Visual conspicuousness in the cinema of the first half of the twentieth century: the emergence of the glamour style

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Visual conspicuousness in the cinema of the first half of the twentieth century: the emergence of the glamour style

Ruslana Bezuhla

Doctor in Arts Studies, Head of the Department of Theory and History of Culture, Modern Art Research Institute, National Academy of Arts of Ukraine

ВІЗУАЛЬНА ДЕМОНСТРАТИВНІСТЬ В КІНОМИСТЕЦТВІ ПЕРШОЇ ПОЛОВИНИ XX СТОЛІТТЯ: ЗАРОДЖЕННЯ ГЛАМУРНОГО СТИЛЮ

Руслана Безугла

Доктор мистецтвознавства, доцент, завідувач відділу теорії та історії культури, Інститут проблем сучасного мистецтва Національної академії мистецтв України

Безугла Р.

ВІЗУАЛЬНА ДЕМОНСТРАТИВНІСТЬ В КІНОМИСТЕЦТВІ ПЕРШОЇ ПОЛОВИНИ XX СТОЛІТТЯ: ЗАРОДЖЕННЯ ҐЛАМУРНОГО СТИЛЮ

Анотація

У статті представлена історія зародження ґламурного стилю, виявлено його характерні особливості та простежено зв'язок із візуальною демонстративністю. Мета статті -- визначити роль кіномистецтва у розвитку та поширенні ґламурного стилю. З'ясовано, що на початку ХХ століття були сформовані всі передумови для зародження ґламурного стилю та з'ясовано, що в 1930-1940-х роках ґламурний стиль був остаточно сформований та проявився в різноманітних напрямах мистецтва, а зовнішність і візуальність набули більшого значення, ніж у попередні періоди. Підкреслено, що кіномистецтво, зокрема Голівуд, відіграли визначальну роль для розповсюдження та популяризації ґламурного стилю. Теоретико-методологічною базою дослідження став історико-хронологічний метод, який сприяв виявленню особливостей виникнення, формування та еволюції ґламурного стилю в часопросторі культури і мистецтва. Структурно-функціональний метод дозволив проаналізувати стилістичні закономірності й принципи формування сталю та ґламурного ідеалу.

Ключові слова: ґламурний стиль, сучасне мистецтво, візуальна демонстративність, кіномистецтво, Голівуд, кіномитці.

Abstract

The article traces the history of the glamour style, reveals its characteristic features, and explores its connection with visual conspicuousness. The aim is to determine the role of cinematography in developing and promoting the glamour style. By the beginning of the 20th century, there were all the prerequisites for the rise of the glamour style. In the 1930s and 1940s, the glamour style finally took its distinct shape and manifested itself in various areas of art. Appearance and visuality became more important than in previous periods. The author emphasizes that cinema, and Hollywood in particular, played a crucial role in the spread and promotion of the glamour style. This research is based on a historical approach that the author applies to identify the special features of the glamour style and its emergence, formation, and evolution in the spacetime of culture and art. The study uses the structural and functional research methods to analyze the stylistic patterns and principles of the formation of glamour style and its ideals.

Keywords: glamour style, contemporary art, visual conspicuousness, cinema, Hollywood, film artists.

Introduction

Under the influence of transformational processes, contemporary visual art is sensitive to changes in media and digital technology. When it takes on new forms, new art practices emerge. One of the most widespread visual (media) images is the glamorous one, created and advertised through the media and communication, the fashion world, and the entertainment and experience industry. Stylish, glamorous images and photographs have become the hallmarks of glossy magazines and the entire modern fashion, entertainment, and political sectors, even though the country is at war. cinema glamorous style

The danger of glamour is that it helps to hide the inner content, and the external aesthetic visual component is dominant. The duality of visuality lies in the fact that, on the one hand, it allows us to obtain new information about the world and expand our understanding of the environment. On the other hand, it creates the illusion of objectivity and documentation, often used for rational manipulation. The aesthetics of the glamour style is quite simulative. It is based on the circulation of “empty” signs that endow the “glamorous object” with symbolic values of prestige, success, luxury, etc., because any signs are subject to desubstantiation in glamor. There is an imperative of external attractiveness, brightness, and seduction. Visual representation and visual illusion contain numerous opportunities for manipulating human consciousness. In this context, the relevance of the study lies in the understanding of the origins of glamour and glamour style, the formation of glamour as a socio-cultural phenomenon, and glamor ideology.

Literature Review

In the humanities, the problem of the emergence of the phenomenon of glamour and glamour style began to arouse the interest of scholars only at the beginning of the twenty-first century. This problem is elaborated in the works of Roland Barthes, Jean Baudrillard, Stephen Gundle, Joseph Rosa, and others. Having carefully studied Ukrainian and international publications, I can conclude that the issue of the formation of the glamour style and understanding of its manifestations in the context of the development of contemporary art, trends, and factors of the latter remains open and requires additional art historical research.

In the context of this study, I adopt the hypothesis that glamour as an ambivalent artistic phenomenon existed in European culture, including artistic culture, in an implicit (endogenous) or explicit (exogenous) form, and in the process of cultural and historical development it was modified, the range of its functions and artistic practices expanded, and the number of its attributive properties and characteristic features increased. The essential feature of glamour is visual conspicuousness, which reflects the desire of a person or certain social strata to flaunt (visually demonstrate) the body, clothes, works of art, luxury, wealth, success, social status, etc. The article continues the author's study of glamour as a social and cultural phenomenon and the stylistic evolution of glamour from the first decades of the twentieth century to the present (Bezuhla, 2019a, 2019b).

The Aim of the Paper. The aim of the article is to determine the role of the cinema in developing and promoting glamour style and identify its characteristic features, forms, and typical images.

Results and Discussion

The twentieth century was a new critical stage in forming glamour style and popularizing glamour as a socio-cultural phenomenon. By the beginning of the twentieth century, there were all the prerequisites for further development of the trends laid down in the nineteenth century (Bezuhla, 2019b). Glamour gradually transformed from a latent, marginal phenomenon into a universal means of social communication, achieving success, increasing social significance, and gaining popularity. The formation and development of glamour and glamour style are directly linked to film production and Hollywood, and the name “Hollywood” has become a symbol of luxury, beautiful life, illusory magic, and cinema.

The first public movie screening consisted of small humorous and dance performances in 1892 in New York City at the Koster and Bial's Music Hall. This year is generally considered the year of the emergence of the American film industry. Soon movie screenings gained great popularity with the audience, expanding the cinema network. One of the first to appear was cheap cinemas (“Nickelodeons”), which cost five cents to enter, there were more than three thousand in operation by the beginning of 1908. In the first decades of the twentieth century, when the first significant film studios began to emerge, about sixty percent of all American film production was concentrated in Hollywood. In the 1920s, thanks to the rapid growth of large film studios, about eight hundred films were produced annually in Hollywood, and gradually, Hollywood began to play a leading role in the global film industry. It should be noted that among the Hollywood film industry creators (especially in the first twenty years of its existence), immigrants played a prominent role: people from Germany (Carl Laemmle founded Universal Studio), Hungary (Adolph Zukor became the founder of Paramount Studio), Ukraine (Louis Burt Mayer founded Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lazar Meir was born in Dymer, a small town in the Kyiv region. His parents emigrated to the United States when he was two years old. Lazar Meir will go down in the history of world cinema as the founder of one of the most famous film companies, Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer, which he created at the age of 23, and he was the founder of the annual Oscar Awards (Bezuhla, 2019b).), Poland (“Warner Brothers” -- the Warner brothers), France and Britain, those who fled to America from war, tyranny, racial discrimination, and economic crisis.

Hollywood film studios managed to synthesize the art of different cultures, countries, and historical eras in their work and combine the desire for aristocracy, fame, wealth, popularity, ostentatious luxury, fashion, sexuality, and consumption into a single unique combination. Hollywood films were designed not to satisfy the masses' practical needs, but to awaken the needs of the imagination, interact with the audience's dreams, and promote the idea of escapism. They presented images that captured the imagination, showed a part of another reality that intersected with everyday life, and was perceived through cinema and the press. Thomas Kiernan noted that Hollywood stars are American culture's “real heroes and heroines”; they are “surrogates” for aspirations and dreams that not everyone can realize. Watching those who live a bright and full life allows you to compensate for the lack of romance in life, to escape from everyday life and routine, and to let go of fantasies about a sweet life (Kiernan, 1990, pp. 13-14). Viewers were offered several options for escaping reality: 1) American aristocracy, theatrical luxury, the brilliance of the pop scene, and the beauty of youth; 2) “European decadence”; 3) common sense and down-to-earthiness of ordinary Americans, etc. (Bezuhla, 2019a).

In the first decades of its existence, Hollywood was guided by the European tradition of a theatrical approach to luxury, lifestyle, fashion in general, and costume in particular. The films were full of references to French Art Deco Art Deco (from the French art deco, literally “decorative art”) is a trend in the decorative arts of the first half of the twentieth century, manifested in architecture, fashion, and painting. The term “art deco” became established only in the late 1960s of the twentieth century. In 1966, a large retrospective exhibition was held at the Paris Museum of Decorative Arts (Musee des Arts Decoratifs), with the subtitle for the catalog reading “Art Deco.” Its characteristic features are a clear pattern, ethnic geometric patterns, luxury, chic, and modern materials (ivory, crocodile skin, alu-minum, rare wood, silver).

Various artistic phenomena of the era influenced Art Deco. One of its names -- “jazz modern” (where jazz is un-derstood not only as a musical trend but also as something colorful, bright, something that can serve as decoration) -- emphasizes this style's uneven, unstable, and disintegrating nature. The influence of Expressionism, the fascination with everything exotic, reflected in the use of simplified forms and colors, is noticeable, as is the case with “barbarian cultures” (both ancient and modern). The fascination with Egyptian and Indian cultures brought to Art Deco the fash-ion for pyramidal stepped silhouettes and semiprecious stones: Brazilian onyx, jade, lapis lazuli, rock crystal, and ob-sidian became favorite materials in jewelry and decorative plastics (Bezuhla, 2019b). and Parisian haute couture, which became especially noticeable after the Exposition Internationale des Arts Decoratifs et Industriels Modernes (1925), where the supremacy of the Art Nouveau style was proclaimed. Art Deco was a synthesis of Art Nouveau and Neoclassicism. Unlike Art Nouveau, Art Deco was characterized by symmetry, straightforwardness, clarity of form, and geometric ornamentation. The style impressed with its exquisite splendor, the use of precious exotic materials, virtuosity in decoration, monumental forms with simultaneous simplicity, and lightness of construction. The primary trend of the time was the emphasis on luxury. The material itself, the richness of its texture, was of paramount importance. Shiny, polished surfaces were considered incredibly fashionable (Bezuhla, 2019a).

Art Deco was also perfectly combined with the glamour style, ostentatious luxury, and gloss, and according to Emily Wilson (2003), black-and-white films of the period contributed to the formation of the characteristic features of Art Deco aesthetics and the glamour style. “Colorless elegance, ... draped brocade (lame) and sequined satin mesmerized the eye with light streams that floated and spread across the moving backs and hips of Garbo, Dietrich, and Lombard. These visuals were built on the foundation of a hitherto unknown powerful sensuality of colorless but moving textures... sequins, marabou, white veil, and black lace made sexual connotations resonate with new power in a world devoid of imaginative colors” (Gundle, 2008, p. 158).

However, if Hollywood filmmakers were guided by the styles that prevailed in Europe at the beginning of their careers, the situation changed over time. Artists began to treat the styles that had already been established quite freely: various “eclectic combinations” emerged, parodies, exclusivity, and eccentricity of high fashion became objects of ridicule, etc. This trend was characteristic of the transitional stage during which Hollywood accumulated resources and skills that allowed it to become the primary source of glamour. As a result, a “glamorous mixture” emerged, combining somewhat contradictory properties: luxury, aristocratic “grandeur,” street style, mass spectacle, and haute couture fashion. This “mixture,” on the one hand, was demonstratively theatrical and, on the other hand, reproducible (“man-made,” it could be imitated or recreated if desired) (Bezuhla, 2019b). It can be argued that during this period, favorable circumstances were created for the emergence of a new style, which would be called “glamour,” and whose main characteristic features were visual conspicuousness, sexual attractiveness, luxury, sophistication, and glossiness.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), one of the largest and most successful Hollywood studios of the sound era, significantly contributed to the popularization of glamour style. Cedric Gibbons, the studio's art director As art director, Cedric Gibbons was responsible for the design of every film released by MGM from 1924 to 1956., was the only one who connected the glamour style with the aesthetic trends of the time (abandoning bulky luxury for Art Deco, which was perceived as a symbol of glamour).

In the 1930s, glamour finally became American and democratic, and its original foreign version gradually lost popularity. It was in Hollywood that glamour not only gained new meaning but also began to develop actively as a global social and cultural phenomenon: on the one hand, continuing the European tradition, and on the other, acquiring a complete set of attributes: theatricality, conspicuousness, ostentatiousness, sexuality, showiness, brightness, external attractiveness, etc. Visual conspicuousness dominates in all spheres and fields of glamour, and the “inner,” true essence of the object is hidden behind the glamorous mask. Later, Merylin Monroe's words would gain popularity: “Hollywood: they'll pay you a thousand dollars for a kiss, and fifty cents for your soul.” Most of the changes in the perception of glamour in America also occurred in Europe, where each country or ethnic group experienced changes. Still, they all occurred at their own pace, interpreting general trends and adapting them to local traditions.

The glamour style developed in Hollywood is gradually gaining ground in the global fashion and beauty industry. The distinct nature of this style lies in its hypertrophied brightness and straightforward associations with luxurious and bohemian life, sex, and exoticism (Bezuhla, 2019a). Over time, the glamour style became so popular that Europe and Paris, particularly, paid attention to it. Europeans began to focus on it and sometimes even to imitate it. Thus, in the 1930s, European fashion designers “drew inspiration” from American “costume dramas.” For example, one of the most famous collections by Elsa Schiaparelli, Circus, was based on costumes from the renowned American circus Barnum. This designer also dedicated an entire collection to the figure of Mae West. Later, since 1940, Elsa Schiaparelli worked extensively with film and theatre stars, as she lived in the United States during the occupation of France. She influenced the image of Gary Cooper, Marlene Dietrich, Michele Morgan, and others. Katharine Hepburn stated that her career began to thrive only when she started dressing in Schiaparelli's clothes (Bezuhla, 2019b).

During this period, the term “Hollywood glamour” became established, and the essential content of glamour took its shape: the priority of the demonstratively superficial: chic social life (partying), competitions in expensive outfits, jewelry, and other attributes of glamour. Glamour is emphatically decorative, sensual, feminine, and conspicuously (theatrically) luxurious -- more artificial, ostentatious, unlike “the real life.”

Hollywood movie stars have become the most perfect embodiment of glamour. Greta Garbo, Louise Brooks, and Marlene Dietrich are considered the first representatives of the glamour style. Incredible perfection was an essential aspect of Hollywood glamor. Actors and actresses always looked like they had just left a beauty salon; they were the standard of impeccable form, beautiful presentation, and external gloss.

As I have already noted, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer is considered to be one of the most successful studios in this period. Fortune magazine pointed out that the list of stars who worked with it was much longer than any other film studio. Although MGM's competitors were such film companies as Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers, RKO, and small film companies Columbia, Universal, and United Artists, the list of stars the former worked with was significantly smaller than MGM's. For example, from the mid-1930s to the late 1940s, 20th Century Fox signed contracts with only four top stars: Shirley Temple, Betty Grable, Tyrone Power, and Gregory Peck. Warner Brothers worked with James Cagney, Bette Davis, and Humphrey Bogart. This situation can be explained by the fact that although some performers had natural talent, charisma, and appropriate appearance and succeeded without much “glamorous” training, creating the image of an excellent movie star required investing significant funds, and only large film studios had them. It is clear that at that time, it was too early to say that the presence of a star cast ensured the success of a movie, but the difference in box office between a film with a celebrity and one without could be significant.

It is well-known that the institution of stars in Hollywood cinema originated in the 1920s, took shape in the 1930s, and peaked in the 1940s and 1950s. In the 1930s and 1940s, film production in the United States was called a dream or glamour factory. Hollywood became a genuine factory, constantly “producing” glamorous stars and illusions. The systematic approach to creating and promoting stars distinguished Hollywood from other film industries. Not only vast sums of money were invested in movie stars, but also incredible labour. Movie stars became a standardized commodity supplied with limited modifications and regularly updated.

The star was represented as a glamorous person -- a confident, seductive, unusual, refined, arrogant, or funny person, depending on the role they had to play. When creating a glamorous image, Hollywood masters sought to balance the old and the new, the high and the low. They managed to organically combine the trends of the time with borrowed elements of high society and the general unique qualities of each star.

Cinema required expressiveness and clear lines in makeup, hairstyle, and clothing. In Hollywood, there were precise requirements for the appearance of a star: youth, slim figure, “correct” facial features, expressive eyes, and photogeneity. In addition to acting skills, charisma and personality were essential conditions for becoming a star. Each of the Hollywood stars had some feature that had a magnetic effect on the audience and allowed them to turn an “awkward person” into a charming and attractive personality. The star's figure was a real luxury. Actors who did not meet the required standards were “corrected.” For example, being overweight was unacceptable because a star with such a flaw looked relatively unprofitable on screen. The actors were put on a strict diet to correct this flaw, and masseurs were assigned. As a result, the body looked slimmer, the cheekbones stood out, and the facial features became sharper. Teeth and hair were straightened; if necessary, plastic surgery was used. Makeup artists plucked eyebrows and shaped them, lengthened eyelashes, enlarged eyes, reduced noses, retouched moles, and painted over freckles with makeup. Such actions led to the depersonalization of the face, making it artificial and attractive. The costume designer created the illusion of physical perfection: with the help of special underwear, he hid flaws and emphasized the stars' advantages. According to Gundle, stars such as Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, or Joan Crawford could have 20 costumes in one film, and each costume required up to six fittings. The most precious materials were used for the costumes, often with exaggerated cuts, unique colors, and external effects (Gundle, 2008, p. 160).

In this context, it is necessary to point out such a characteristic feature of Hollywood stars as sexual attractiveness. It was believed that women primarily possessed sexual attractiveness, and it was their prerogative to care about their appearance, beauty, fashion, luxury, and artificiality. Producers and directors found new ways to embody the ideals of femininity and create new female ideals and fantasy images. To present the star to the public as an object of sexual desire, film companies used the culture of seductive spectacles that had already been formed in European and American theaters. Hollywood beauties became the carriers of erotic femininity, which had previously been the privilege of Parisian women (Gundle, 2008, p. 156). Magnetic attraction as a critical component of sexual attractiveness was achieved through the symmetry and harmony of the face and body, which were of great importance in Hollywood (Cendrars, 1989, pp. 83-84).

Every aspect of a Hollywood star's life was subject to careful control and elaboration. Not only the appearance of the actors was “corrected,” but also their biographies and surnames. Very often, the real names of actors and actresses were not mentioned. Pseudonyms were used instead: Greta Garbo's real name was Greta Gustafsson, Joan Crawford's original name was Lucille Fay LeSueur, Mary Pickford was Gladys Marie Smith, Douglas Fairbanks was Douglas Elton Ullman, Carole Lombard was Jane Peters, and Cary Grant was Archibald Alec Leach. Celebrity biographies were invented or faked.

The lifestyle and behavior of famous actors and actresses off-screen were an integral part of the “star path” and were closely linked to the advertising of films. In most cases, viewers were unaware of the strict discipline and sacrifices that stars had to make. As Dietrich noted in her memoirs, stars were often subjected to severe pressure from studio promotion departments. The actresses were required not to drink, smoke, or even have children, and each of their many romances was “blessed in heaven.” According to Dietrich, an actress is “a woman who must look perfect” (Dietrich, 1989, p. 116).

The stars looked magnificent and theatrical, and their images and costumes were designed to attract attention, which fully corresponded to Dietrich's definition of glamour as “something indefinite, something inaccessible to ordinary women -- a fairy-tale paradise, desirable but essentially unattainable” (Fox, 1995, pp. 56-57).

Hollywood stars' lifestyles and public image were focused on the visual demonstration of luxury (real or imagined) and borrowed from the wealthiest communities. “For the mass audience, the Hollywood version of high society was more accessible to understand than the closed world of recognized elites, based on imitation and tradition rather than money and success” (Gundle, 2008, p. 159). Quite often, Hollywood stars were deluded into believing that Hollywood society was the pinnacle of perfection until they met the European aristocracy. Gloria Swanson (one of the most photographed women in America in the 1920s) pointed out that “the glamour of Hollywood's illusions pales in comparison to the real glamour of rich Europeans” (Swanson, 1981, p. 177). The theatrical and showy luxury of Hollywood glamour looked quite different. For example, Celeste Holm, the actress who worked with Warner Brothers, noted that everything was exaggerated in Hollywood. “If you had a farm, it became an estate. If you had a field, there would be a herd of horses running around” (Swanson, 1981, p. 139-144). MGM employees were forbidden to talk about the stars' earnings because “mentioning money put profit above glamor” (Bezuhla, 2019b).

A new type of aristocracy, the aristocracy of beauty and talent, was created. This type of aristocracy became more accessible and attractive. It dictated new canons of high status (unrelated to origin) and new rituals, which partially involved representatives of the traditional elite. A new, more understandable, open hierarchy emerged, where glamour style came first.

The style imposed by cinematic images was a source of signs and symbols. The stars were the “gods and goddesses of modern Olympus” because they stood on the border of everyday life and the miraculous, the real, and the ideal. However, it is essential to note that while in the early twentieth century, some of the first stars had a reputation as celestials and unusual people, in the 1930s, a more common viewpoint was that the star was distinguished from the average person only by unique chic and that anyone could become a star if the right conditions were created.

Although the upper strata of society were genuinely interested in the people they saw on the screen and admired the glamour style and the ability to “arouse enthusiasm and inspire adoration among the masses,” from the point of view of the traditional social elite, this style was vulgar and pretentious, and it flourished in extremes and eccentricity. In the “traditional” social categories, movie stars did not have high social status (because they often came from modest and sometimes even disadvantaged backgrounds). Still, the doors to fashionable salons and private palaces were “open” for them. The corresponding taboo was lifted because now, to be invited to dinner parties, one did not need to be connected to the upper strata by close family ties; money or popularity became a pass to the houses of the upper strata.

While the stars' elaborate glamour was out of reach for the majority, appearance and visuals became much more important during this period than in previous years. “The 'Hollywood glamour style' was gradually becoming available to the public. Cinema promoted the idea that appearance was an important part of everyday life and that how a person presented themselves “as a whole” was of great importance in their lives. Thus, women were encouraged to draw parallels between the studios' desire to maximize the popularity of stars and the audience's attempts to make the best use of their opportunities. Films helped people dream, and the consumption machine allowed them to partially translate these dreams into real experiences” (Gundle, 2008, p. 168).

The popularity and general accessibility of cinema led to films beginning to impact the average person's life significantly. Many people watched Hollywood movies and gradually began to focus on the lifestyle dictated by cinematic glamour. They also sought to add elements of this lifestyle to their everyday lives. Glamour fans wanted to be like their idols and enjoyed the illusion of resemblance to them, feeling envy and admiring their image and lifestyle.

Films were both a commodity and a call for consumption, as the “hype” associated with films directed the public's consumer needs toward specific products. Stores advertised movies and posted photos of stars in their windows. Movie stars gained the status of “style icons.” Retail chains sold copies of models of the outfits worn by actresses in movies. Magazines published recommendations from stars on how to choose and wear such clothes. To create a personal glamour style, moviegoers were encouraged to imitate the image of a star who resembled them in face, posture, or temperament. American publications for women that gave advice on the right choice of wardrobe listed six main personality types, and each of them corresponded to the image of a particular film star: an exotic woman -- Ilona Massey; an active lifestyle supporter -- Katharine Hepburn; an experienced woman -- Merle Oberon; feminine -- Greer Garson; an aristocrat -- Joan Fontaine; a tomboy -- Betty Hutton (Turim, 1983). Women's magazines regularly published tests and questionnaires that allowed readers to determine their type.

The independence of Hollywood was growing, as evidenced by the clothing collections intended for retail. For example, in the late 1930s, Orry-Kelly and Head clothing collections were released for retail. Although these collections reflected European fashion trends, the models looked “quite American.” Celebrities were associated with fashion and demonstrated their lifestyle with clothes, cosmetics, and other products just as much as fashion models. In 1914, the sales of women's clothing in Los Angeles County reached 1.205 million dollars; in 1935, this figure increased to 28.104 million dollars. The Los Angeles Times wrote that “the rest of the world wants Hollywood glamour and is willing to pay for it.” (Gundle, 2008, p. 169).

The most artificial creations of the “glamour industry” were called “glamorous girls” who, fascinated by imitating their idols, completely lost their individuality. They were not much different from mannequins in store windows, from “dolls that came to life and moved sleepwalking from one movie to another” (Hill, 1938). Sociologist C. Wright Mills noted that the standards of appearance and behavior set by Hollywood cinema were gradually “spreading down the national hierarchy of glamour -- to all the girls who were carefully selected and trained to portray the promise of pleasure for commercial purposes, as well as to all young housewives” (Mills, 1956, p. 81).

Men also partially fell under the influence of the glamour style even though the prominent admirers of Hollywood glamour were women, especially young women. In the United States, there emerged the phenomenon of the so-called “glamorous boys.” They included movie actors and attractive service workers who sold soda, worked in car service, etc. (Hill, 1938).

As early as the 1930s, the glut of glamour styles in various spheres of life began to cause rejection, adverse reactions, and critical statements. In the mid-1930s, independent producer Samuel Goldwyn stated that the public was tired of glamour, fancy costumes, and sets and wanted simplicity. In his opinion, glamour should remain only in musicals, where exaggeration and spectacle are mandatory elements, and moviemakers should be guided by reality. Producers should stop manipulating scenery, flashy dress styles, and makeup and “shove the cost of the movie in the viewer's face” (Hill, 1938).

Hollywood stars were also subjected to criticism. For example, Cecil Beaton emphasized that the artificiality of glamorous stars ceases to be attractive to the public. “When an assistant is constantly on hand to wipe away the drops of sweat that have appeared on her forehead, and a costume designer is watching over her outfit (cut in a special way to minimize anatomical defects) to keep it from creasing, she is as far from the weakness of mere mortals and, accordingly, as boring from a psychological point of view as a statue in a museum” (Bezuhla, 2019b). Critical remarks are made that “a glamorous girl shows no signs of life.” To change the situation, it is necessary to return to naturalness, “a girl must show that she is a real person who has a sense of humor and a spirit of sociability” (Davis, 1993, p. 27).

In this context, it is necessary to draw attention to another trend of great importance that helped make glamour a holistic phenomenon and became the basis of glossy (glamorous) images in the late twentieth century. Since the 1940s, idealized images of healthy, cheerful, sexually attractive women have become quite popular, especially among men (although the practice of such photographs can be traced back to the 1890s). This style was called “pin-up” (to pin up, literally a poster that is pinned on the wall), a term that also refers to drawings, paintings, and other illustrations based on photographs.

The term “pin-up” was first used in 1941. The distinctive features of this style were simplicity, directness, accessibility, and cheerfulness. In Hollywood, the production of nude photographs was similar to cinema. Photographers skillfully managed to turn pretty women into unbelievable beauties. The glamour photographer was an expert on presenting the naked female body in a favorable light. Stars whose careers were just beginning and those whose popularity was fading worked in this genre. Quite often, one of the most commonly used titles for nude photographs (sometimes erotic or slightly pornographic) was the word “glamour” (used either as a synonym or as a euphemism).

Photographers who worked in this genre had different perceptions of their work. For example, Russ Meyer did not consider himself engaged in art and noted that he took glamorous magazine photos for money (Davis, 1993, p. 56). In his opinion, all the “curvy actresses” (Marilyn Monroe, Anita Ekberg, Jayne Mansfield, Sophia Loren, etc.) owe their massive box office success to their bodies alone: “If we draw a parallel, the success of my glamorous photographs was largely influenced by the magnificence of my models' figures,” he stated (Davis, 1993, pp. 137-138). Interestingly, not only men but also women acted as glamour photographers. An example is Bunny Yeager, whose career began with a victory in a beauty contest. Later, she starred in pin-ups, then worked on developing women's bathing suits, and only after gaining experience began to work as a photographer.

Every year the emphasis on the eroticism and sexuality of stars increased. For example, Marilyn Monroe, who was a symbol of the 1950s and the last and most perfect product of the film studios, showed the public a nude image that had never been seen before. Monroe began her career with pin-up photos. Her platinum hair, perfectly fair complexion, shining red lips, sensual curves, and childlike demeanor made her the perfect movie star and the complete embodiment of Hollywood's glamour style. Created by the 20th Century Fox studio, the physical embodiment of the idealized “pin-up” character, she became the perfect American woman.

According to Edgar Morin, Monroe's death in August 1962 ended the era. It became clear that behind the glossy image of the star's excellent, rich, and happy life was a tragedy. “This is a natural demythologization, a breach in the dam, through which the truth seeps out like water: there are no more perfect stars, no more happy Olympus” (Seidner, 1996, p. 20).

Gradually, in a capitalist society, women's images became one of the objects used for manipulation of public consciousness. Companies deliberately directed the hopes and desires of society towards consumerism. The glamour style gave household items and everyday life a magical shine and appeal. Commercial and commodity prerequisites determined the fantasies of the era of mass consumerism. Innovative changes in society (the development of technology, tourism, mass media, communication, a certain reformatting of social strata, etc.) significantly influenced the formation of visual stereotypes of attractiveness. As a result, glamour, the language of symbols of everything attractive and desirable, has also changed in the conditions of capitalist society.

Conclusions

The film industry and film art, which developed a unique sign system, contributed to the emergence, development, and spread of the glamour style. This trend was characteristic of the transitional stage, during which cinema accumulated resources and skills that allowed it to become the primary source of glamour. The “glamorous mixture” emerged during this period, laying the groundwork for the glamour style and its features. This “mixture” was, on the one hand, demonstratively theatrical and, on the other hand, reproducible (“man-made” so that it could be imitated or reproduced if desired). The article has explored several factors that contributed to the emergence of the glamour style and the formation of the relevant canon of glamorous corporeality.

It can be stated that the glamour style emerged in the 1930s and 1940s, which manifested itself in various areas of art. At the time, there was established an axiological polarity in the perception of the phenomenon of glamour; appearance and visuality became more important than in previous periods; glamour began to dictate the canons of beauty, determine lifestyles and behavioral patterns of various social strata. Thanks to the film industry and the practical activities of its actors (filmmakers, actors, producers, managers, advertisers, etc:) glamour style has become a global phenomenon and begun to influence the lifestyles and dreams of people around the world; it has finally lost its ascriptive features and become more democratic and popular; there has been an active promotion of glamour ideas among the masses, which has directly stimulated the growth of consumption of goods and services.

The glamour style is not just a list of tools and rules; it is, first of all, a corresponding visual image and mood created in various art forms with the help of certain “material” elements, such as human corporeality, precious metals (gold, silver, platinum), stones, rhinestones, crystal -- used not only in jewelry but also in elements of clothing decor, in furniture decoration and even in decorative dishes; fashionable, branded items, makeup, high-heeled shoes, glamorous jewelry and luxury attributes; fabrics and leather -- in clothing, in the interior, which should look precious, in architecture and interior space, high ceilings, a large number of mirrors and a lot of light (derived from visual conspicuousness), which allow to expand the space and create the corresponding visual illusion.

References

Bezuhla, R. (2019a). Glamur u yevropejskij xudozhnij kulturi: istorychna dynamika ta formy [Glamour in European Artistic Culture: Historical Dynamics and Forms]. Doctoral dissertation. National Academy of Managerial Staff of Culture and Arts, Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

Bezuhla, R. (2019b). Glamur: xudozhni cinnosti, istorychna dynamika ta formy [Glamour: Artistic Values, Historical Dynamics and Forms]. Kyiv: National Academy of Managerial Staff of Culture and Arts [in Ukrainian].

Cendrars, B. (1989). Hollywood: La mecca del cinema [Hollywood: Mecca of the Movies]. Rome: Lucarini [in Italian].

Davis, R. (1993). The Glamour Factory: Inside Hollywood's Big Studio System. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press.

Dietrich, M. (1989). My Life. London: Pan.

Fox, P. (1995). Star Style: Hollywood Legends as Fashion Icons. Santa Monica: City Press.

Gundle, S. (2008). Glamour: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hill, W. E. (1938, September 11). Glamour Boys. Los Angeles Times, G4.

Kiernan, T. (1990). Jane Fonda. London: Mayflower.

Mills, C. W. (1956). The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

Seidner, D. (Ed.). (1996). Lisa Fonssagrives: Three Decades of Fashion Photography. London: Thames & Hudson.

Swanson, G. (1981). Swanson on Swanson. London: Joseph.

Turim, M. (1983). Fashion Shapes: Film, the Fashion Industry and the Image Women. Socialist Review, 13(71), 79-96.

Wilson, E. (2003). Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Література

Безугла Р. І. Гламур у європейській художній культурі: історична динаміка та форми: дис. ... доктора мистецтвознавства: 26.00.01 -- теорія та історія культури, Національна академія керівних кадрів культури і мистецтв. Київ, 2019. 480 с.

Безугла Р. І. Гламур: художні цінності, історична динаміка та форми. Київ: Національна академія керівних кадрів культури і мистецтв, 2019. 348 с.

Cendrars B. Hollywood: La mecca del cinema. Rome: Lucarini, 1989.

Davis R. The Glamour Factory: Inside Hollywood's Big Studio System. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1993.

Dietrich M. My Life. London: Pan, 1989.

Fox P. Star Style: Hollywood Legends as Fashion Icons. Santa Monica: City Press, 1995.

Gundle S. Glamour: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. 464 pp.

Hill W. E. Glamour Boys // Los Angeles Times, 11.09.1938. P. G4.

Kiernan T. Jane Fonda. London: Mayflower, 1990.

Lisa Fonssagrives: Three Decades of Fashion Photography / Ed. D. Seidner. London: Thames & Hudson, 1996.

Mills C. W. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press, 1956.

Swanson G. Swanson on Swanson. London: Joseph, 1981.

Turim M. Fashion Shapes: Film, the Fashion Industry and the Image Women // Socialist Review. 1983. Vol. 13. № 71. P. 79-96.

Wilson E. Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2003. 290 pp.

Размещено на Allbest.ru/