Core Response #1 - Colin Sheehan

In this week's readings, I found myself most fascinated with Maria LaPlace's observation into the role of the "independent woman" in regards to film--specifically the consumerism aspect.  What was most intriguing was, despite the reading examining consumerism during the beginning of the twentieth century, it could easily have been discussing the role that advertising and materialism has on society today, especially in terms of female identity.  

LaPlace examines the role that advertising played on female consumers, especially in shaping the notion of the role of the woman within the home.  The fact that consumerism directly used the independency of feminists at the turn of the century by promoting home products as ways to paint the woman as the "administrator of the home" is both smart and terrifying (LaPlace 139).  Any independence marked for women was easily used against them by advertisers to reshape the idea of the independent woman to be the "independent" caretaker of the home and family.  Cigarette companies even used the notion that cigarette smoking was seen as a symbol of emancipation for women and advertised towards women with this knowledge.  The power of advertising in this circumstance is some kind of strange reverse psychology as advertisers incorporated the "ideas of freedom and equality for women" as "additional arsenal in [their] weapons" (LaPlace 140).      

Consumerism further, and probably most powerfully, pulled at the idea of beauty as a form of freedom and independency and, most importantly, happiness.  And while the ideology of beauty was not anything new, its role as a way to set women as equal, stating that no one woman was naturally beautiful without the help of products, is gross and, yet again, super fascinating to me.  The fact that consumerism used flaws as a way to "equally connect" women for the sake of forcing them to buy products to make them feel superior is so ridiculous.  However, this same ideology is just as present today--if not worse thanks to social media, the internet, television, and an even larger beauty industry.  Advertisers spread the idea that women needed beauty products in order to win and keep a husband, as beauty was not naturally provided, so if they did not buy the products, a strange "survival of the fittest" approach would take charge in the world of marriage.

I knew that the power of beauty and the image was played upon in Now, Voyager, but it is more strongly prominent now looking back on the film after reading LaPlace's article.  Charlotte's (Davis) insanity stemmed not from a strong mental place, but rather because she was denied her need for physical beauty in order to be happy in the world.  Her mother dismissing her from dressing nicely and grooming herself, produced an unstable Charlotte whom is then treated at a mental ward not through medication, but through a makeover.  Makeup is her medication--one that leads to self empowerment against her mother, to romance, and to a motherly love between her and Tina.  

In the end, the film and the article prove that beauty standards and definitions have not much changed since the early 20th century.  In both cases, then and now, the woman who is deemed the most attractive is the one that tends to be seen as the happiest or most successful, whether such is true or not.

Colin Sheehan Core Response #1