Core Post - Unstable and Fragile Masculinity

 “North by Northwest calls into question whether masculinity can ever be assumed to be a coherent and singular, not to say authentic, condition in culture.”

- Steven Cohan

I watched North by Northwest for the first time in class last week and I really liked it, but I liked it even better after reading Steven Cohan’s “The Spy in the Gray Flannel Suit”. I was fascinated by how much about masculinity Cohan was able to unpack from the Hitchcock film. Reading this article, I realized how, when watching the movie, I missed a lot of what Cohan writes about masculinity in Cary Grant’s character; a lot of it just passed by unnoticed. This made me question if we are trained not to question or observe masculinity closely, which maybe we are because, as Cohan’s analysis points out, star personae and their representations show the contradictions of masculinity and how fragile it actually is.

We are so used to stories in which the female is defined by marriage and domestic life that I found it refreshing how Cohan shows that Roger Thornhill, Carry Grant’s character in North by Northwest, ultimately finds his masculinity in marriage. Cohan brings up how in the 1950s the norm was that a mature and responsible man was a married one and that a single man was considered irresponsible, immature and weak. Masculinity is very much connected to strength, virility, thus, in this case, masculinity is defined by marriage. Linked to marriage, masculinity was also defined by the idea of togetherness and the domestic ideology of men and women, breadwinner and homemaker, living together. I found it interesting how these terms have very much been used to characterize women – women have to get married, women have to pursue a domestic life, etc. –, but were here, in this text and in the movie, characterizing a man. There appear to be several contradictions in masculinity, as it is often constructed with superiority towards femininity, but is actually rooted in similar ideologies to those of the female gender.

When we watched Now, Voyager, we talked about how Charlotte’s femininity was only cured after she looked beautiful and had a man. There appear to be some similarity to that in Cary Grant’s character in North by Northwest. As Cohan argues, Eve is a sort of cure for Roger’s masculinity: “the film discloses that Eve is neither helper nor vixen but the double agent, then she represents both the cause of masculinity’s crisis and its means of cure” (11). It is also pointed out in this same text that Roger is almost always well dressed, almost always “clean and freshly pressed regardless of circumstances” (17). Thus, both Charlotte and Roger reach some sort of gender cure in between good looks and a love interest of the opposite sex.

How different can masculinity and femininity be, then? Among all the contradictions surrounding the star image, gender appears to involve many, which are well represented by Cary Grant’s persona as pointed out by Cohan. For a gender that has a historical “brand” encompassing strength, virility, power, solidity, hardness, it is contradictory to see how masculinity is actually not that different from its “opposite” and is more fragile and unstable that we, superficially, perceive it to be.

Core Response 2: Masculinity in Crisis and in Contentment

The readings this week plucked petals from the delicate little daisy that is the male ego.  Steven Cohan’s piece “The Spy in the Grey Flannel Suit” discusses masculinity in crisis, as implicated by Cary Grant’s Roger Thornhill in North by Northwest. This is opposed by American masculinity at its most safe and secure - holstered up with John Wayne’s persona in 1950s Westerns, discussed by Garry Willis in “John Wayne’s America”. 

In Postwar Hollywood - the class and the book - Professor Casper lends a full unit to the fragmented American male. This is the phenomenon in which the nation’s masculine identity splintered in the wake of uncontrollable social forces following World War II. From keeping up with the Joneses, to coping with psychological war scares; from the emasculating softness of a 9-5 desk job, to the burgeoning feminist movement: the postwar period saw American men (especially white men) deal with the prospect of not being assumed dominant over everything and everyone. Propositioned against a wall of societal pressure, men wanted to see their stars propose their way back into control. After all, “stars embody values that are under threat,”: in this case, the traditional definition of masculinity - men as responsible, dominant, independent breadwinners - was being challenged from within and without (Cohan 26).

Roger Thornhill exemplifies the challenges from within. With his cushy job, fear of commitment, and mommy issues, he’s a man-child at the beginning of the film. But by the end, as Cohan explains it, with Eva Marie Saint dangling from his one hand, and his other crushed beneath the unforgiving shoe of a Commie (a gay Commie, no less), Cary Grant proves himself an everyday American hero, rising to the occasion to contain “communism on the international front and female sexuality at home” (8). So though he initially exemplifies the disconnect between the 1950s upper middle-class man, and traditional masculinity, the film allows Thornhill to prove that beneath every advertising man’s tailored suit is a Real American Male, ready to answer the call to action for country - and sexual control over wayward blondes - alike. All heroes need not wear capes. 

Or spurs and chaps, for that matter. Where Thornhill depicts the male in crisis, Americans also had a psychological need for males that were sound and whole. Enter John Wayne. Willis explains that John Wayne is a persona, carefully constructed by the actor and a slew of influencers - the greatest Western hero is a myth. But it’s a myth that has continued to resonate, particularly among demographics of people who feel the most threatened, the most like their ways of life and values are being desecrated and cast aside. John Wayne, his swagger and confidence and indestructibility, is the image many may conjure when they hear the phrase “make America great again”. He connotes freedom, an open frontier, male autonomy and self-determination - a time before America had ever lost a war. Wayne demonstrates an adherence to law and order, but never a succumbing to a government overstepping its boundaries into people's lives. To unpack the myth of John Wayne is to unpack the whole suitcase of myths that have been fed to blue collar, low socio-economic class white people in this country: everything from fear of large government to the absurd notion that Republican tax cuts are for them. It's a myth voiced through every ideologically operating apparatus our society has: media, the GOP party line, the evangelical church. 

John Wayne represents an America that never was - but the power of his persona allows it to live in people’s imaginations as vividly as history. So long as John Wayne is remembered by vulnerable American whites, they will always feel that they have someone - not just someone, but the Duke himself - on their side. The same America that still believes in John Wayne finds solidarity in Clint Eastwood calling President Obama’s administration a “fraud” or “hoax”. There’s much detriment that fear and misplaced resentment can do to a national consciousness - especially when its bolstered by stars who never acknowledge that their personas are as much a fantasy as the film worlds they operate within.

Core Response - Big Men: Masculinity & Genre

In The Spy in the Gray Flannel Suit, Steve Cohan begins by reflecting on the poster of North by Northwest, taking into account the awkward and unstable positioning of Carry Grant’s free falling body. The image of Eva Marie Saint in the background, gun in hand appears to be the cause of Carry Grants spectacular fall. Cohan goes on to explain how this poster is displaying the unsettling idea of masculinity in crisis, relating Cary Grants fall to the fear of emasculation in the fifties.    

It was interesting to read about how many aspects were tied into this idea of masculinity during the fifties. Like how marriage was something that would define a man’s maturity and success but if a man was not married and easily tempted by women he was seen as weak and immature, demeaning to his masculinity. In North by Northwest we witness a change in Roger’s character from selfish bachelor to motivated hero as he rescues and proposes to Eve, showing his transformation from once challenging the ideas of masculinity to then conforming to them by settling down and finally “accepting responsibility of a woman”.

 I find this resolution of Roger’s masculinity interesting because although he is rebelling against the ideas of what it meant to be a man the 50s, he still maintains the masquerade of a successful, educated and desired man. A question that I kept asking was: When audiences in the fifties saw North by Northwest, did they see Cary Grants as an emasculated male or did they simply see the classic leading man that was Cary Grant? Did his “star image” overshadow his character's masculinity crisis? I think that many people overlooked the many flaws and rebellious nature of Roger Thornhill’s masculinity because all they could see was the star persona of the iconic leading man Cary Grant.

Core Response #3: John Wayne

Gary Wills writes about the celebrity of John Wayne and the longevity of his career. Wills explains that this achievement is due to the enormous presence John Wayne maintains onscreen. The mixture of confidence, invincibility, and agility he brings to each role is undeniable. Wills explains that these traits are noticeable in Wayne's physicality, stating "[i]t was not the bulk of Wayne’s body but the way he used it” that is so mesmerizing (16). Wills further explains this when he states, “[his] control of his body was economical, with no motion wasted" (20). The fascination with Wayne's physicality is particularly interesting as it becomes relevant to the popularity of action stars, specifically superhero film actors, today.

The closest All-American hero Hollywood has today is Chris Evans as Captain America. Evans often receive praise for his ease with physical stunts, and like Wayne he is beginning to become solely associated with the traits of the character he portrays (see link to article at end**). Like Wills comment on Wayne’s physicality, a writer for Esquire, Alexander Huls, writes a similar comment about Evans. Huls writes that Evans has, “[a]n authority that tends to evoke a kind of patriarchal, Father Knows Best quality… [that he] manages to summon from his car hood-sized chest” (“How Captain America…”). While Chris Evans might be gaining notoriety and is experiencing a high level of recognition for his role in the Marvel films, it is hard to say if he (or any actor) will ever obtain the same longevity with moviegoers as John Wayne.

Even now, Wayne exemplifies a sort of ideal man. For example, Lady Gaga released a new single on February 9^th titled "John Wayne". The video follows the highly stylized Gaga as she travels by horse, motorcycle and car in search of a "wild man". While the lyrics elude to an obsession with a "John Wayne type", the video does an excellent job of contradicting the illusion of (ideal) manliness that surrounds the habits Wayne portrays in his movies, such as: horseback riding, drinking, and gun violence. Gaga gets violently hit in the face from tree branch as she rides behind a cowboy, hit in the head with a beer bottle, and suffers two deaths (drunken car crash and a gun accident). The song simultaneously pays homage to John Wayne, while also spoofing a modern day version of a cowboy. It has been 35 years since "The Duke’s" death, and his presence is still strong in pop-culture, which is an amazing (if not an abnormal) achievement.

Work Cited:

Huls, Alexander. "How Captain America Made Chris Evans a True Movie Hero."

     Esquire, 1 May 2015, www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a34736/

     chris-evans-as-captain-america/.

Wills, Gary. The Politics of Celebrity: John Wayne's America. New York, Simon &

     Schuster, 1997.

(Articles on Chris Evans becoming more like Captain America)

**http://time.com/4667314/chris-evans-on-david-duke/

**https://www.buzzfeed.com/krishrach/you-have-to-see-chris-evans-amazing-response-to-a-white-supr

Core Response #2

            I thought the whole idea of creation and preservation of the legend that is John Wayne in the article, "John Wayne's America," was highly fascinating—especially in the fact that John Wayne was basically shaped to be "John Wayne" by directors, primarily John Ford.  It was interesting to consider the argument talked about at the beginning of the article surrounding the lasting image of John Wayne in comparison to how Clint Eastwood (someone who found themselves with equally high income and star power) might last after he has passed.  And while I feel that Eastwood will have a highly comparable image once he has died, I understand what the article was implying: That there are very few actors who remain prevalent through time based on their sheer identity (not on their ability to break the status quo or how many criminal offenses they rack up).

            While reading the part about John Ford’s hand in creating the image of John Wayne, it made me think of John Ford as an auteur, specifically in regards to Wayne.  Wayne was a staple of Ford's works.  Considering that Ford created some of the most iconic Westerns ever produced, and that the majority star Wayne, it seems like a you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours kind of situation.  If Ford didn’t shape Wayne into the all-American hero, his films might not be as iconic as they are.  And if Wayne did not take Ford’s guidance, he would not have been as cherished in the American system as he is.   In other words, they relied on each other. 

            I tried hard to think of any present celebrity, or even any that died recently, that might have thing same type of star quality: One that is remembered in such high regards (I mean, he was considered to have been the reason for the Vietnam war for crying out loud).  In thinking of any celebrities that do have such a strong presence (Miley Cyrus comes to mind instantly), I find myself treading water, as these stars tend to create their persona through madness or scandal.  We also live in an age where social media is probably the most prevalent aspect of a star’s persona—an aspect that didn’t exist in Wayne’s time.  So again, he made a name of himself so large through the mere distribution of films, not in any other way--a feat that can not be done in today's age of media and technology.  That’s actually insane when you think about it.  Go Wayne! 

CORE RESPONSE: Implicit Gender Conflicts in North by Northwest

In his book Masked Men: Masculinity and the Movies in the Fifties, Steven Cohan discusses the implicit gender roles of the various characters in Alfred Hitchcock’s North By Northwest (1959). Cohan in particular focuses on the relationship between Cary Grant’s character Roger Thornhill and Eva Marie Saint’s Eve Kendall. He argues that Thornhill is a reflection of a diminishing American masculinity of the 1950s, one which was already in crisis partly due to the Cold War’s threat of communism - this threat comes full circle in the film, as Cohan describes Thornhill being “duped by a femme fatale…working for communists” (Cohan 7). In regards to Eve’s character, Cohan discusses the ways in which she is the quintessential 1950s Hitchcock actress, particularly because of her blondness. Cohan eventually argues that “blondeness turns out to be a highly volatile symbol of white patriarchy” because it promoted “WASP identity for a nation beginning to see white supremacy challenged at home” (Cohan 13). To be more specific regarding Eve’s “blondeness” in North by Northwest, Cohan argues that it helps maintain her mysteriousness - one which is critical to Hitchcock’s famous manipulation of the audience as the master of suspense (Cohan 14). 

In Garry Wills’s The Politics of Celebrity, the author offers various explanations for John Wayne’s prevailing popularity as a beloved movie star even years after his death. Wills focuses on parts of Wayne’s iconic style of performance - such as his walk, his pose (which he describes as akin to “Michelangelo’s David”) and his authoritative way of moving (which Wills cites as Wayne’s “easy control of his large body”) (Wills 19,18). Wills additionally argues that Wayne “embodied our deepest myth—that of the frontier,” and really, one that was disappearing in an increasingly globalized world (Wills 26). 

In Andrew Britton’s chapter “Stars and Genre” in Stardom: Industry of Desire, Britton critiques Richard Dyer’s argument that a powerful celebrity persona can carve its own genre in cinema (Britton 198). One of Britton’s most salient arguments is that “Many stars repeatedly cross genres” and thus those shifts in tone for the actor or actress cannot “[constitute] a new generic entity” (Britton 203). 

I particularly latched onto Cohan’s discussion of manhood in relation to North by Northwest, ultimately culminating in his argument that “The fate of the nation consequently appears to depend upon the strength of American manhood, and vice versa” (Cohan 8). To me, the film subverts the typical “leading man” archetype in its constant victimization of Thornhill. In other words, Cary Grant’s character is put in extreme situations in which he is forced to run or escape, but rarely does he actually fight. Whether he’s forced to drive away intoxicated in his car, run away from the infamous plane in the fields, or straddle his way off Mt. Rushmore, the fact that he’s always on the run and never really relies on physical confrontation further reinforces Cohan’s argument that Thornhill has a more effeminate nature. In a sense, because he never has to prove his physical capabilities, his traditional masculinity is never proven. Imagine, for instance, a Bond movie without Bond relying on physical confrontation - his character wouldn’t be as conventionally heroic. 

Bling Ring 2.0: The Internet Edition

I was watching a video of Gigi Gorgeous beinginterviewed by Park City Television about her debut at Sundance with the documentary This Is Everything: Gigi Gorgeous, which is about her journey as a transgender woman. Gigi started out on YouTube with makeup tutorials and, similar to other internet celebrities, she is now grabbing onto bigger projects as a way to transition into the industry, to mainstream media. She still posts videos on YouTube and engages with her followers on social media to foster her relationship with fans and maintain her online presence, however, after having signed big brand deals, walked at New York Fashion Week, being photographed by Miley Cyrus for Marie Claire, and having a documentary about her life premiere at Sundance, it is clear that Gigi is interested in conquering more than just the internet.

One of the videos in the “recommended videos” section for the interview that I was watching was titled “Inside Look At Gigi Gorgeous 1.6 Million Dollar Home In CANADA”. I thought that was weird; I’m only used to seeing these iMovie montages of photos of celebrity houses for A-list celebrities. However, I clicked on the link – like I always do with this type of video – and, to my surprise, I ended up coming across more of these mainstream looking celebrity house tour videos for YouTubers. Among “Gigi’s” tour, I found “Inside Look At Jeffree Stars 4 MILLION Dollar Home In Calabasas” and “Inside Look At Trisha Paytas (House Tour) 2 Million Dollar Home In Hollywood Hills”. Because I am a smart person and have faith in humanity, I did not click on the video for Trisha Paytas’ house, but I did watch Jeffree Stars’ and had a hard time forcing myself to get back to my homework.

All of this made me think about how maybe these internet celebrities that we have ignored and not quite considered as real stars for some time are reaching a more mainstream level of stardom. I’m not saying that Jacob Sartorius is close to winning a Grammy, but it is starting to look like it really is possible for internet personalities to get into the A-list. They are certainly starting to look like A-listers by venturing into Sundance Film Festival, New York Fashion Week, Met Gala (as I mentioned Cameron Dallas in a previous post), famous magazines, etc. With the level of fan obsession over these internet celebrities, there could even be a Bling Ring 2.0 in the near future… Who knows…