagnation Conclusion Bakhtin’s ideasonCarnival Cross-dressing asperformance...... 10 Sex/gender distinction Definitions. Cross-dressingversustransvestism ello, IamYourAunt! Table ofContents:

Hello, Iamyouraunt!andtheSovietlifecinema inthe1970s Hello, Iamyouraunt! ...... 47 ...... 47 ...... 1 ...... 26 ...... 26 ...... 51 ...... 51 ...... 45 ...... 26 ...... 15 ...... 28 ...... 28 scourse ofthe1970s ...... 6 ...... 6 asaSovietcostume film ...... 16 ...... 16 ...... 18 ...... 18 esque andHeteroglossia incomparison tomainstream American comedies basedon ...... 42 ...... 42 ...... 24 ...... 24 ...... 21 ...... 21 iii ...... 25 ...... 25 ...... 4 ...... 4 ...... 29 ...... 29 ...... 12 ...... 12 ...... 4 ...... 4 ...... 16 ...... 16 CEU eTD Collection :1). :1). 1993 (Garber rule” the that prove exceptions the kilts, men – and harem of bloomers garb traditional the pants and women of garb traditional arethe ”skirts otherwise, suggest might of logic anatomy the “Although 1988: 1 more recentexamples ofcomplex treatment oftheprobleminfilms like cross-dressing isbytheruleused Merchant ofVenice dressing forhiding,thatissome practicalpurpose.Similar isth times anduptoourcentury. Oneearlyexample whoused cross- canbethemythofHercules, clothes. Thisdistinctionis our decisionongenderstilldependstoahigh and thedistinctions betweengendersin the epigraph, wecansaythatgenderus cultural levelandinsome casesevenpersona one oftheprimary elements uponwhichjudge Introduction associated with them isnotsomething prescr shows thatclothescaneasilybeexchanged, dressing, wearingclothesofthe Forexample, Garberusesas an epigraph to her boo Cross-dressing asanelement hasbeen ofplot Regardless thefactthat nowadaysdress codes Clothes areusuallythefirstthingweseeabout or Violain usuallyoratleastwaspe

The TwelfthNight sex oppositetoyour‘natural’one, toproducelaughter.Finally,we ed tobeascribedalsoaccordi distinction youmake is“m k anabstractfrom Boston

ibed andfixed,consistentunalterable. prevailing dress codes arestrongly undermined, 1 l qualities.So, following Freud’swords inthe degree on the division into male and female degree onthedivisionintomale andfemale , butitisnotusualcaseforcomedies, where are accustomed tomake thedistinction with and implies thatgender identity closely ments made were onone’ssocialstatus, widelyusedinarts,startingfromancient aperson,andtraditiona are much more liberalthen itusedto be, When youmeet ahuman being,thefirst rceived assomething natural ng toappearanceandclothes. shouldatleastmention here GlobeMagazine of August, breaks this‘naturalness’.It (cited inGarber,1993:1) ale or female?” andyou ale orfemale?” unhesitating certainty. e caseofPortiain Freud, “Femininity” lly theyusedtobe Boys Don’tCry 1 . Cross-

CEU eTD Collection are onlyafewworksofartthat definitions of cross-dressing andtransvestism th theoretical framework fortheanalysis of the reading ofthechosenfilm. I amapplyinggendertheoriesinmyanalysis as thebasis fortheanalysis. I why theanalysedfilmwasso 1970s, toexamine topicwastreatedinth howthe complex relationsbetween andthedominant thetopicofcross-dressing Sovietcultureof (Peirce 1999)or the Sovietlife. discourse anddominant ideology.The aim ofthe the analysedfilm, whatlaughterwasaimed atin decades. Otherquestions Iwanttoanswerin fact indicatesthat mentioned only inthebookwithmostfamous absent fromtheworksonhistoryofSovietfilm industry. plot element ismale impersonation ofawoma very fewSovietfilms employingcross-dressing Charlie’s Aunt Your Aunt! This workconsistsof3chapters,introduc In theworkIseecross-dressingasaperforma Hence, inthisworkIintendtoraiseanumber The followingworkisfocusedonthe analys (Zdravstvujte,JaVashaTe (1882)byBrandonThomas. Thiscomedy wa Transamerica it wasapopularfilm. make useofhisnotionsthe (Tucker2005).However,inthe use thistopic,andbytherule popular,oneofthemost fa tya!) (Titov1975)Itisam

2 my workishowfarcross-dressing isgoingin oftheSovietcontextandIproposeaclose film isestablished.InitIwillgiveworking , andtheonlywellknow onewherethemain n. Additionally,cross-dressingiscompletely is oftherolecross-dressingin at willbeusedinthework, present various e chosenfilm,andsearchforanexplanation phrasesfrom popularSovietfilms. Thelast it,ifandhowitwas tion andconclusion.Inthefirstchapter work istorevealdeeplygenderaspectsof of relatedquestions.I nce. ThatiswhyBakhtin’stheory used carnival andheteroglossia.Also, s chosenbecauseit with anaim toproducelaughter. vourite eccentriccomedies for Soviet culturalheritagethere Hello,IamYourAunt! ovie adaptationoftheplay subversive toofficial want tolookintothe isoneofthe Hello, Iam is CEU eTD Collection cross-dressing andBakhtin’stheory contrasting thebiologicalsexor views onsex/genderdistinction, investigation intothequesti of release( also because theyareverycloseeither incarnivalesquenature ( because theywerenamed among thebestAmeri (Wilder 1959)and mainstream Hollywoodcomedies withthesame main plotelement. Forthis, second partIwillpaymoreattentiontocross- the film; seeinwhatwaythecharactersarepresented andwhattheaim ofcarnivalis.Inthe costume comedy andasapartoftheSovietlif social discourses, whatdress- also payattentiontohowSovi those times. Asimages ofmasculinity andfemini in 1975).Specialattention willbepaidtodesc to dothisIwillpresent socials The analysisofthefilmispresentedinth The secondchapterwillhelptoputthefilm Tootsie) totheSovietfilm. Thelastpart Tootsie (Pollack1982)weremainly use on howfarcross-dressingisgo code existedatthediscussedmoment andhow strictitwas. ituation intheSovietUnion et Woman and SovietManwerepresented intheofficial and bodyandsocialgenderorclot ascross-dressingassumes cleardifferentiationandeven willbediscussed further one.

3 ribing whatmainstream e ofthe1970s.Iwillgive dressing intheSovietfilm incomparison to into thecontextitwasproducedin.Inorder can comedies ofthetwentiethcentury,but nity lieatthecoreofcross-dressing,Iwill ird chapter.FirstitisstudiedasaSoviet of thethirdchapter isdevoted to ing inthediscussed films. d. Thesetwowerechosennotonly the 1970s(thefilm wasreleased Some LikeItHot hes. Performative natureof film productionwasat the detailedplotof Some LikeItHot ) orthedate

CEU eTD Collection notice theactualsexof thepe transvestism ordrag,andanalysescross- comment: “whatappearsnatural,then,reveal socially constructednatureofsexualdiffe of performanceinwhich–throughplayon thought ofasaperformance. Ther various approachesindefiningthesenotions. Definitions. Cross-dressingversustransvestism reaction toitis,andwherethepleasurecomes from. cross-dressing, thatis,whyandwh in my analysis.Iwillpresentthemain Bakhtin why Bakhtin’stheoryonthecarnivalesqueand framework Chapter 1.Cross-dressingascarnival.Theoretical or betweensexandgender.ThatiswhyIpresen that thereisaclear On theveryfirstandmost obviouslevelofan framework forfutureanalysis ofthefilm. Firstly Buchbinder seesdragas aterm usedforcr Analysing variousauthorswhowriteoncross- In my workIseecross-dressingasaperforma As itisseen from thetitleof thischapter distinction andwell-definedboundary between the‘real’bodyandclothes, rson throughthesigns, gestur e isalwayssome gaporruptur ere itisusedinculture,movi dressing onthecultur

rence isforegroundeda Annette Kuhndefinescros alysis cross-dressingisbasedontheassumption 4 a distinctionbetweenclothesandbody–the t differentpointofviewonthisdichotomy. ideasafterlookinginto oss-dressing ingaycultureandtheybothare the heteroglossia areone ofthekey concepts s itselfasartifice”.Shedoesnotaddress , Iwilllookintothenature ofcross-dressing. it is devotedto establishing the theoretical dressing, transvestism anddragthereare nce, asamasquerade. Thisisthereason al level(Kuhn1985:48). e thatallowstheaudienceto es, plays,whattheaudience es andbehaviour.As any nd evensubjectedto s-dressing asa“mode performative sideof CEU eTD Collection can changeoreveninfluence‘cor ‘real’ sexofthecross-dresser andrejectstheidea thatboth transvestism andcross-dressing claim thatwomen cross-dress order togetsexualpleasure.Hedeniesthepos transvestism. Firstofall,hedefinestransves mutability (Garber1993:2-10). binary opposition male/female. Cross-dressing, suggests aviewonthecross-dresse performance inagaycontext(Bruzzi1997:85). psychological conditions.Dragisalsonarrowedinherworktocross-dressingasatheatrical biology foratransvestiteisnot the caseoftransvestism. Transsexua cross-dressing and drag, becausethereisnodesi performance, itendsinrevealingtheperson’s second partofthischapter,whileChapterTwoisdevotedtothedescripti state ideology. Amore detailed analysis ofthe comes veryclose totheSovietsituationwherestablesexandgenderroleswerebasisof distinction betweenbiologicalsexandculturalgender, natureandnurture.Thisview opposition to‘performed’ one.Inother words, he Stroller presentsquitecontraryviewonth Garber usestransvestism andcross-dressi Stella Bruzzi claims thatcross-dressing It shouldbenotedthatBuchbindertalksabout mandatory (Buchbinder 1994:48-55). only forsocio-economic reas e genderidentity’(Bruzzi1997:85-87). r asbelongingtothe“thirdsex/term”, whichisoutofthe lism isatypeoftransvestism

tism asafetishisticcros 5 biological sex.Heopposes sex/gender distinction willbepresented in the ng assynonyms, interchangeableterms. She is madenecessary byasetofsocialand sibility of female transvestism, basedonthe e differentiationbetweencross-dressingand re fortheimpersonation tobediscovered in thus, isastateofpermanent mobility and stands on thegrounds thatthereisaclear ‘real’ or‘true’sexof ons. Secondly, he stresses the ons. Secondly,hestressesthe , butthedesiretochange s-dressing, performed in s-dressing, performed in on ofSovietcontext. transvestismtoboth theperformer an as CEU eTD Collection society, orovertime (Delphy2002:51-53;Stanley2002:31-36). are causedbysexualones, thoughtheymay vary in itsturn,isbuiltupon sexintheprocessofsocialization, up-bringing. Gender distinctions and women, male andfemale, that Sex/gender distinction nature, and‘doesnot consider itmustvary,butthecontainer isconsid now seegenderasthecontentwi Christine Delphy putsit,itis“asocialdi used tobeseenas‘natural’. Genderwasandstill cultural ones(eg.genderroles,stereotypes,job hormones, thebodilyorganization,physiology, distinction. Otherpartswillbedevote problems relatedtothefirsttypeofargu performance, acting,carnival(Kuhn1985:53).In sexual differencesaresocialconstructs.Onth discourses. Ontheonehand,cross-dressingisoftenseenasa sex inordertogetpleasure. reasons, whiletransvestism willbedefinedas dressing willbeseenasimpersonating the “for success”asGarber Thus, itisassumed thatsexcomes first; itisbiologically determined andnatural. Gender, The dichotomysexversusgenderwas firsto Anne Kuhnnoticesthatasas In thispaperduetothefactthatinan (1993)callsit,thewo change’”(Delphy2002:52). ource ofculturalmeanings cro arebiological,inherent,and th sexasthecontainer.Th d tothe secondtypeofclaims. chotomy determined byanaturaldichotomy. We ments bysummarizingtheviewsonsex/gender

person oftheoppositesexforsocio-economical alysed films impersonation oftheoppositesexis dressing andactingasamember oftheopposite 6 rking definitionswill e other hand, cross-dressing is analysed as a e otherhand,cross-dressingisanalysedasa isveryoftenthoughtofinterms ofsex,oras segregation, etc)whic ffered toindicatedifferencesbetweenmen ered tobe invariable, becauseitispartof etc), andseparatethemfrom socialand this partofthechapterIwilldiscus from toculture,from culture societyto e contentmay vary,andsome sign thatgenderidentitiesand cannot bechanged(eg.organs, ss-dressing hastwodominant be thefollowing:cross- h areconstructed,but CEU eTD Collection those whoaredominants andthosewho aredominated” (Delphy2002:53). like anillusion. social world;thepolarityofmale andfemale is 2002:31-41). Inotherwords,ourbiologymakes lessdistinctionbetweenthesexesthanour lately. AnnOakleyproves thattheyareprodu biological invocationsstillkeeponastheyar cytologists provegender,andpsychologicalsex to simply marks asocialdivision,( allows ChristineDelphy toclaim thatgender precedes sexandnotvice versa,“sexitself between thesexes,arenotso discovered thatcellularandhormonal differences and doubtful,especiallyfacilitatedbythede come torealizethat the male/female dichotomy isnotthatabsolute,but rather problematic More tothepoint,asStanleyorKaplanandRoge between ‘maleness’ and ‘femaleness’, ‘masculi masculinity orfemale andfemininity. and genderondestroyingconnectionwhichis 1993:9). Inotherwords,cross-dressingisseen easily explainedbyitsstatus constructing whatisittobeaman or The naturalness of male andfemale sexuality andsexdrive are also putinto question Liz Stanleydistinguishesbetweenbiological sex dichotomyAs aresult,thenaturalnessofsexand highlyquestionedand becomes However, inanyknownmammalian speciesther As Garbernotes,thegreat interest in cross-dressing byliterary andcultural critics can be clearlydifferentiated(Kapla as “signofconstructednessgendercategories”(Garber ..) itservestoallowsocial awoman insociety(Stanley2002:31-41).

7 e rootedinarational asbasedoncleardiffe nity’ and‘femininity’ as withhuman beings. cts ofcultureratherthan natureanddepend asocial construct; this velopment ofgenesst rs note,recentlynatura bematters ofup-brin sex andtheofup-bringing,notingthat , whichwerethoughttobeverydistinct perceivedasnaturalbetweenmale and e isnosuchclearandstrongdistinction n andRogers1990: recognition andidentificationof way ofinterpretingand rentiation between sex ing. Accordingtoher, dichotomy isalmost l scientists,biologists udies. Itwasalso 226-28; Stanley CEU eTD Collection experience and thatthesocial determination of identity isoperating onthe level of the ideas. follows from thisthatbychangingculture it as atabularasa the assumed neutralityofthebodyandprim enable theclaim of equalityindependent of sex. accounts of theconstructionofsubjectivity.Th the ignoringofsexualdiffere (Threadgold 1990:30). through whichtheyarealternatelyconstructed, reified,de-constructedandtransformed’ separable from thediscursive,se body are‘centraltopolit of bodyisputintoquestion.Te biologicaloriginofdi opposition andthus,ofthe and customs, whichdifferdrasticallyfrom countryto(Oakley1996:35-49). mostly onup-bringing,theexistingpowerrela by gender’(Jackson1996:175-176). heterosexual andlesbiancouldnotexistwithoutour hetero andhomosexualities arealsoproducts exploitative relationship betweenthem’. Itfollows biologically, naturallygivenen in inequalities. According tomaterialis Mora Gatensinhercritiqueofthesex/gender As aresultoftheproblematization of As anadditiontothis,Stevi Jackson claims onwhichmasculine andfemininebehaviou ical, socialandhistoricalquestio nces andtheforegroundingofclass,discoursepowerin rry Threadgoldstressesthat tities, butsocialgroups‘definedbythehierarchicaland miotic andrepresentational practicesandprocesses inand t radicalfeminism, me

8 acy ofconsciousness.Thus,thebodyisseen thatgenderand sexualcategories arerooted sex/gender dichotomy asanature/culture e sex/genderdichotomy wasconstructedto As aresult, itisbased on theassumption of oftheseclassrelations,‘thecategories is possible tochangetheeffects oflived vision into male andfemale, thenaturalness tions anddiscourses,onculturaltraditions distinction argues that it is responsible for distinction arguesthatitisresponsiblefor from this,that sexual categories suchas beingabletodefineourselvesandothers r isinscribedasconsciousness.It ns and none of these things is ns andnoneofthesethingsis sexual differenceandthesexed n andwomen arenot CEU eTD Collection social meaning andvalueconstitu bodily functions inagivenculture. Thesignificance islearned anddevelopedinamilieu of of thebiologicalbodyforhuman beings,itssignif construction ofthemale andfemale bodyinare masculinity andthefemale bodyandfemininity arise different reactions performs them. Inother words,thesame be perceived by theaudience, bythesociety diffe social significances whenactedbymale However, Gatensshowsthatmasculine andfeminine behaviourhasdifferentpersonaland 1985:50-51). Althoughmore attentioninthefollowing from thetiesofsexualdifferencethat binds “a worldoutsidetheordernormally seenorth least forashortperiodoftime, pleasure ofthemost popularfilms ofsexualdisguisemight liein 1985:51). Atthesame time itisarguabletowhat the culturally takenfor granteddualitiesof male\female andmasculine/feminine” (Kuhn the waysinwhichgenderissoci gender. AsAnneKuhnsays:“the femininity astheculturalcontentsgiven tosexualdifference(Lauretis1987). (Gatens 1983:3-20).TheresadeLauretisdoes To sum up,storiesemploying cross-dressing Thus, whatistakenasabiol Gatens insiststhatthereisanon-arbit It follows from thelast claim thatthe , havedifferentsocial a vision offluiditygenderop a vision ally constructed: itmay evensubject toacertain interrogation narrativizationof ogical givenisalreadyacultu tes theimaginary body(Gatens1983:3-20). and female subjects(Gatens1983:3-20).

haviour byaman orawoman,thesameclothes andpersonalvalue. rary relationshipbetweenthemale bodyand 9 rently, dependingonthesexofpersonwho same actions, gestures,mannerisms willbe almost thesame bydefiningmasculinity and usintomeaning,discourse, culture(Kuhn ought about”–autopianprospectofrelease icance aslivedvaries and gender categories correspond to the andgendercategoriescorrespondtothe such themes mayprovokequestionsabout lation ofsocialandhi pivot aroundmistaken extentthisstrategyissubversive.The analysis ofthefilm ral construction.Themeaning tions; toprovideaglimpse of their capacity to offer, at a lotwithideasabout storical specificity will bepaidtothe identifications of CEU eTD Collection 2 dressing causesinpeople removed, the‘true’sexisrevealedandbeco its challenge totheofficialdiscourseisalso that thedifferenceisafter affirms that“thebodybeneaththeclothesisind 1982), appearance andinward, ‘i individual” (Bruzzi1997:84). clothes areneveronlyclothes, Cross-dressing asperformance between naturalorbiologicalandcultural. performative sideofcross-dressi and metaphorically beneat signified bydressiscontrasted tothe‘true’ time andculture, theyareseenasstable,‘natural’,consistentbypeople colours associatedwiththisorthatgender(e of thewearer’siden gender ofthewearer,itservesas“anoutwardmarkdifference’ 3). the 20 the several articles on historical changes in clothing and colours. The most striking fact was that in the beginning of Marjorie Garber writes about great surprise from thesi Buchbinder addstothisthatcross-dressingin As Kuhnclaims innarrativesofsexualdisguise,likethewell-known In theperformance aspectofclothing,ther Cross-dressing bydefinitioni th century pink wasboys’colour, and dresses wereusualclothes forinfant and boys girls (Garber 1993:1- Some LikeitHot tity” (Kuhn1985:53).Althoughgender (Wilder 1959), isneverlong-la all absolute”(Kuhn1985:72-73). h theclothes(Kuhn1985:53-54). nvisible’ essence,whichisheld

“they arehowthesocialworld ‘reads’andcontextualisesthe ng, Iwillalso try tosee whet nvolves clothing,whichiscl sting, asaftersome confusion,amazement, angeror Mrs. Doubtfire gender oftheperson,whichisconcealedliterally

short-term, because whenthe‘wrong’clothesare g. pinkforgirlsandblueboys),changeover 10 mes unquestionable.The de of New York Times’ read Times’ York New of de eed theultimate siteofsexualdifference,and e isaclearplaybetweenvisibleoutward suchfilmstemporary, and,thus, isalways (Columbus 1993),cinemastrongly to bemore real.Thus,genderas codes of dressing, forexample codes ofdressing, her thereisaclearcontrast , as‘afundamental attribute osely associatedwiththe ers, when there appeared confusion thatcross- 2 . As Bruzzi states, . AsBruzzi Tootsie (Pollack CEU eTD Collection not denaturalize sexualdifference” (Kuhn1985:63). they areputinbythenarrative.ItallowsK amounts ofcolouredeye-shadowand foundation, conspicuously ‘feminine’ accessories, bitsand She notesthatrepresentationsofmen passingaswomenveryoftenassume themost characters. Thus,oneofthepleasuresforth thrillers isthatinthem narration ensures that generic conventions,thustheyreproduceand in some waywithinthe narrative, butalso come closeeithertoathrillerorcomedy. In enough inthecourseofaction,th want toearnmoney, forexample, tohelpafrie ‘pardoned’, theremust besomething nobleinthereasons:personshouldberealneedor happiness, threatentheirlifeorfreedom. At the desiretoovercome some socialrulesan of thestory(Kuhn1985:57-58).Theusual‘excus that across-dresser isa performer byprofession, andperformance constitutes the main theme disguise inthecourseof theaction,itaffectsth have some reasons, beexplained 1994:54). contempt, thereisareturntopreviousassumptionsaboutsexandgender(Buchbinder Young paysattentiontoonemore featureof In theirattitudetowardscross-dressing,oneofthemain differencesofcomedies from That iswhy,asKuhnstates,most cross-dressingbelongor narrativefilms employing Kuhn alsonoticesthat,inmost narrativesemploying cross-dressing, and justified withinthestory. e cross-dresserismarked as uhn to notethatinthisconnection,comedyuhn to “does

bothgenrescross-dressingisnotonlyexplained reconstruct theseconventions”(Kuhn1985:59). 11 e audiencecomes from the spectatorisalwaysawareofthesex “cultural references work withinthe specific d regulationsthathindercharacters’wayto e storyandsetsitintomotion. Itisveryusual the same time, forsexualdisguisetobe es’ forcross-dressingareeconomic reasons; pieces likefalse,long eye-lashes, heavy nd. Ifcross-dressing theperfomative natureofcross-dressing. over–elaborate hairstyle andothers.These a pervert,criminal orboth. If thecharactertakesonsexual the ‘knowing’position is not justified well- this disguiseshould CEU eTD Collection following filmanalysis. free from conventionalrulesandrestrictions (Stam 1989). carnivalesque principle abolishes hierarchies, levelssocialcla very pleasuresofcarnivalwereatthesame it wasatheoryoftime andhi things atonce.Itwasfestivepleasure,thewo masks andmonstersfeastsgames a authority andparodiedofficialid modern Europeinvolvedflourishingtraditions structure. Bakhtinmade contemporary theory when thethemes carnival twist,mutate ofthe meaning intheHighMiddleAges.Hedescribesth Saturnalia inAncientRome. Carnivalreache language (Zappen 2000). expression ofuniversalfreedom side, andamodeoflanguagewh book “RabelaisandHisWorld”, whereheunderst a specificliteraryform” (Zappen2000).Bakhtinde Bakhtin’s ideasonCarnivalesqueandHeteroglossia comes close tocarnival.That hyperbolization ofstereotypicalf words, cross-dressing,especiallyincomedies, isus excessively ‘feminine’ externalsignifiersta Bakhtin tracescarnival backtotheDionys According toZappen,carnivalis“bothagene story anddestiny;itwasut iswhy,Bakhtin’stheoryon eas ofsociety,histor eatures ofthisorthatsexa ich standsinopposition totheo from officialnorms andvaluesbothinsociety ke onaparodicrole

rld turnedupsidedown,destructionandcreation; nd dramas andprocessions,carnivalwas many 12 d itssummit ofbothobservanceandsymbolic time philosophicalmodes.time Inotherwords,the aware ofhowmuch popularcultureinearly , andinvertstandardthemes ofsociety’s ofcarnivalesquethatmocked in those ian festivitiesinAncientGreeceand the e carnivalesque assomethingthat iscreated ral senseoftheworldandlanguage ands carnivalasawayoflifeontheone velops the concept of carnivalesque in his velops theconceptofcarnivalesqueinhis y, destiny,fate,as opia, cosmology, andphilosophy.The ually basedonexaggeration, nd inthisregardcross-dressing sses, and createsanother life carnival isthebasisof (Young1995:276).Inother fficial discourse. Itisan unalterable. With its CEU eTD Collection especially oneswithCharlie Chaplin,Buston KeatonorHaroldLloyd(Horton 1993:9-10). filmmakers wereinfluenced byvaudevilleand in asatiricveinhasexisted language. IntheSovietcontext, footlights' whicherasestheboundariesbetwee Besidesthecarniv common people. obscene, thenonsensical,and'marketplace speech' and ambivalence. Incarnivalthere isalsoal the lowerbodily stratum; thetoposofcarniva sex roles;acorporealsemiotic bisexuality andthepracticeoftransvestitism as a releasefromtheburdenofsociallyimposed (Bakhtin 1992). categories adifferentandcont straightforward genres,languages, common purpose:toprovidethecorrective special extra-genericorinter-genericworld.Bu Novelistic Discourse carnival respectively is toworkasacorrective. Ashewrites in parodying theexistingstatusquoischallenged.Thus, themain functionofthelaughterand which areexaggerated,reducedtoatype.Bakh is mimicking, parodyinganother,travestying.The another’s language,directdiscours As Iworkwithacomedy,carnivalisrealis Bakhtin states thatthe aim of subverting The main concepts ofthe carniva “All thesediverse parodic-travestying forms constituted,asitwere,a in differentforms sincethe19 celebratingthegrotesque,excessi as AndrewHortonwrites,thecarnivalesqueorjoyful laughter radictory realitythatisot e. Oneofthemain waysofridiculing(butnottheonlyone) styles,voices;toforceme al isseenasparticipator l are thevalorization of Eros ways aperspectiveonlanguagethatvalorisesthe

13 n spectatorandperformer (Stam 1993:116-145). l as"gayrelativity"andJanus-faceambiguity comedia dell’arte,American silentcomedies, official discourse is of laughterandcriticism toallexisting tin thinksthatbythisridiculing,satirizing, t thisworld wasunified, first of all, bya satire isbasedonplayingwithstereotypes, ed as both a way of life andamodeed asbothawayoflife of as expressiveofthelinguisticcreativity 20s. YoungSovietrevolutionary herwise not capturedinthem” y spectacle,a'pageant without n toexperiencebeneaththese ve bodyandthe'orifices' of and lifeforce;thenotionof From thePrehistoryof achievedbyridiculing CEU eTD Collection predominantly auraltheoryofcommunication, theory andespeciallyfilm analysis. AsPear is lefttowonderwhoexactlyspeaki one sextospeakingliketheothersex.Sometimes this move isnotthatclearand theaudience sexual disguise,across-dresser happens insome waysubconsciously,nospecialintention,effortisneeded.Inconnectionto is “predetermined andnotathoughtprocess” language toanother,orratheronestyleanothercanhappenw different languages,dependingonthesituati 1984; MorsonandEmerson 1990). for everyword is inextricably bound tothecont evaluation, andideologicalpositioning.Inthiswaymost languagesareincapableofneutrality, that areextralinguistic,commonto other conditions.Inwords,theterm heter set ofconditionsforawordinanutteranceto primacy ofcontextoveranytext condition which governstheoperationofmeaning Any utterance takes shapeinanenvironment of discursive stratawithinala manifests itself(Holquist2002).Heteroglos main ordominating) aretwo specificwaysin consciousnesses innovelamong whichtheauthorialpoi Robert Stamreachedprominent resultsin I think, itis important to mention that onean According toMichaelHolquist,carnival nguage, itconcernsthediversity is constantlymoving from speak , because atany given time, andgiven place, there willbe a alllanguages.Theseincludequalitiessuchas ng atthemoment –aman orawoman.

14 haveameaning, whichwillbedifferentinany ization aswellpolyphony(many voicesor ce putsit“despitethe fact thatBakhtin’sis whichtheprimary conditionofheteroglossia sia isthedifferencebetweenvarious on andtheinterlocutor.Changefrom one (Bakhtin 1992).Inotherwords,thischange oglossia referstothe and film ispredominantly avisual medium, dialogized heteroglossia.Thusitisthemain appropriating Bakhtinianconceptsforfilm d the same person orcharacter isable to use ext inwhich itexists (Clark and Holquist in anyutterance.Italsoinsuresthe nt ofviewisonly of speechstylesinalanguage. ithin oneutterance,thismove ing ‘like’ arepresentative of qualities ofalanguage one ofthem,notthe perspective, CEU eTD Collection reasons, transvestism isforpl of sexualdisguise.Ifcross-dr the difference between them, inthispaperthema Conclusion World” countriesinworldcinema, definesso the nonverbalelements, exploretherepresentati his bookSubversivePleasure heavily dominatedbystructura there ismuch in thedialogicmodel hathasproven Chapter 3 of the present work. what isunder theclothes. Iwillanalyse this for theaudiencecomes from thefact,thattheyal dressing tobejustified.Ifthereisnone,cross-dr ‘closedness’ or‘openness’oftheplot.Inmost in comedies, thispotentialsubversivenessis potentially liberating,breachofcodesanddiscourses ofgender(Buchbinder1994).However, and amode oflanguageopposedtoofficial be regardedascarnivalesqueinnature.Based sex/gender categoriesand textual (Pearce1994). It resultsincrossingdisciplines heteroglossia, itisunderstoodbroader thanthesocialdiversity ofspeechtypesinfilmtheory. critique, basingthem ondifferentaspects Two main discourses intersect To sum up,althoughtherearedifferentview its performative nature.Manyauthorsagree thatcross-dressing can renegotiates text-spectator relati easure (sexual,psychological). essing is seen as personification only for socialoreconomic essing isseenaspersonificationonlyfor list theory”(Pearce andintegratingthevisualwithverbal,spoken in discussionsofcross-dres

usuallynotfullyrea 15 of Bakhtin’sdialogics(Stam 1989).Asfor films, thereshouldbeaclearreasonforcross- on Bakhtin’sviewofcarnivalasawaylife, closely in connection to the discussed film in closely inconnectionto thediscussedfilm in discourse, Buchbinderseescross-dressingas essing islabelledassic on ofethnicvoicesand ways knowthe‘real’sexofcharacter,or me main strategies in feature thatdistinguishes them istheaim liberatory toan area of textualanalysis still 1994). Theaforementioned RobertStam in s oncross-dressingandtransvestism, and ons, exploresthesignificanceof sing –theconstructednessof lised, thoughitdependson in postmodernist film k. Oneofthepleasures “developing”, “Third .

CEU eTD Collection economic, cultural and personal. It followeda personal.It cultural and economic, atime of stagnation, known as ofStagnation The period ones. theprevious to ofthisperiodincomparison representation areinthe women was,asrepresentedintheofficialdiscourse,whatdifferences of Sovietcinema mainstream the belong to ch Inthis dress codes. playing withimagesoffemini the 1970s,butalsopayattentiontosocial only not see to isimportant It appeared. film isusedat wherecross-dressing five film than twoorthreeSoviet and films knowledgeofproduced acquaintances’ hadtore I industry, film history ofSoviet oranyworkonthe inanyencyclopaedia mentioned cinemanot is Soviet dressing in to apublicaudienceinth main Amongthes plotelement. dressing isthe cinema inthe1970s Chapter 2 The two decades when Leonid Brezhnev ru Brezhnev whenLeonid decades The two The mainaim of thischapte belongs comedy The analysed Hello, Iamyouraunt apter, I will find out what features make features findoutwhat apter, Iwill e Soviet Union where amanim Unionwhere e Soviet s where the whole plot is built on cross-dressing (aboutfour- oncross-dressing plotisbuilt thewhole s where nity and masculinity, gender gender nity andmasculinity, which had its impact on all sphe onall impact hadits which r is to find out inwhatso out tofind r is least for some period of time). periodoftime). least forsome to theveryfewwell-known

16 the 1970s and whattheimage 1970sand ofmen the and whatthemainstream context, because cross-dressing is built on context, becausecross-dressingisbuilton ly onmyown, ly e it is the only film allowed to be broadcast tobebroadcast allowed e itistheonlyfilm ! andtheSovietlife rather short period of the so-called Thaw Thaw rather shortperiodofthe so-called we allwereableto ion (1964-1982) are Union(1964-1982)are theSoviet led personates a woman. As cross- awoman.As personates roles and gender stereotypes, stereotypes, roles andgender cial and cultural context the contextthe cial andcultural my friends’, family’s and and family’s myfriends’, res oflife of Soviet society: Soviet films wherecross- Soviet films Hello, I am your aunt! aunt! Iamyour Hello, cinema lookedlikein remember not more more not remember CEU eTD Collection Thaw. What is more importan acceptable forgeneralaudienceaccess weretightened the sametime, lives. Atthe liberalization. critique wasallowed.Nevertheless,incomparis mentioned thattheliberation it shouldbe criticize thesociety,toshowapi in literature,music,ci SovietUni onthe placed hehad repressions 1956,Khrushch in Congress andtheemergenceofliberalm censorship charac –early1960s),whichwas (late 1950s err on the side of caution. It was a time wh time a Itwas ofcaution. side err onthe 1993:148-149). and Shlapentokh andplayedbythestaterules,but conformists addthat,forexample, Dmitry andVladimir system; attacked inprivate,theyeither ‘Inpublictheysupportedthe to idealizeSovietsocietyandthesystemonceagain. andachievement gains acknowledged ideals and withiron responded was thatthepopulation mighty power,especiallyamongtheintelligen Brezhnev. around it building time re-establish thenew“Cultof Pe In theculturalsphere,artists,film director The newleadershiptriedtorestoresomeoftheoldStalinistc nema, etc.Intheworksof artau boundaries ofwhatwasaccessibl t, theseboundarieswere ill- ev denounced Stalin, his Cu his ev denouncedStalin, cture thatwasclosertothe rsonality”, thatisvirtualdeif However,asaresultofthe or ignored it” (Attwood it”(Attwood or ignored

on, which gaveriseto was only on the surface and only amoderate only onlyonthesurfaceand was 17 en many films were denied public broadcast broadcast public weredenied manyfilms en y towards the Communist Party, proclaimed Party,proclaimed theCommunist y towards ovements. In his speech on the 20th Party ovements. Inhisspeechonthe20thParty in thought remained dissidents (Shlapentokh (Shlapentokh dissidents in thoughtremained terized by a low level of repressions and and ofrepressions level terized byalow tsia. AsAttwoodwrites,theresultofthis on toStalinisttimes, many filmmakers in behaviour were inbehaviourwere filmmakers many s, writerswerenolo s andcynism, tried authorities whenthe in comparison to theperiodof in comparisonto thors werenolongerafraid to defined and censors tendedto censors defined and reality thanbefore. However, e, approved by the Party and bythePartyand e, approved lt ofPersonalityandthe Thaw, the ideology lost its ication of theleader,this open-minded tendencies open-minded tendencies 1993:78). Shlapentokhs Shlapentokhs 1993:78). ontrol mechanisms, to to ontrol mechanisms, nger afraid for their nger afraidfortheir it was a big step to to bigstep a it was CEU eTD Collection the People’(Attwood1993; Shlapent revolutionary historyorasare presented in optimistic tones.Allthe existing looking-glass, throughwhichtheS film topoliticizeculture;notonlyentertainth (Shlapentokh etal.1993:16-17). of theregime, tosome extent,film direct were either senttoGULAGorsentenceddeath.Onlyafter Stalin’s death andliberalization obey itregardlessoftheirownbeliefsandopini accepted thenewstateideology astheir own.Inth the historyofSovietstat relations betweenfilm makers andideology,as when about70percentofthe proclaimed thatcinema wasthemost important of As earlyasintheendof1910s–beginning can beusedinthepropagandaofSovietideals Soviet cinemaofthe1970s 1989). hospitals(A tomental weresent and some deniedSo or exile into weresent defenders severelyedited.Manyintellectua access, were archives. shelvesofthe putonthe and were Throughout itswholehistory,theCommunist alwaysseenbythe Cinema was e. Intheperiod after the Revo entokh et al. 1993:21). However, population wasilliterate(Shlapentokhetal.1993:21).However, sult ofsabotagefrom thecapitalist oviet realityandalifeofor okh etal.1993;Zorkaya 1989). Soviet authoritiesasanimpor

et al. 1993; Zorkaya Zorkaya al.1993; 1993;Shlapentokhet ttwood 18 viet citizenship and had to leave the country, country, the viet citizenshipandhadtoleave Other films, although allowed to have public public allowed tohave although Other films, problems seenasdatingbacktothepre- were ors wereabletoexpresstheirownviews andbuilding aNewSovietPerson’s identity. e nation,buttoeducateitaswell,providea severalauthorsnotice, ons. Thosewhodidnotservethestateright the1920s,justafterRevolution,Lenin ls, dissidents, human rights activists and rightsactivists human ls, dissidents, e Stalinist’ times theyhadnochoice,butto allartsforanewSovietstate,especially Party oftheSovietUnion(CPSU)used lution, most cinematographers countries or‘theenemies of dinary Sovietpeoplewere tant ideological tool that changedalotduring CEU eTD Collection confirm thecomedies ideology, ofthe stagnation However, while,forexample, themusicalcomedi moved intothebackgroundandslapstick absurdities oftheSovietsystem andoffici means thecorruptionofbureaucratic totackle apparatus, alongwithsome othervicesand entertaining functionleft(Vla criticize, nothingtola of some goodswerejusttemporary onthe problem-free andwonderfulintheSovietstatea duty (Gillispie2003;Zorkaya1989). citizen. Theylookedforselfless,disinterested, morality and ethics,film directors looked for th almost devoidofthenecessityforheroism. shown inordinarycircumstances, theirday-to-d life or‘bytovie’.Incontrast levels rangingfrom studiostonationwid Cinematography (alsoknownasGo by agrowingpressure onfilmmakers exertedbythe USSRStateCommittee of mentioned before, theprocessofcreativelibera of socialanalysis werethemain principles Realism (alsocalledpedagogic realism). Evaluati The main model of criticism wasinthe form of Marxist-Leninist principles and Socialist Thus, thestate ideology wasaimed atconv As aresultofstateideology, In ordertojudgethevalueofanycinematic ugh at.Insuchconditionssatirefell to the1930s,life sov 1997:63-65).DuringtheThaw the mainfilmgenrein skino) andthegrowingintolera e film boards(Zorkaya1989:267-70). al discourse.After1968,musical elements were

way tocommunism. Thus,therewasnothingto in judgingfilms andtheirartistic quality. As 19 e idealdown-to-earth andthusrealistic Soviet There wasgrowinginterestinproblems of tion, thatstartedinthe1960-s,washampered non-pragmatic personsw ay life, which wasfull of small problems and nd society,thatproblems physical humourtooktheleadincomedies. periodsubvertedit,undermined theethos of ons ofideologicalaccuracy andofthedepth incing peoplethateverythingwassmooth, of ordinary,non-heroic es of theStalinist eraserved mainly to work, standardcriteriawereestablished. intodisgraceandcomedy hadonly 1970s was films on every day 1970s wasfilms oneveryday period comedy wasusedasa nce of editors on different nce ofeditorsondifferent ith asenseofsocial Sovietcitizenswas with theav ailability CEU eTD Collection atmosphere ofparodyandimprovisation (Vlasov1997:5-8). was alsomade obviousbythecrea characters, unityofplace,time andaction.This costume films. Manyfilms wereproduced th Soviet film productionofthestagnationperiod, 2003). the aim ofwhichwastomake upforthede audience oftheideals socialism, theslaps the previous eras. AStalinist musical comedy very beginningthefilm reminds theaudien documentary material thatservesasanintroduc the action takesplaceinonehouse.Theonl indication on thetime andplace.Thereisarath adaptation oftheEnglishplaywrightBrandonThomas’ place inabout 1920s-1930s insome capitalistcount belongs tothiskindofretrofilms. Itisa generations; thatwasatime ofchildhoodanda reconstruction wasusuallyaperiodinthene signs, detailsofeverydaylife,characteristi as closeto‘truth’possible.Alotofattentionwaspaidtheuniquenesstime tokensand tried toreproducethelookandatmosphere ofanot The analysedfilm This is also theperiod of film director’s attraction tothe As ananswertothehegemony ofrealis Hello, I’myouraunt!(Zdravstvujte,javashatetya!) tive useofmethods intrinsic costume eccentriccomedy, theactionofwhichtakes ce ofcarnival,carnivalesque traditions. tick comedies ofthe1970sprovidedcomic relief,

c manners, customs andfashion.Anobjectfor 20 spair andgreynessof dolescence tofilm makers (Vlasov1997:5-8). m anddocumentalism in tion andprologuetothemainaction.From its tendency totheatralizationandcarnivalization ar pastthatwasstillremembered byolder aimed ateliminatingaimed andreassuringthe fear there appearedatendencytomake theatrical, y exception istheblack-and-whitepseudo at tendedtohaveaminimum number of er limited number ofcharactersand most of -so distantfuturewithasmuch detailand ry. MostprobablyitisBritain,asan Charlie’s Aunt to folk,streettheatre,bythe so-called ‘retro’ style. They so-called ‘retro’style.They everyday life(Beumers , butthereisnoclear fiction films in the the in films fiction (Titov1975) CEU eTD Collection not seenasenoughto make women fulland the statesawwomen andtheirrole insociety. Fi special attention towomen’sinvolvement intoth ideology returnedtotheold,patriarchalview community. However,thisdiscoursedidnotliv state. Allthe functions of thefamily wouldbetakenonand fulfilled by thesociety, bythe the family asaunitofsocietywouldnotexist equal. Divorceandfamily lawswereliberalized, women weregrantedthesame ri changed from theSecondWorldWar after until psychological, ‘natural’,women’s ‘peculiarities’ discourse wasbasedonbiologicaldeterminism, whichneverquestionedphysicaland ‘androgynous’ SovietCitizen,whichwasimplicitly gender system”. Thistensionshoweditselfin, discourses, Temkina andRotkirchnotice“that Femininity intheofficialSoviet discourse code, whichwasmade arule,althoughan was asocietywithstrictlyandclearlydefined used inSovietcinema, becausealthough wome stands outbecause themain plotelement init 1970s, thatistheatrical,costume pseudo-histor Yulia Gradskova,inherarti After theOctoberrevolutionof1917,SovietRu Analyzing theimages offemininityintheS Thus, itfollowsoneofthemain tendencies ghts asmen, atleast official cle onwomen’s emancipation intheSovietUnion,pays unwrittenbutcloselyfollowedone.

onthefamily (GosciloandLanoux2006:4-7). 21 gender roles,firm gende on theonehand,incorp e longandbythebeginningof1930s,state is cross-dressing. Thistheme washardlyever nd wouldnotbeneededintheSovietsocialist the Perestroika.(Temkina andRotkirch1997). ical slapstickcomedy. Atthesame time, it n’s emancipation waswidelyproclaimed, it free lovewasproclaimed. Itwasthoughtthat active members ofsociety.Leaders ofthe e politicalsystem. Itisimportanttoseehow . Assuch,theSovietgendersystemhardly there wasaconstanttensionintheSoviet oviet andcontemporaryofficialcultural rst ofall,givingequalpolitical rightswere observed intheSovietfilmindustryof male. Ontheotherhand,Sovietofficial ssia wasoneofthefirstcountrieswhere ly, onpapertheyweremade orating women intothe r stereotypesanddress CEU eTD Collection characters wasrarely or prestigiousstatusofdiffere explicitly manifestedand thesexwas notstress of themain charactersandheroes.Inthepres for theprosperityofSovietcountrybecame forms andaddresses especially to women in campaigning among women wasnolongersointe as most ofthepopulationth feminine), andconferencesonwomen’sproblems Zhenchshina –rabotnitzaorwoman-worker. Bo published, theabundantuseoffemininemarkers can address wasdirectedati part insolvingpolitical that women hardlyhadanysubjectivityinthe working women wereputintotheposition ofgi women wereregarded as“culturally backward”.In Bolsheviks Partydidnotseewomenasabletousetheserightsfullymen, because some psychologicalqualitiesandbecome similar tomen (Gradskova1998). more advancedbeingsfor buildingasocialor according to Gradskova’sanalysisofthediscourse What isimportant, nochangeswe seen ingettingridofqualitiestraditionallyre According toKirilina, starting fromthes At thebeginningofindustrialization,whenth In theprocessofso-calledculturalrevolut expressed bymorphological orlexi problems (Gradskova1998). nvolving women inpaidlabour. nt professions,thefriendship of e workingagewasalreadyinvol re thoughttobeneededinth

garded asfeminineandtakingupmasculine ones. 22 Soviet system. Nobodyexpectedwomen totake the officialdiscourse. der, whilewomen weresupposedtogetridof econd halfofthe1930s,situationchanged s ofthosetimes genderstereotypeswerenot the main topic,withoutthe genderdistinction ft receivers.Basedonthis,Gradskovaclaims ed. Articlesandphotoss wereheldrather th wordsin Russianaregendermarkedas inafter-revolutionary theofficialSovietdiscourseofthosetimes, ion, themain changesin the ‘female’ were ere wasagreatneedintheworkforce, beobservedintheo nse andtherewerelessgender-marked cal means. CommonandCollective Many women’smagazines were Nations, etc.Femininity ofthe e image ofmasculinity. Men, ved intotheworkforce. The often (Kirilina2000). Heroism, work common Russia, wereseenas fficial discourse(eg. how thedesirability CEU eTD Collection attention that media and education paid to (re)establishing the values of a "feminine of theSovietgendersystem duringthe Thawan employment only(Attwood1993). official andsocialdiscoursewomen’sem high pricetopayforbeingemancipated. Ithink critical treatment ofsuchhe portrayed aslonely,discontentwiththeirliv discourse, however,suchwomen werenotrega work, tosocial life,putting family andpersonal successful women whoreachedhigh positionsin appropriate genderroles(Attwood schools anewsubjectwasintroduced,theaimof supposed to putworktothesecond placeand devotemore time tofamily andchildren.In Gender equality was redefined. Thenewmotto propaganda started to make the valuesofmo reasons whytheofficialdiscourseonfeminin most industrywassituated.Manyauthors(Attwood, have ledtoanacutelabourshortageinthe was highdivorcerateandlowbirth this sphereoflifeisrepr images notforegrounded.Therearehardly were nouns werepreferredinreferencestopeople. Thus, incomparisontotheprevious decades In Sovietfilms ofthisperiodoneth Starting fromthe1960sandin1970s,oneof esented onlyinthearticles roines andthepredominant message wasthattherehadbeena 1993:79-81; Temkina etal.1997). rate, especiallyintheEuropean republics. Allthesecould ancipation wasunderstoodmostlyaswomen’s

23 future, especially in European republics where future, especiallyinEuropeanrepublicswhere Sexuality andthebodyofbothmale andfemale es andtheirachievements. Therewasaclear d the Stagnation. There was anincreaseinthe d theStagnation.Therewas therhood, family more explicitly expressed. rded asleadinghappy,fulllives;theywere lifeinto the second place.In thedominant was “Equalbutdifferent” andwomen were e main topicswasthe(re)presentationof ity changed drastically atthis time. State anyarticlesconcerningpersonalrelations, onmotherhood(Kirilina2000). it important tomention thatinthe Soviet their work,devotedmuchoftime to which was to socialize children into more which wastosocializechildrenintomore there werechangesatthesymbolical level Temkina, etc)statethatitwasoneofthe themain problems for theSovietstate CEU eTD Collection person) (Zdravomislova andTemkina 2002). masculinity (acowboy,independent,self-confident, intellectual. Thelastbutnottheleast type or real‘myzhik’ andanobleman withhighid state. Another type istraditional Russian masc industrialization andtheSecondWorld War. Th first ofall,hegemonic sovietmasculinity or 1970s wascontrastedtoothert inactive members ofthesocietythatarefarfrom nostalgia fortimes whenmen wereknight the workforce(Zdravomislova etal.2002).In reason wasseeninwomen’s em regarded assignsofthecrisis ofthesocialist women andfeminizationofmen population, withmasculinity. Asforopponentsof discourse, theSovietstate neveradmitted th the crisis of masculinity. Itisimportant tome Masculinity inthediscourseof1970s dressing, thatisforgoingdowninthesocial participating inthe buildingof socialism. Asaresult,thereasonfor male-to-female cross- seen asthe“second”typeofcitizen(Temki appearance andbehaviour"forwomen.Duetoth Neither oftheseimages couldberealized As onemore negativeconsequenceofwomen’ ypes ofmasculinity, whichwereseenassuccessful.They were, ancipation, inwomen’s takingmale’s placeinthe society,or were discussedasimportant socialproblems andwere s andwomen wereladies(Attwood1993). of successfulmasculinity hierarchyweresupposedtobereallygood.

regime. seenas Menwere 24 ulinity. It had twoforms: Russianvillageman ntion thatitwaspredominant inthedissident theimage offathers,whowereheroes at there was anything wrong with the male at therewasanythingwrongwiththemale eals andprinciples, self-confident and liberal by aSovietman ofthosetimesandthemain buildingtheir ownlives.Maleidentity of the na etal.1997),eveniftheywerefully e main goalforsuchManwastoservethe eir “biological specifities” women werestill the films andofficialdiscoursetherewas the officialregime, themasculinization of alone, ready and able to protect a weaker alone,readyandabletoprotectaweaker s emancipation therewerediscussionson waswesternhegemonic victims oftheregime, CEU eTD Collection showing akisswasregarded assomething out ones, themainstresswas made on platonic lo intrinsically connectedwith motherhood (Temkina etal.1997). romantic lovewasoneofthedominating ge topics werepresentedinmainstream soci scenes ornakedbodieswerealmost completely (Temkina etal.1997). male homosexuality,aslesbiansandbisexualswe of punishable bydeprivationoffreedomforaterm According toArticle121 of theRussian and Rotkirch write,was“treatedas'an unmenti existent intheSovietsociety. Homosexuality differentiated genderrolesto‘overcome’ th androgynous. From the1970s,psychologists, teach remained unquestioned” (Temkina etal.1997). to thepointofinterpretingmen andwomen as'similar', whileactualmale supremacy this mentality and politics of “sexless sexism”: “sexualityandsexualdifferencewereavoided were usuallyonlymentionedinconnectionwi actual bodiesorsexuality.Sexual in “metaphysical andpatriotically heroic maternity”, which hadlittleornoconnectionwith Sexuality andthe“SovietPerson”of1970s In themainstream Sovietcinema ofthe1970s(andpreviousdecadesaswell),sex As for‘deviant’sexualbehaviour,itwasdenied completely andwasseenasnon- Ex-Soviet citizensthemselves oftenthi According toTemkina andRotkirch,Sovi matters were notpublicly discussedor talkedabout. They

e ‘masculinizatio Federation Criminal Code,homosexuality was alist popularliteratureandcinema, although 25 wasprohibitedsince19 th prohibitionorprosecution.IgorKonnamed nres, the image ofwomen wasclosely and et womanhood founditssymbolicexpression onable sin' intheliteral senseof theword”. ve, onthefeelingsof characters.Even nk Soviet ideology tobe‘sexless’and absent. Inallthefilms, re notsupposed toexist intheUSSRatall uptofiveyears.Thiswasappliedonly oftheordinary,let alone anyvisual ers startedto publicizemore diverse, n’ ofwomen. Although,sexual 30’s and,asTemkina especiallyromantic CEU eTD Collection occasions and ceremonies, oriftheyn However, bothofthesecategorie both sexes,orbyuniversitystaff,wheretheat black orwhiteforfestive occasions aprons.J was clearlygenderdivided–boys worked inthestateapparatus)we written rules onthese,the onlyfully appropriatecl I asked,therewasfirm dresscode,especially observed not onlyinthe economic sphere,but in thecultural oneaswell. Censorship became Conclusion knowledge andalsoopinionsof associated withthesexes.Thereishardlyany Dress code view onsexandsexualityina of thisphrase wascut and appearedas“Thereis mentioned that inthefinalvariantofpr Soviet sidesaid“ThereisnosexintheSovietUnion,thereonlylove”.Itshouldbe of theTV-bridgesbetweenSovietUniona result oftheofficialdiscour intercourse” wasborrowedfrom Englishandcame intocommonuseonlyinthe1980s.Asa especially inthemedia, wasbanned. Even presentation ofsexualdesirebetween thech To sum up,the1970sinSovietUnion are It isalso importantto mention that there se’s silenceonsexualmatters, attheendof1980s,duringone ppropriate way(ehefrau2007). people wholivedintheSoviet re eitheraskirtordress.Inschools,theuniform forpupils s woreclothesmore appropriate wore darkbluesuits,girlsbrownfrockswith eeded toapply tostateapparatus. ogram, that was broadcast on TV, the second part ogram, thatwasbroadcastonTV,thesecond

eans andtrousers wereworn onlybythe youthof 26 literature onthistopic,butjudgingbymy own for officialoccasions.Althoughtherewereno the word“sex”, inthemeaning of“sexual aracters. Anydiscussi mosphere wasmore liberalandlessaustere. nosexinthe SU”,which reflects the official nd theUS,oneofparticipantsfrom the othes for women atwork(especially if they existed a rather strict arather existed called theageofstagnation, whichcanbe Union in the 1970s and whom Unioninthe1970sandwhom fortheirsexonofficial on ofsexualmatters, division of clothes divisionofclothes CEU eTD Collection rather strictdivisionin official discourse andmalehomosexuality wasprohibited and outlawed.Therealsoexisted a birth rate, but of masculinity crisis as well.Se different”, andwomen’s emancipation wasregard inferior tomen.Inthelight of Although women wereofficiallyemancipated just person. Thisconceptwassupposedtobegende cross-dressing isthecentral element initsplot. visual connection with theSovi this category,astheactionta More creativity,satireandirony period, asitwaseasiertogeta pseudo-historic surroundings,films intheform of the periodof Thaw.Asananswertothis,cost stricter and therangeof allo As fortheofficialSovietdiscourse,it the clothesthat wereappr wed orapprovedtopicswasnarro thedemographiccrisis,officialideologybecame “equalbut kes placesupposedlyinBritain1920s-30sandthereisno censors’ approvalwhenthefilm were allowedinsuchfilms. et reality.Atthe same time,

27 x, sexualtopics, sexuality wereabsent from the was aimed atbuilding,bringingupaSoviet opriate formen andwomen. ume films, musicalcomedies inhistoric or atheatricalplaywere r-neutral, but,infact,presupposedamale. after therevolution,theywerestillseenas ed asoneofthereasonsnotonlylow Hello, Iam YourAunt! didn’t showtheSovietreality. wed greatly in comparison to this film stands out,because mass-produced atthis falls into CEU eTD Collection country collapse. to some extent.However,Idonotclaim inanywaythatthefilm tothesystem led and mind, cross-dressing,inthesystem withrigidly been intendedtobesubversivetheofficial question isifandhowsubversivethefilm wa that itcouldnothavebeenonlyforthew which werewidelyproducedatthosetimes. cinema 1970sandbelongstoaratherbi of the At thesame time, despiteitbeingratheruniqu 1975) isoneoftheratherfewSovietfilms em mainstream comediesbasedoncross-dressing American Chapter 3. words thefilm willbestudied against theAmerican film context. Soviet film iscompared toHollywoodmainst parts presentacloserlookoncr cinema, thusthefilm willbeexamined intheco named thebesteccentricSovietcomedyofth though verygoodactorsplayin plot issimpleandnotintrigui In the first part,Iwillpresentthe analysisofthefilm asapart One ofthequestionsIwant toanswerinth On theonehand,itfallsintocategory As itwasseveraltimes mentioned inthepreviousparts

Hello, Iamyouraunt! ng; therearenospecialeffects or ground-breakingcamera work, oss-dressing, the role it plays in the film. In these parts the oss-dressing, theroleitplaysinfilm.Inthese partsthe it. Ontheotherhand,itwa

e times. Manyphrasesfromitbecame bywords. onderful castandtheirgoodplaying.Another 28 ploying cross-dressingasthemain plot-element. discourse, Iwanttoshowthatitwas.Tomy is chapterwhythe s. Althoughonthesurfaceitmight nothave ream comedies withcross-dressing.In other defined genderroles, ntext presented intheprevious chapter.Next with medium artistic g classofcostume, movies, pseudo-historic e, itstillbelongsto incomparison to s enormously popularandwas Hello, Iam YourAunt!(Titov film waspopular.Iclaim cannot but be dissident cannot butbedissident value andquality.The the mainstream Soviet of theSovietlifeand CEU eTD Collection that Soviet film-makers usedextensively, es beginning theboundarybetweenrealand main charactermade as ifapartof thechr documentaries usedinit,butpartsoffilms of is made inthemode ofchronicles.Howeve audience isputintotheatmosphere ofthecapita documentary begins.Forthenext12minutes, the Then colourdisappears;energetic,loud, pond infrontofit.Itisall Hello, IamYourAunt anymore andhereturnsbackto revealed and everything goesback any attention. Afterreceivingthepermission Ba father) andJudgeKriegsstarttocourthim/he aunt beforeJudgeKriegs.Asth take Babbsfortheaunt,andthenwithhe permission tomarry two girls(BettieandAnnie) waiting forCharley’srichauntDonnaRosad'Al police andgetsintothehouseofJackieChesne he actuallyfoundontheroad.Du Charlie Chaplin. Hehas torunfrom thepolicem character isBabbsBaberley.Heunemployed, a In this connection itisimporta The film startswithasetting –that isamodest brickcottage inthepark orforest witha Before going intotheanalysis of the film, I ! colourwithaslow,romantic music playingasabackground. as aSovietcostumefilm hisjobless,homelesslife. ey thinkBabbstobearich nt torefer to the afore-cite ring thisrunBabbscross-dres to ‘normal’. Babbsbecomesforgotten,asheisnotneeded unreal is crossed in some way. unreal iscrossedinsome onicles, ora‘fake’documentary. From thevery

29 music startsandabl lp ofthepolicemen ma r. When therealauntcomes, nobodypaysher those times aswell.Therearealsoshots ofthe pecially inearlyhistory ofSovietcinema, y. Jackieandhisfrie r, therearenotonlyextracts of authentic list countries of the1920s think, itsplotshouldbepresented. Themain vadorez fromBrazil.Theyneedhertogeta nd looksverysimilar totramps portrayedby en, whothinkthathestolesuitcases,which from theirguardian Judge Kriegs.They first bbs cross-dresses back, ‘real’identities are story of the film does not set off but the story ofthefilm doesnotsetoffbutthe widow, ColonelChesney(Jackie’s d Andrew Horton,whomentions ses tryingtohidefrom the nd CharleyWickham are ke him impersonate the ack-and-white pseudo- -30s. Thisfirstpart CEU eTD Collection needed anymore, andBaberleyreturns toblack-and-white existence. unlike Chaplin characters Babbsisalone inthe action starts,andBabbs’lifebecomesbrightorcolourfulat Soviet film enters the genre, itimmediately leavesit–thecol Chaplin films: Thetrampmeets girlandfalls a realistic characters.Allof them should beseenasacarnival or Broadway. Thus,from thevery carnival inNewYork,withshowingbigfigu res withexaggeratedheadswalkingalong not looklikechroniclesanymor notices him andgiveshimaroseduringtheirfirs words, onlywhenhelovesandhasatleastsma the end,whenBaberleyreturn d'Alvadorez’s fosterdaughterandfallsinlovewith actors ofthesilentcinema. the film the viewers keep finding similarities w In additiontothis,thefilm evokesanumber of that areregardedasclassical inthe world,but not onlycarnival,socialandcu Union. Ittakesmore thantenminutes fortheaction inthefilm tostartinthecourseofwhich at returningtoSovietpeopleHollywoodtradi Harold Lloyd(Horton1993:9-10).That iswhythe elements ofslap-stickcomedies, offilms byandwithCharlieChaplin,BustonKeaton, As mentioned before,thefilm startswithashotofdozencamera men andscenes of As forcolour,itappearsonlywhenthemain charactermeets EllaDelahay,DonnaRosa s tothestreet,forgottenand vaudeville. Laterwerealise, there ltural realiasareshown,butex are insome waycaricatures,repr e. Onceagain,theaudienceis beginningthereisacleari

30 were almost forgottenbytheSovietaudience. intertextual references.Inthewholecourseof end andhastoleavewithoutagirl.He isnot tions, re-appropriatingthem fortheSoviet t meeting), thefilm turnstocolour, anddoes ll hopethathisfeelingsarereciprocal(Ella ith otherfilms, slapstickcomedies orgreat in lovewithher.However,assoonthe film underanalysis canbereadasaiming heratfirstsight. Co forsaken byeverybody.Inother least forsome period.However, our appears.Atthismoment the tracts ofHollywoodcomedies, ndication thatth esentatives ofvariousclasses, reminded ofconventionsin are no ‘real’,‘close tolife’, lour islostagainin e wholefilm CEU eTD Collection people intheblack-and-white ‘doc limited numberofcharacters.Notcounting policem to make itlookreal,closetolife. theatre (thus,thefilm’s originasatheatrepl whole action. BythisI mean, thatsometimes th patterns establishedbythesocietya nothing realinallthecharacte repeat eachotherwordbywor because otherwise, cross-dressing would becompletelylost. types, orsocialgroups.Yet,th the SovietUnion ofthe1970s. glasses, whatmakes himevenfartherfrom the everything, unabletomake adecision,eager the stereotypeofarichyoungma Chesney, theyhavenootherfeelin rival suitors m onDonnaRosad'Alvadorez’s for example, Annie’sfaceisfullofratherbig Eventheircountenancefeaturesareinsome wayexaggerated: their suitors,thenonBabbs. etc. Theyarepassive,donothingthemselves to young womenoftheirtime –theygiggleallthe time characters arehyperbolized.Forexample, girls, of bodyasapartcarnival. The unrealnatureofalltheactionisalsounderlinedbysome ‘theatralization’ofthe In thescenewhereCharlieandJackietryto In theblack-and-whitebeginningthereareshow ey arenotstronglycaricatured;theyultimately funny, d. Tomy mind, itisdonetost Inthemain bodyofthefilm rs, nouniquefeelings,thatthey Firstofall,asinmost thea gs rather than desireto have umentary’ partthere arelessthan 10characters. Settingis nd thereisnothinggenuineleft. n withoutanydefiniteoccupati ay comes through),andthereisalmost noattempt

31 toblame everybodyaround.Heiswearing freckles thatdonotlooknaturalatall.Asfor get whattheywantandrelyonothers,first ideal images of masculinity, whichexisted in BettieandAnnie,are illions, Judge Kriegs andColonelFrancis e film looksverymuch likeaplay inthe tell abouttheirfeelings en thatappearonlyinsmall episodes and , shrill,flirt,sightoseem moreromantic, n figureswithbig,disproportionateparts tre performances, thereisavery money. Charlie,ashepresents ress once again that there is ress onceagainthatthereis personalcharacteristicsof all act according tosome on, isinfantile,afraidof walking stereotypes of tothegirls,they CEU eTD Collection to theSovietdiscourse. Charlie Chaplinwasnot onlyoneofthegreatest States withhiswholefamily andmovedto accused ofbeing anti-American, pro-communista state. Inthetimes ofMc In hisfilms hecriticized American wayoflife, although heworkedformany yearsintheUnited He wasalsoanideologically‘correct’ comic, orbecausehegreatlyinfluencedthewholegenreformany thelegend, yearstocome. character. Idonotthinkthattheonlyreasonwasth other charactersor aside tothemselves. from time totime, most of themain characters unlike film actingwhichissupposedtobeinvisi same house andthesame scenery.Actingisclose also theatrical. Butfor the first 12andthelast2minutes, thewholeactiontakesplacein manages todothesame, especiallyinthefinalscene. but touching,arousingpityandcompassionas behaviour, butinactingaswell.Inhisfilms masquerade isuncovered,thathedoesnotseemrealatall.Theresimilarity notonlyin and actsso much like CharlieChaplin’s characte because hereallywants tohelptheyoungguys in theendheimpersonates awomannotbecauseheismadetobythecircumstances, but He isabletohavedeepfeelings,forexample, It isinteresting tothink whyCharlieChaplin Babbs Baberleyisatsome pointthemost real Carthyism and‘witch-huntingfo Hollywood actor.Basingon

32 Charlie Chaplinmanages tobenotonlyfunny, to lovewholeheartedly. to Switzerland (Chaplin19 well.AlexanderKalyagin,whoplaysBabbs, thus, was close to some extent to the Soviet thus,wasclosetosome extenttotheSoviet to getpermission. Atthe same time helooks ble andlooklikereallife.Moretothepoint, address directly to the audience, not some addressdirectlytotheaudience,notsome comic, buthesuitedideologicallyvery well in allthefilm, orbettertosaymost human. States, henevertookAmerican citizenship. nd Marxist. Hedecided toleave theUnited was chosenastheprototypeformain rs, especiallyintheveryend, whenthe e factthatChaplinisregardedasthebest to theatretraditionbecauseitisvisible, r Communists”,Chaplinwas Hehascompassion, as 92). Inotherwords, hisautobiography, CEU eTD Collection house. Heistall,slim, well-built.There isev well. Itbecomes obviousespeciallyincomparis is toDorothy Michaels inTootsie physically oremotionally,They couldnothavebeenattractedtohim/her likeforexampleLes completely clearfortheaudiencethatColone attractive one according totheexisting standards. Inmy opinion,itisdoneto make it (Vanstein 1996:79-80).Thus,Babbs,whenheim Plumpness wasalsoveryoftenassociatedwith from thenorm andservedastheobjectofallki seen asin some wayphysically really far from it. some ofthemarerathercloseto carton. Atfirstweseealineofgirlswhowanttochecktheir pseudo-documentary partitisshownthatwome or standardoneisemphasised almost attheve Kalyagin andthusBabbsBaberl Chaplin israther slim. Heissmall notonly inhe less confident, more like“Others”inthesociety so bytheaudienceincomparisontootheractors. construction. Ontheonehand,heightoftheirch (played byAlexanderKalyagin It shouldbestressedthatBabbsBaberleyis inSovietdiscourse According toOlgaVanstein,over-weightwomen It shouldbementioned thatthereisone handicapped,notattract it.ThenextshotshowsBaberle ) andCharlieChaplin’simage, ey isratherchubby.Babbsfigurebeingbi , orOsgoodFieldingIIItoDaphnein

33 ry beginningofthefilm. Initsblack-and-white, important differencebetweenBabbsBaberley l andJudgecourtedhim/her onlyformoney. nds ofinstructions,ofte en anepisode,wherehe doessomephysical ight butinsizeaswell. the shortnessofheightandageawoman they havetolive.Ontheotherhand,Charlie aracters isbelowaverag n aremeasured toidealfiguremade outof farfrom theidealimage ofmasculinity as Itisdoneonpurpose–tomake look them on toBrasset,thebutleratChesney’s personates awoman, isfarfrombeingan ive. “Theyweremarked asadeviation figure againstthe‘ideal’,and which istheirfigure,body which y, and it is obvious that he is y, anditisobviousthathe n withmoralistic cast”. Some LikeItHot InhisturnAlexander e, atleastperceived gger thanordinary werepitied, 3 . CEU eTD Collection feelings are atleastmade to seemmore sincere. but unlike ‘real’ itis totalkabout feelings, to somedifficult extent, Thus, so-called upperclass, thenobility. interfere, and appearsto bemuch smarter and a servant,personoflowerclass,whomana I donot think that itisby chance that in the S any physicalflaws:hedoesnothavealimp as 3 Goskino. Ontheonehand,itseems thattheaction carnivalesque, grotesqueistoproduce Men, masculine enoughastheyarenotincharge shown asweak,passive,unableto representatives of theso-called intelligentsia, was paidtophysicaleducationof know, was“Wherethereisasoundbodymust important, especially takingintoaccountthatone exercises, thusshowingthathetriestokeephisbodyingoodshape(itwasseenasrather capitalist society anditsclasssystem. same directoris alsoth fact thatthefilm hardlyunde presented in theprevious chapter itwasoneofthefewways answer is,of course,thecapitalist societywith Aunt! It will be analyzed later but in It the case laterbut will beanalyzed of Hello, IamYourAunt! As itwassaidinpreviouschapters,according toBakhtin,oneofthemain aims Coming backtothe masculinity crisis inthe thequestionariseswhatth e proofthat inthe‘officialreading’ wasmade acostume comedy alsow rwent anyeditingbycensorsunlik is carnivalesquelaughter Sovietcitizens).Moretoth doanythingthemselves. Inot SomeLike ItHot corrective laugh

oviet film animage of masculinity is realised by 34 ColonelChesney,orhobblelikeJudgeKriegs. more intelligentthanany representative of the more educatedclass (Charlie andJackie) are oftheirownlivesanddependonothers. ges tostayaboveallthesituation,donot allitsvices.BasingontheSovietcontext ofthewell-knownSovietmottos, asfarI Soviet Union of seventies and eighties, the Soviet Unionofseventiesandeighties,the thecharacters are more lik takes placeinthepastandsome foreign beasoundmind” andalotof attention ter. Inconnectionto film wasregarded ascriticising aimed at.Thefirstandobvious to get censorship approval. The e point,Brassetdoesnothave ith theaim togetapproved by e allotherfilms evenbythe her words,theyare notreal Hello, I am Your Aunt! e masks,stereotypes. or Hello, I’mYour Osgood

CEU eTD Collection 4 the principlestojudgefilms aboutSovietli or actors tomake theactionandcharactersreal, carnival isawokenintheaudience.Therehardly is stillthereandcannotbe denied. As mentioned inpreviouschapter,thissubversiv many questionsandlaughter, based on thiscarnival, is dissident andto some extentrebellious. strictly writtendownand thereis no openta the controlledsituationofSovietUnionin costume comedies ingeneral,and problems, deficit,andauthorit and favouriteactors,but from thepossibility those times. Thepleasurefortheviewerscame served asakindofescapefrom therealityandit stagnation, costume films wereoneofthewaysto important aimofthedirector. It makes me claim, that laughingatthecapi park nearthepond,farfromotherhouses.Thatisallaudienceknowaboutplaceandtime. time andplace.Thewholestory istakingplacein reasons discussedinthepreviouschapter.On country, assuchcostume, much space for creativityinthisgenre. historical figure, especially members of the Romanov family (Shlapenkoth et al. 1993). Thus, there was not truly historic film. Shlapenkoth, for example writes that ther s highly ideologized, it was rather difficult to release a a release to it wasratherdifficult ideologized, s highly wa the Sovietlife of parts was asall Ashistory other To sum up,from theverybeginningoffilm I think,intheEraofSocial pseudo-historicfilms

arian control. To my mind, the arian control.Tomy Realism,thattookplaceintheSovietUnionduring the Hello, IamYourAunt!

35 the1970s.Inasocietywheregenderrolesare lk aboutsexuality, cross-dressing foregrounds talist society wasnot the otherhand,thereis fe). Theyareall,th the films toforgetaboutsurrounding gave not onlyfromthewonderfulplayoffamous e effectofcomedies may notlastlong,butit is oneofthereasonstheyweresopopularat 4 e were special instructions how close tolife, orrealis onehouse, whichstands somewhereinthe wereverypopularatthosetimes forthe anyintentionfromthesideofdirector forgetaboutgraya Hello, I’myouraunt! inparticular makes itsubversivein escapist nature eir features,behaviour, the onlyandmost tic (whichwasoneof nd difficultlife.They no clearindication to to portray this orthat thenotionof of laughterin CEU eTD Collection femininity Joe(TonyCurtis) andSugarKane Cross-dressing ascarnival representatives ofvariousgroups, qualities are very exaggerated, are called no otherthan SpatsColombo, millionaire hasaratherlongname withanumbe men, hername insome wayimplies thatevery Marilyn Monroe,isSugarKane/Kowalczyk.As she usually giventoapersonwhosename isunkn they arecalledJoeand Jerry. Thesenames can stress thatTonyCurtis’sandJackLemmon’ travelling jazzband.Eventhename represent types likethatofa most ofthecharacters, especia American film wasshotalmost 20yearsearl people’ more closelydiscussedinthenextpart. As forthecarnivalesquenature a Britishplayfrom thepreviouscenturyasan in some way returnstopeoplewhattheywerede comedies of CharlieChaplin,BustonKeatonandot air ofcarnival,itbasesthewholefilm onth In this film thereisapairof ‘real’ ma In carnivalesquenature,inplayingonster However, pseudo-documentarypartinthevery Hello, IamYourAunt millionaire (Osgood),headofthemob, female singeratany or lly main notreal,they one,are ! seems tobeveryclose or hyperbolized,whichmake of cross-dressinganditspossibl classes, andsociallayers. s areinsomewayclosetostereotypes.Forexample, Little BonaparteandToothpickCharlie.

n andwoman, idealimages ofmasculinity and 36 s charactersare‘ordinary’commonmusicians e Hollywoodtraditionof origin ofthefilmseems asajustifiablechoice. ier. InthisHollywoodcross-dressingcomedy own. Theleadsingerintheband,playedby Kowalczyk(MarilynMonroe). They also r intheend (OsgoodFielding III),criminals eotypes andhavingmasks insteadof‘real prived offoralongtime. Inthisconnection, be asubstituteforanyothernames andare male wantsto‘lick’her.Asexpected,the beginningdoesnotonlyservetogivethe hers. Inotherwords,thefilmbringsback, is anobjectofsexualdesireforlots Some LikeItHot, them more likestereotypical areverystereotypical, they e subversiveness,itwillbe slap-stick and silent slap-stick andsilent though the thoughthe CEU eTD Collection film person’s help. not eagerandabletobreaktheconventions that. Itconcernsboththeir behaviour andapp adored. Asitwasanalysedbefore,both the Sovietfilm eventhe ‘real’characters arefa they courtDonnaRosad'Alvadorez (impersonate Bettie andAnnie,unlike ColonelChesney andJudge that bothyoungguys(CharlieandJackie)arehone suitors, and‘notreal’,thosewhoareobviously also apairof‘notreal’,‘fake’man andwoma represent the ideal of‘truelove form, butalmostabsolutelyasexual. neutral, orrather,gender–bli discourse wastoomuch aimed atbringingupan there werestrictlywrittengende ideal ManandWoman inreallife.Therewas can beregardedasanidealtostrivefor.To woman ispresent,intheSovi time. 'Daphne' Lemmon) isfrom (Jack awoman, being bony andskinny,stillobeyshismother andisasfarfrom theimage ofmasculinity asJerry/ Addressing thequestion ofsexuality itshouldbementioned thatintheSovietUnion In otherwords, if intheAmerican film th In Some LikeItHotwaseditedbeforebroadcasting, manyscenesweredeleted.Mostof Hello, IamYourAunt! nd concept.Itwasasportype et comedy thereisnobodywhoseexample canbefollowed,who itispossible tofind similar comparison –reallovers and ’, theirstoryfollowsthepath r roles.Asmentioned intheprevious chapterthe official young men arefarfrom beingmasculine enoughfor my mind, itmay bethe re

earance. Theyactaccording tosome pattern,are 37 n. OsgoodFieldingIII(Joe e ideal,‘exemplary’ pairoftherightman and nobody tobeamodel fo and getwhattheywantonlywithanother fake ones.Theaudienceismadebelieve to r from theideals tobe followed andto be idealSovietcitizen,whichwasagender– according to the gender expectations of the accordingtothegenderexpectations ofthe d byBabbs)formoney only.However,in st intheirfeelings Kriegs. Itismade absolutely clearthat rson withabodyingoodphysical of aproperromance. Thereis sult ofabsencethese and intentionstowards r behaviour,although E. Brown)issmall, CEU eTD Collection movement from onetoanotherhappens subconsc and thesame personorcharacterisusing differentstylesaccording tosituation. Usually heteroglossia, thatisdiversity ofspeechtypeswithinonespeakingsubject.Inotherwords language aswell.Thatiswhycarnivalesque tol’ko devushki(Therear as itisthecasewithoriginaltitle.In underwear. Furthermore, thetitlewastranslated Daphne andJosephinealready)staringatothe these wereconsideredtobetoomuch sexually impersonator shouldbeusedatth shouldbealwaysaware what‘language’ creative natureofanactor. play. Hemight alsochooseto enough money toliveon;hejustneedsmore funds economic situation,butthereisabsolutelynoth Michel Dorseychooseshis‘role measure, theoptiontobeingawoma laugh anditisnotintendedto at thesame time astheanalysedSoviet film, upside-down. Incomparisontothem,in represents themeans foramusement andfor that personinpowerorperforming certainsocialroles,animal s, half-humans –half/animals bring laughter.Italsoagainreminds ofthecarni (Wilder 1959)closetogetheristhatthemere f As itwassaidinpreviouschapters,carnival is notonlymodeoflife,butatype Another thingthatbrings e onlygirlsinjazz). be. InbothWilder’s andTitov’s Hello, IamYourAunt!(Titov1975)and cross-dress to haveajob that ’ almostvoluntarily.Ofcourse, n iseither to bekilled or tobearrested.InPollack’sfilm Tootsie the Soviet Union, the film was known as V Dzhaze the SovietUnion,film knownasVDzhaze was

38 cross-dressing isnotenoughtomake audience r girlsinthebandwalkingaroundtrain subverting therulesandnormssubverting turningthem explicit, liketheonewhereJerryandJoe(as val, wherethecostume it in awaythatallowednosexualconnotations, reat tohislifeorfreedom. Moreover,hehas act ofcross-dressingisalreadysupposedto iscloselyconnectedwiththenotionof (Pollack 1982),whichwasproducedalmost iously, butinthecase tohelphisfriendandflatmate tostagea films cross-dressingisaforced willbetter fulfil hisartistic, he finds himself in difficult he findshimselfdifficult in of cross-dressing,the self, showing this or self, showingthisor is orthatmoment. Some LikeItHot

CEU eTD Collection rarely thanmen; andtobemore polite(Dvinaninova 2001). addition to beingchatter-boxes, women arethought than inmen’s one.Itisalso social norms arestricter,much lessapproving system suffixes)(Kav ofdiminutive-hypocoristic are more commonforfemale speech(itconcerns higher main tone(Zemskaya 1993:90-105).Kavinkinaadds to thisthatdiminutive suffixes Russian language,Zemskayaclaims thatwome never letsitbecome rusty”)thatprovetheex lambs’ tails–theyarenever wanting inwaterthanawoman atalossfo examples ofproverbs from variouscultures(J and languagesaresupposedtobe. consciously actaccording tosocialassumptions on employing thestereotypes(Hayward2000:72- perceived asrulesornorms (Kavinkina1999). representatives ofthe important roleinsociety.Ontheonehand,theyinfluencespeechperceptionof sayings, idioms. Theyareusuallyfarfrom bei certain stereotypes andsome norms existin that which canbeusedbothbymen andwomen. However,accordingtoKavinkina,thereare women and men speak.Itispossibletospeakonly Based onobservationsbyBritishandAmeri The most commonbeliefisthatwomen aremore talkative. Forinstance, Swackergives Most oftheresearchesprove thatthereis opposite sex.Ontheotherhand,they more commonformento still”; China:“Thetongueis

39 r words”;Britain:“Wom no clear-cut,stabledifferencebetweentheway to cursingand vulgarisms inwomen’s speech, utland: “TheNorthS folkconsciousnessandarefixedinproverbs, istence of this belief As forthecomedy, laughterisusuallybased n tendtousebroade ng trueand reflectthe reality,but playan of what‘male’ and‘female’waysof speech inkina 1999).Asforlexi mainly Russian,wherethereisadeveloped can scholars and on her own analysis of the can scholarsandonherownanalysisofthe aboutdominant ormale female strategies, 73). Thatiswhycross-dressersusually to likeasking questions; to curse more useexpressive,sty influence speech,becausetheyare the sword of a woman, and she the swordofawoman,andshe ea willsoonerbefound (Swacker 1975:76).In r prosodicrangeanda en’s tongues are like en’s tonguesarelike listically low figures cal peculiarities,the CEU eTD Collection dressing wasforceduponhim. Onlylater,when 5 people, whothinkhim tobea though notalwayssucceedsinthis.Forexample, am YourAunt! of thevoicebetweenMichaelDorseyorJo aforementioned American comedies, especially part increatingcomicandshowingBa effect of theresearchesconfirmpopularbeliefs of speech,professionalwordsandterms (Dvinani biological sexareintrinsicallybound.Babbs’cro They arelost in carnival they started. Ith are lostandpuzzled.TheyaddressBabbsusing He is,usingGarber’stermi effect, ontheother,itshows along withanadjectivefemininegende mixes everythingup,breakstheseconventions nouns anddependentadjectivesbyusingthesame of thisorthatword.Inagrammaticallycorr developed system ofwordendings,whichto on Braziliancustoms andculturalnorms. Itshoul vice versa is a very complicated one and out of the scope of my paper. influenc is what of questions the However, expectations. the reality, toform ly realitycorrect tostructure thanaremore the these likely beliefs rather reflecting Nevertheless, it does not prove that folk psychology is right. To mymind, as it was already mentioned before, As for other characters who know about cross- As forothercharacterswhoknowabout At thesame time, hetriestofollowallth In theanalyzed Sovietfilm distinguishing Baberleydoesnotchange nology (1993),‘thethirdterm’. that heneverbecome

‘real’ woman, hehastoaskfor his voiceregisteronpurpose e andJerryspeakingasmen orwomen. In 5

a greatextentdependonthegrammatical gender . e otherconventionsconcerningwomen’s speech; 40 ink ithappens becauseforthem clothesand r ending.Ontheonehand,itproducescomic ect sentenceitismandatory toconnectverbs, both wordsinfeminineandmasculine gender. ed by what, whether believes are formed by reality, or areformed reality,or by what, believes by whether ed Tootsie, there isacleardifferenceinthetone he getsintoit,his andcanusethenounofmasculine gender male andfemale speechplays an important bbs Baberley’sattitude ss-dressing putsitintoquestionforthem. As nova 2001).Thus,tosome extent,theresults s a‘woman’and issomewhere inbetween. genderendings.InhisspeechBabbsoften when he forgets and curses in front of the when heforgetsandcursesinfrontofthe dressing, CharlieandJackieatsome point d benotedthatinRussianthereisa an excuseandmake upastory voice changesabit. to showthatthecross- tocross-dressing.In Hello, I CEU eTD Collection dresser’s clothesormanner, butseesinthe‘core’. suppose, itisnotacoincidenc between natureandculture. Asstatedseveraltimes thissubversion, doubtingand before, and body,biologicalsex, italrea subversive. Byforegroundingthatthereisnodi not genderroles,butitselfasacategor revolutionary inanysense. (Buchbinder 1994;Garber1993).Thus,they opposite thing,claiming thatthefilm showsth the movie. Hehimselfandfeministcritics personal and professional life. AccordingtoBuchbinder,itisapoliticallycorrect reading of are betterthanwomen andinforegrounding Some critics thinkthatitisr Marilyn Monroe’s characters. Asfor Like ItHot stereotypes, and,ononelevel,theyaremore intention to reallysubvert gender roles or analyzed films. Ontheonehand,in (clothes). Coming backtohissocialposition people onlyfortheirinterior(inthiscase, carnival anddoesnottakepartin never stopsbeingaman,andhekeepsaddressi for thebutlerBasset,wh However, ItendtoagreewithGarber(1993), who saysthatcross-dressing iscriticizing As cross-dressingiscarnival,th , itismade obviousiftheanalysispaysattentionmostly toTonyCurtis’sand o alsoknowseverything,heavoids eally progressive (especially for its time) inshowingthat women e thatBassetistheonlyonew dy questionstheexisting gendersystem, thefirm correlation deceit.Insome sense,Ipresume, heisaboveitandjudges e questioniswhatitssubversivnatureaiming atinthe Some LikeItHot Tootsie

likely tore-establishth 41 biological body)notthei y. As any carnival, cross-dressing cannot but be y. Asanycarnival,cross-dressingcannotbutbe , there aredifferent vi as aservantandSoviet (Showalter, for example) sayabsolutelythe patriarchal system. Bothcomedies playon problems women hadtoovercome intheir rect andstableconnectionbetweenclothes deny anypossibility forthefilmtobe at thebestwomen andfeministaremen ng toBabbsas‘sir’.Hestaysoutofthe , andHello,IamYourAunt!there isno this confusion.Forhim, Baberley ho doesnotfallforthecross- em tobreak.In than ews onitssubversivity. /communist ideology,I r exterior appearance Some CEU eTD Collection Jerry/Daphna. allows interpretationsasth speed awayintheboattowardshorizon.In and Julieleavetogetherdiscussingclothes.In cinema there isnohappy-endmandatory forHollywood.Incontrasttoit,in band, notonlywith‘male gaze’assexual objects, interest inlearninghow tobehave like awoma from theverybeginningnotonlywearswomen’s cl whole setup”( woman. him “(t)hisisjusttogetusoutof For No matter whatclothesareonhim,heisalways choice. is going,whether itisalways the discussedexamples ofcr allowed opennessoftheending,itisnecessary Cross-dressing andgenderbending Babbs Baberleydoesnotleavewithagirlhe millionaire turnsback totramp, butunlike his expectations, butthereisnopo Soviet film. There isnotonlyreturntost be deniedcompletely. destabilizing effectofcross-dr In thecaseofTonyCurtis’s Following thediscussionofsubversiveness Analysing the‘end’ofcarnival,itis Some LikeItHot1959).isabitdifferentforJackLemmon’scharacter, who e audienceleftto oss-dressing. Andthequestionar essing incomedies may notlast felt asaforcedmeasure, out ssibility forcross-classconnections left aswell.Afake character thereisdefinitely

42 andards, andtoestablishedgenderroles Some LikeItHotloversbothrealandfakeone ponder ontherelationsbetweenOsgoodand to seewhetherthereisany gender–bendingin town. OncewegettoFlorida, we’llblowthis loves.Following thetr n. Helooksathisfemale colleagues from the most ‘closed’, normalizing inthecaseof the prototype –Charlie Chaplin’s characters – a man. He hardly ever tries hard to be a but alsowithsome tolearnfrom intention latter case,theendingismost ‘open’, othes tosafehislifebutalsoshows some of cross-gender in thecomedies and the nogenderbendinghappening. of necessityandwithnoother ises howfartheimpersonation long.Nevertheless,itcannot adition oftheSoviet Tootsie Michael CEU eTD Collection to doitproperlyandisverysurprisedwhen Brazil allwomen smoke cigarsin taken andappropriated,realDonnaRosabelieve Babb’s beinga‘fraud’isratherillustrative. genders. Inthisconnection,theepisodewhenrealDonnaRosaappearsandtriestoshow the verybeginningandstopswhenhefalls inlove withJulie. forces him tocross-dress (only circumstances). Th than intheHollywoodcomedy, whereMich position ofwoman-impersonators. Ofcourse,this At some moment bothBabbs BaberleyandMichaelDorsey start toget pleasure from their “oh boy”thathefindsthiss male-female opposition.Atthesame time, Ishoul sure whereexactlyheis,concerninggenderdic point hestumblesandquestions:“Boy, ohboy,am I has torepeatforhimself “I'maboy.I'm desires andremind “I’m himself agirl”.Howe them howtobecome similar inconduct. At fi they feltaboutit.Invarious when Babbsmeets thegirlanditisagainfeltassomething imposedandforcedupon. smile andexactlylike aman. AsinTootsie,anypleasurefrom cr ‘phallic woman’ and startsenjoyinghispositionofknowingth I thinkitisinterestingto seehowactorspr As forBabbs,atfirstheisclearlyagainstcr Hello, IamYourAunt! 6 andhetriestouse theadvantages of goesfurtheringender-be ituation troublinganddisturbing. interviews DustinHoffman claimed thatnotonlyhis character a manly fashion.Sheissurethattheimpersonator willfail Although sheknowsthatherplaceandname were

43 ael makes hisown,voluntarychoice,nobody Baberley doeseverything ver, whenhegetsaproposalfrom Osgoodhe rst nottogetrevealed,hehasconceal his hotomy. Heis‘thethirdsex”whichoutof s itisdonebyawoman.Shementions thatin I wish I were dead. I'm a boy.”thenatsome I wishweredead.I'ma epared totherole of oss-dressing. Thengra d notethatitisclearfrom hisexclamation moment ismuch shorterinthe Sovietfilm at iswhyhestartsto e powerofthisdifferentposition.Heisa nding andcomes closerto a boy?”Ithink,atthis hisdoubleposition oss-dressing disappears cross-dresserandhow enjoyitalmostfrom dually hegets into it withpleasure, nice in between thetwo moment heisnot Tootsie in this. CEU eTD Collection three films thequestionofheteroand homosexuality istouched upon. thinks thatDorothyis alesbian, and tries to will betakenforagay,ifanybodysees him Sugar kissingandisre 6 because theexistence ofhomosexuality andhomo mad andjealous,butthereisnosurpriseorsh dancing withgirlsonlyJackieandCharlie(t else’s sexuality,sexualorientati to it.In whether theroleinfluencedhim inanyway(Kalyagin2002). wearing stockings,skirts,haberdas same time headmits the desire tounderstand women, tofeel,some extent,whattheyfeel subconscious. Tosome extenthebasedhisac women, seen onthestreet.Hesaysthatmost of thegestures,posturescame from within,from relying onlyonhismemory, onhisobservationofthewomen heknewandofunknown Baberley inwomen’s clothes.In Movie Database that iswhytheypreferred role ofcross-dresser. Membersofthecrewno Internet Movie Database, awell- known transvestiteactorwashi became abetterman after playingawoman, butth Thisterm wasoffered by Freud in In Returning to gender-bending itseemsworthlo As fortheSovietactorKalyagin,hedeniesanyspecialtrainingroleofBabbs Hello, IamYourAunt!therearenosceneswherecharactersdoubttheir orsomebody Some LikeItHot ). ally shockedbyit.In , forexample,thebandleaders to tellhim aboutanyproblems whenhewasinadrag( Fetishism on. Eveninthesceneswhere hisautobiographicalbookhesa hery, etc,buthenevermentions (1927) and and (1927)

Victor/Victoria ting onCharlieChaplin’sfilm “Woman”. Atthe with Victoriainmale disguise.In stopanycommunicationw 44 ticed thatDustinwas"much nicerasawoman", hose who know about cross-dressing) becomehose whoknowaboutcross-dressing) ock from othercharacters.Ithink,ithappens Femininity sexuals wascompletely deniedinthe Soviet oking howthe ‘unaware’characters react e actor himself didaswell.According to (1933) (Garber 1993:9) ees Joeinwomen’s disguiseand KingMarchandisafraidthathe red tocoachHoffmanforthe Babbs, inwoman’s dress,is ys thatheplayedtherole ifhesucceeded initand ith her. Thusinall Tootsie Internet , Julie

CEU eTD Collection Union atthe1970s. where thereisalsonotmuchin masks thanreal people. Inthis the analysedSoviet film comes closeto being anattractivewoman aftercross-dressing,a However, heisnotonlyofsmall heightbut appearance andmannerisms, Kalyagin(whoplayed heroes Babbsendsupaloneintheendand is atramp whofallsinloveandgetsintoa in theofficialdiscourse. is insome waytheresultofaiming atbuildin and Woman, images ofmasculinity andfeminin sustained by thegrotesqueness, stereotypizati pseudo-documentary black-and-whitechroniclesin see Conclusion normativity of thecharacters. official discourse.Thus,there acting ispurposefullymadevisible. there isaratherlimited number ofcharacters, films. Itisacostume comedy pseudo-historic w am YourAunt! Hello, IamYourAunt! The main character,Babbs Baberley, isapara Although itisratherunique However, unliketheHollywoodfilm,in To sum up,from theverybeginningoff belongstomainstream Sovietcinema as a carnival. The feeling of carnivalesque is first awoken by the as acarnival.Thefeelingofcarnivalesqueisfirstawokenbythe tention tomake thecharacters,especiallymain one,lookreal. could notbeevenahintin in employing cross-dressing alsochubby,whichmakes him evenfurtherfrom

set offunnyevents.Ho 45 g the Soviet Person, without gender distinctions g theSovietPerson,withoutgenderdistinctions Hello, IamYourAunt there iscontinuity of on ofthecharacters, ith astrongelement ofth does notgetthe ity thatcanbefollowe ccording tostandardsex ilm itissuggested that phrase ofCharlieChaplin’s characters.He Baberley)copiesthem theverybeginningof and standsinthelinewithmany other the film ondoubtingheterosexual as amain plotelement, Hello,I girl heloves.Asforthe ! thereisno‘ideal’Man time and place and the time andplacethe wever, unlikeChaplin’s which look morelike d oradored.Ithink,it eatralization. Thatis, eatralization. theaudienceshould from Chaplina lot. isting intheSoviet the film. Then itis Some LikeItHot,

CEU eTD Collection upside-down isstillthere. overthrowing effectcanla playing andreversingtherolescannotbutbe with clearlyandstrictlydefine to forget about it,tohidefrom itatleast for some time. subversive, becauseitindicates thatSovietcitize costume films, wasanescapefrom thefilm the of Hollywoodslapstick comedies thatwerealmostlostforSovietcitizens.Asmanyother personal characteristics. Atthe same time, itserv its vices,poverty, hypocrisy, judgingandvalui the Sovietfilm. no evenahintonhomosexuality, onquestioninghe it closer to the episodes wherethe main characterstarts enjoying hisposition of a‘phallic woman’brings produces laughter,etc)theSovietfilmiscloseto Although inmany otheraspects(f As forcross-dressing,itwashardlybeenaimed tobesubvers On thesurface,aim ofthe Tootsie. Unlikeanymainstream Hollywoodcome st onlyforashortperiodoftime, d genderroles,withtheexisting dress codechangingclothes, film, objectoflaughteris the orced cross-dressing,thevery

46 subversive. Itisacarnival,andalthough,its social reality.Thisescapism canbetreatedas ng peoplebytheirbank accountratherthan ns weretiredofSocialistrealityand wanted Some LikeItHot ed toreturn andre-appropriate thetraditions terosexual normativity of thecharacters in dies withcross-dressingthereis theabilitytoturneverything the capitalistsocietywithall ive. However, in the system ive. However,inthesystem , genderbendingelement or fact of changing clothes factofchangingclothes CEU eTD Collection stable category. ‘the thirdterm’ outsidemale/f whichstands are alsosocialandculturalconstructs.Based decades ago, nowadaysisputinto question. biological, naturalandgenderissociallyc culture, orbodyandclothesin discourses. Ontheonehanditassumes theexistence of clear distinction betweennature and understood astransvestism andwasnot clothes, traditionally associated impersonating apersonoftheoppositesexfo Conclusion lasts for long, especially in character ofsex/gender categories doubtful.Atthesame time,I turning itupsidedown,byreversingtheroles. that asanycarnivalitalways claim thatpossiblesubversivene it comes closetoBakhtin’snotionofcarniva and whatfeaturesofthefilm make its research questionswerehowthemaintopicwa title implies special attention waspaid tostudy The seconddiscourseofcross-dr In my workIam assuming thatanycross- For the purpose of the research workingdefinition of cross-dressing wasnarrowed to This workwasdevoted tothe analysis of the Sovietfilm thecaseofcomedies. questionsthepredominant discourse,theexistingsystem, by with theothersex,togetpsyc this case.However,dichotomysexissomething where ss ofcross-dressingdependsonthegenre.However, Ithink, essing sees itas aperformance, as amasquerade. In this ubversive totheSovietcontext,ifany. inthescopeofthiswork. onstructed, whichwastakenforgrantedseveral

on this,cross-dressersometimes isunderstoodas emale dichotomy.Thus,itsubvertsgenderasa Many researchesclaim 47 lesque. Some authors(Buchbinder,Kuhn, etc) s treatedinthefilm, whythefilm popular was Thus, itmakes thenaturalness,unchangeable r socialoreconomic reasonsonly.Wearing of therole of cross-dressing in it. Themain dressing canberelatedwithtwokindsof hological orsexualpleasurewas Hello, IamYourAunt do notclaim thatthiseffect that sex,body,sexuality ! Asthe CEU eTD Collection stereotypical figures. fact ofcross-dressingisintendedtoprodu Like ItHot no cross-classconnectionisbeing tramp almost alwaysleaves withthe girlhel a paraphraseofCharlieChaplin’scharacters. The isintheclosing–Chaplin’s main difference Throughout allfilm therearereferences toAmerican films. Inaddition,themain characteris abstracts frommany Hollywood more thantenminute’s pseudo-chronicleblack-a silent comedies traditions thatwereforgotten characters and theacting ismade intentionally theatrical performance: th are exaggerated,orhyperbolized.Notonlycros be. Theyare stereotyped masks, andasitis the case with most carnival masks, their qualities well. Itbecomes clearwhen welook atthechar prevailing Social Realism inthecinema. the audienceitwasaway toescapethegreyness ofeverydaylifea it allowedmorecreativity, duetothe fact thatcensorship was notthatstrict tothis genre. For surroundings. popularforse Thiskindoffilms was in theSovietcinema ofthe1970s.Itisacost As forcross-dressing,initstreatment andpicturingtheSovietfilm israthercloseto Another reasonforpopularityisthatthefilm tr The film’s escapism from realitybecomes obvi As fortheanalysedfilm, . Inbothfilms itisameasure enforcedby e actiontakesplaceinone Hello, IamYourAunt! comedies ofthe1920-30sareusedalongwithdocumentaries. allowed, whichseems abitstrange

oves. BabbsBaberleyisforgottenandforsaken, 48 ume comedy that takes place in pseudo-historic ume comedy thattakesplaceinpseudo-historic ce laughter.Thecharacte visible, more likeintheatre,thancinema. in theSoviet context. Itisdonebyincluding acters that are not real arenot that acters s-dressing, butthewholefilmlookslikea nd-white partintheverybeginning,where veral reasons.Filmmake ies toreturnandre-a place,thereisarath ous inits highlycarnivalesquenature as (1975)followsthetendenciesobserved circumstances orotherpeople.Thevery nd agoodalternativeto in the‘classless’society. andarenotintendedto ppropriate American er limited number of rs arenotrealbut rs liked itbecause Some Some CEU eTD Collection American filmtheperiodwhencross-dressi categories, of being‘thethirdsex’. InthistheSovietfilm isclosetoTootsie, thoughinthe as aforcedandhatedmeasure. Babbs Baberleystarts enjoying his position of the“phallic woman”. Cross-dressing isnot felt to thehall, whichconfirm my claim. Union, aconsiderednumberof as athreattotheSovietstat Soviet films becauseithas thepotential tounde and wasprosecuted.Theofficialculturaldi not even asmallest hint onhomosexuality, as it threat toheterosexualnormativity. ‘real’ Woman and‘real’ Man. Womanhood wasspokenofonlyinterms of there wasnosexualdiscourse inthecountry the officialSovietdiscourse aimed atconstruc impotency ofupperclassesandtheintelligentsia. butler Basset.Itcanbeexplainedasanin of desireformost men. Theonlycharacterthat film thereis nosuch couple. Thereis noexempl Man andWoman, whomeet, fallin To sum up,inthisthesis Idiscovered th At thesametime, thereisanepisode,wh Unlike most mainstream American cross-dressing comedies One ofthemain differencesis thatinthe e. Inthe1990s,afterperestroika films withthesame topicappeared,manydrag-queenscame He isgettingpleasureofnot love, followingtherulesofromantic film. IntheSoviet ng bringssome ismuch longer. delight tended satire on the capitalist society, or on the tended satireonthecapitalistsociety,or

49 Hollywood comedy there is stillapairof‘ideal’ ting theSoviet citizen at cross-dressing was rmine strictgender codes, and,thus, wasseen motherhood. Thus,therewerenoimages of ary image ofafeminine thatcan beanobject scourse didnotallow ere genderbendingoccu was seen asalmost non-existent by thestate isclose to theimage of masculinity isthe To my mind, itisthere and sexuality wasnotaddressed atall. belonging toeitherofthegender and thecollapseofSoviet Hello, IamYourAunt! (a gender-blindconcept), probably missing from probably missing from any question and thus any questionandthus sult ofthefactthat rs. Atsome point, has CEU eTD Collection reveal deeplystructuredgender original playandAmerican and attention toinreviewingthef interesting toinvestigateandanalyse theSovi the sexless,genderlessSoviet Person. dresscodesan and female genderroles,onfirm bending, itissubversivetothewholesystem whic through into,conclusionandin-textreferences.Onthelevelofcross-dressinggender- the authorities.Onanotherlevel,film br from Socialist Realism, dominant intheSovi subversive onvariouslevels.Asacostume, ps I think,thistopicshouldbepursuedfurthe popularnotThe film was onlybecause ofthema ilm. Isuppose,thecomparative anal aspects oftheSovietsociety. British adaptations of thesame workcanhelpto morefully

ings Hollywoodcontext,or‘enemy’s ideology’ et cinema ofthe 1970sandhighlysupportedby 50 eudo-historic comedy itservedasanescape d theofficialdiscourseaimed atconstructing et audience reactionto it,whatthey paid h was based on strict differentiation of male h wasbasedonstrictdifferentiationofmale r asitisarathercomplex one.Itseems in actor,butmy viewitprovesto be ysis oftheSovietfilm, the CEU eTD Collection Dvinaninova, G.S.2001.Language,speechand communicativebahaviour ofindividuals in Delphy, Christine.2002.RethinkingSexandGender. InGender:ASociologicalreader Columbus, Chris.1993.Mrs.Doubtfire.US:20thCenturyFox. Clark, Katerina,andMichaelHolquist.1984.Mikhail Bakhtin Chaplin, Charles.1992. Buchbinder, David.1994.Masculinitiesandidentities Bruzzi, Stella.1997. Beumers, Birgit,2003.Soviet andRussian ———. 1992.From thePrehistoryofNovelisticDiscourse.In Bakhtin, Mikhail.1992.DiscourseintheNovel.In Attwood, Lynne.1993.Women, In Cinema andSociety. Bibliography

Available from http://language.psu.ru/ individov vprizmeanglojazic the lightofAnglo-Americangenderstudies edited byS.JacksonandScott.London:Routledge. Press ofHarvardUniversityPress. Press. Reviews essays. Austin,Texas:University ofTexasPress. Austin, Texas:UniversityofTexasPress. by L.AttwoodandM.Turovskaya.London:Pandora. Soviet womenandcinemafromthebeginni Routledge. 62Autumn (No.3):441-454. Undressing cinema:clothingandidentityinthemovies My autobiography hnix gendernixissledovanii) Blockbusters: A Question of Genre? Blockbusters:AQuestionofGenre? . London:PenguinBooks.

bin/view.cgi?art=0056&lang=rus. bin/view.cgi?art=0056&lang=rus. 51 ng totheendofcommunistera,edited (Jazik, rech',kommunikativnoe povedenie The dialogicimagination:fouressays . Carlton,Vic.:MelbourneUniversity Red womenonthesilverscreen: . Cambridge, Mass.:Belknap The dialogicimagination:four . [cited May20 2007]. . [cited . London: Slavic , . CEU eTD Collection Kalyagin, Aleksander.2002. AleksanderKalyagin Jackson, Stevi.1996.Heterosexuality,Powerand Pleasure.In Internet MovieDatabase2007.[citedMay312007].Availablefrom Horton, Andrew,ed.1993.InsideSoviet filmsatire: laughter withalash Holquist, Michael.2002. Hayward, Susan.2000. Gradskova, Yulia.1998. Goscilo, Helena,andAndreaLanoux.2006.Introduction:LostinMyths.In Gillispie, DavidC.2003.RussianCinema,InsideFilmSeries Gatens, Moira.1983.Acritiqueofsex/genderdistinction.In Garber, MarjorieB.1993. ehefrau, (livejournaluser).2007. http://www.kalyagin.ru/cinema/hello_aunt/3291/. Reader, editedbyS.JacksonandScott.Edinburgh:Edinburgh UniversityPress. http://www.imdb.com/tit (England): Cambridge UniversityPress. http://www.owl.ru/win/research/gradskova.htm. politicheskaia sistemasovetskogogosudarstva) Lanoux. DeKalb:NorthernIllinoisUniversityPress. National IdentityinTwentieth-century RussianCulture Longman, Pearson Education. after Marx,editedbyJ.AllenandP.Patton.Sydney:Intervention. Penguin Books. http://makitra.net/use Ivanova) [cited May312007].Availablefrom [cited Cinema studies:thekeyconcepts Woman andtheSovietPolitical Dialogism: Bakhtinandhisworld Vested interests:crossdressingandculturalanxiety rs/ehefrau/134873.html. le/tt0084805/trivia. There isnosexinourcountry!(InterviewwithLudmila

52 [citedMay302007].Available from [citedMay102007].Availablefrom System(Zhenshchinai . London:Routledge. . London: Routledge. Beyond Marx?Interventions . Harlow,England,London: Feminism andSexuality:a , editedbyH.GosciloandA. . Cambridge Gender and . London: CEU eTD Collection Stam, Robert.1989. Shlapentokh, Dmitry, andVladimir Shlapentokh.1993. Pollack, Sydney.1982.Tootsie. Pearce, Lynne.1994.Readingdialogics.London:E.Arnold. Oakley, Ann.1996.Sexuality.In Morson, GarySaul,andCarylEmerson. 1990. Lauretis, Teresade.1987. 1985. Kuhn, Annette. Kirilina, AllaV.2000.GenderAspectsof Kavinkina, I.1999.GenderaspectinRussian Kaplan, GiselaT.,andLesley J.Rogers.1990.Scientific Constructions,CulturalProductions: S. Scott.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress. ideological conflictandsocialreality Stanford, Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress. Routledge andKeganPaul. 10May 2007] [cited http://www.owl.ru/win/books/articles/kirilina.htm poznaniia) massovoi kommunikatsii). InGender as Intrigue ofCognition (Gender kakintiriga Minsk. russkom jazike).PaperreadatSecondIn edited byT.ThreadgoldandA.Cra Scientific Narratives of The JohnsHopkinsUP. Bloomington: IndianaUniversityPress. , edited by A. V. Kirilina. Moscow: Rudomino. taken from from , editedbyA. V.Kirilina.Moscow:Rudomino. taken Subversive Pleasures: Bakhtin, CulturalCriticismandFilm The PowerofImage Technologies ofgender:essaysontheory,film,andfiction SexualAttraction.In US:Columbia Pictures. Feminism andsexuality:areader Mass Communication(Gendernieaspekty . London,Boston,MelbourneandHenley: nny-Francis. Sydney:Allen&Unwin.

. NewYork:AldinedeGruyter. language (Proiavleniegendernogofaktorav 53 Mikhail Bakhtin:creationofaprosaics ternational Interdisiplinary Conference, at Feminine MasculineandRepresentation Soviet cinematography,1918-1991: , editedbyS.Jacksonand . Baltimore: . . , CEU eTD Collection Zappen, JameP.2000.MikhailBakhtin.In Young, Lola.1995.'NothingIsAsItSeems': TheCryingGame. Re-Viewing In Wilder, Billy.1959.Some LikeIt Vlasov, M.P. 1997.SovietCinemaoftheSeventies-First HalfoftheEighties Vanstein, Olga.1996.Female Fashion,Sovi Titov, Vladimir. 1975.Hello,Iam YourAunt!(Zdr Threadgold, Terry.1990.Introduction.In Temkina, Anna,andAnnaRotkirch.2007. Swacker, Marjorie.1975.Thesexofthespeak Stanley, Liz.2002.Should'Sex' Reallybe'Gender' -or'Gender' Reallybe'Sex'?In ———. 1993.MikhailBakhtinandLeft CulturalCritique.In Sociological Reader Critical Studies andSources, editedbyM.Ballif andM.G.Morgan. Westport, CT: Press. Culture, editedbyH.GosciloandB.Holmgr Ekran. T. ThreadgoldandA.Cranny-Fr http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/staff/rotkirch/gendcontract.htm. Gender ContractsinContemporaryRussia Mass.: Newbury HousePublishers. and sex:differencedominance Discontents: Theories,Practices Martin's Press. Masculinity, MoviesandWoman,editedbyP.Kirkham andJ.Thumin. York:St. New , editedbyS.JacksonandScott.London:Routledge. Hot.US:UnitedArtists. ancis. Sydney:Allen&Unwin. , editedbyE.A.Kaplan.London,NewYork:Verso. Feminine MasculineandRepresentation , editedbyB.ThorneandN.Henley.Rowley, The FracturedWorkingMotherandOtherNew Twentieth CenturyRhetoricsandRhetoricians: et Style:BodiesofIdeology.In

54 er asasociolinguisticvariable.In 1997[citedMay102007].Availablefrom avstvuite, JaVashaTe en. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Postmodernism andits tja!). SovietUnion: Russia, Women, . Moscow: VGIK. . Moscow:VGIK. Me Jane: Language , editedby Gender: A CEU eTD Collection Zorkaya, NeiaMarkovna.1989.Theillustratedhistory oftheSovietcinema Zemskaya, E.A.1993.ThePeculiaritesofMale Zdravomislova, Helen,andAnnaTemkina.2007. Hippocrene Books. Moscow: Nauka. aspekt) aspect (Russkiijazikvegofunktsioniro zhenskoi rechi).InRussianLanguageinfunctioning: 2007]. Availablefrom http://www.ow Discourse (Krizismaskulinnosti

l.ru/win/books/articles/tz_m.htm. 55 vanii: Kommunikativno -pragamaticheskii ons/Texts/bakhtin.html> [CitedMay102007} andeFemale Speech(Osobennostimuzhskoi i Crisis ofMasculinity in the late-Soviet Communicative-pragmatic 2002[citedMay10 . New York: . NewYork: