But aside from my "those fucking assholes" reaction to this piece, it made me think about something tangental I've been noodling on for a bit now -- which is how women don't get to play sexual games (either destructive and predatory, or *gasp* normal and healthy) with a peer group, because a woman is always going to be labeled a slut for that sort of thing.
What that thought came out of? What I do and don't get to say on a con panel vs. the men and how it's dictated by my gender presentation. The only reason no one calls me a whore for the ridiculous sex-related bullshit that comes out of my mouth on semi-appropriate con panels is because I'm not wearing a dress. FUCKED UP.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-10 03:26 pm (UTC)I was thinking about similar issues yesterday -- the Lady Gaga video discussion had me looking up other videos, and the "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" video made me remember a few other scenes from musicals of that era:
There's a Gene Kelly/Fred Astaire skit called The Babbitt and the Bromide where the two of them do a song and dance, which is awesome, because they're both amazing dancers. At one point they waltz together and it's just another part of the skit. I don't know if there was any controversy over this back when they did it, but I've seen guys flipping out over the idea of ballroom dancing with another guy, so it's possible that they could only do that because of their assumed straightness.
There's a scene from Anchors Away, back when Frank Sinatra was young enough to play innocent and inexperienced instead of a rake, and Gene Kelly is teaching him how to pick up girls, and is like "okay, I'll be the girl" and sashays across the screen with very feminine body language. And then a random man walks by and stares at them, and Gene and Frank both kind of freeze.* As far as I remember, nothing more is said about it, but there's an example of it being funny that people think the (characters of) the leading men are gay. I'm not sure how this fits into views of homosexuality of the time, but I find it kind of interesting that the actors (and producers) were comfortable portraying perceived homosexuality, even as a joke. And if they could get away with this because the actors were known to be straight, I'm betting Rock Hudson was never involved in that sort of scene, even jokingly.
*Found the clip in this compilation of scenes from the movie that the person making the video thought had subtext -- the one I mentioned starts around minute two.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-10 03:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-10 04:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-10 08:18 pm (UTC)America's ostentatious fascination with the difference between masculine and feminine behaviour and society's absolute terror of queerness, especially in men, continued to be served by the requisite yardstick sissy.(...) Grady Sutton, Kathryn Grayson's Milquetoast suitor in Anchors Aweigh is easily disposed of by all-American sailor boy Gene Kelly. The difference between the sissy and the real man is underscored when Kelly teaches buddy Frank Sinatra how to pick up a girl on the street and in doing so acts out the part of the imaginary female (to the horror of a lone male passerby). The same comic routine that made Sutton famous as a movie sissy here establishes Kelly's virility. It also serves to allay any lurking fears in the minds of the audience about the nature of the relationship between Sinatra and Kelly. Sinatra's hero worship of Kelly is played so broadly and so repeatedly throughout the film that it is clear he prefers Kelly's company at all times.
Later in the same chapter he says about these type of films (the buddy films of that era):
The only acknowledgement of homosexuality in buddy films has come from those critics who attribute the misogynist attitudes of such films to the covert gayness in them. He adds a few examples about directors who may not have been aware of the unconscious subtext that the exclusion of women (or negative attitudes towards women) might mean to the impressions the film gives. Russo's basic point remains that the "weaker" male serves as a confirmation of the (straight) virility of the leading man.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-11 03:43 am (UTC)I never found Gene Kelly to be particularly virile, and in fact see his gender presentation as kind of fluid, but possibly this says more about how I think about gender presentation, sexual orientation, and their relationship with dancing than anything else.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-11 06:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-11 02:28 pm (UTC)But it's true that dancing is considered effeminate in general, and that while it was expected for men to be able to sing and dance if they wanted to be movie stars, these days they just have to stand there and look pretty.
Oddly enough though, I don't consider Fred Astaire's gender presentation to be fluid in the way that I do with Gene Kelly. It may have to do with Gene Kelly's style being more playful, but I'm not sure if this makes him read to me as "kid" or if it makes it seem like his gender is as much of a performance as everything else.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-11 02:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-11 03:12 pm (UTC)I think, actually, that not only did dancing used to be required, now it would be viewed as a negative asset. That a man who is a good dancer might have his sexuality questioned faster (alas) than a man who's buff and presents as very masculine.
I can't give an opinion on Fred Astaire; I'm very unfamiliar with his work, alas.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-11 05:41 pm (UTC)Probably the most famous routines he's done are both from Royal Wedding:
Dancing with a hat rack, thus proving that not only can he make anyone he's dancing with look good, but he can make anything he's dancing with look good.
Dancing on the ceiling, which is a pretty good camera trick for 1951.
He's most famously partnered with Ginger Rogers, who did everything that he did, only backwards and in high heels.