![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In my attempt to avoid day-time talk shows, i am watching the inane Michael Keaton, Henry Winkler vehicle Night Shift. Actually, it's just the credits right now. (With such notables as Shannon Dougherty as "Bluebird" and Kevin Costner as "Frat Boy #1") It got me thinking about the whole early 80's series of drug and alcohol friendly movies that features the young fish out of water hero becoming a pimp in order to achieve popularity and success. I'm thinking of this movie, the surreal Dan Akroyd, Donna Dixon film, Doctor Detroit and of course, Tom Cruise and Rebecca DeMornay in Risky Business. In each film, the young hero is goaded into becoming a pimp by the very protitutes who, for some odd reason never really explained... need a pimp.
In that time, Studio 54 was still in it's heyday, only beginning to loose some of it's gold flaked charm, and all the taboos had been dashed by the sexual revolution, and Stonewall was making all of the gay folks feel empowered. Soon, we would have Reagan driven moral backlash bolstered by the onslaught of AIDS, but not yet. I guess the idea was that the young hero would be a fool not to take the opportunity to make money off of prostitution. Of course there is a downside, the conflict is presented in the threat of violence to the young hero, who must battle the previous pimp, and act as protector and punisher for his "crew." But there is no thought given to the women in the film, only the female lead is given any depth... She is the "Whore with the Heart of Gold," always smart, tough, and really the mover behind the scenes, manipulating the situation to try and make her break from prostitution (but not through savings and wise investment, but instead by capturing the love of the young hero, who will walk in and rescue her from her life of sin.... She is not shown as someone strong enough to free herself, but strong enough to manipulate a MAN to free her. (keep that in mind, i'll get back to it.)) The rest of the prostitutes are flat chariactures really, showing no emotion other that a bawdy sort of "joy of life," living to be the naked girl in the party, to dispense sexual pleasure only... with no lines other than "Frank told us to make him feel good. " No one regrets prostitution or doubts it at all, in fact, they seem to be enjoying it.
All of this reminds me of the Art movement "Orientalism" in France, of the 1820's, where the woman was depicted by artists like David, Ingres, and Delacroix as a courtesan in a harem setting, an exotic animal, with one real purpose, to be taken sexually. To be possessed... Often the woman would literally be depicted as having clouded features, as if drugged... NEVER (at least not until Manet's Olympia in 1880 (controvertial for just this detail,)) would the woman's gaze ever meet that of the viewer (understood to be male,) as if the woman has no choice but to grant full access to her body. In one case, Ingres depicts the harem on a round canvas, literally invoking the idea of the viewer spying on the courtesans via a clandestine peephole.
And isn't that the real appeal of these pimp personas? A possesor, having unrestriced access to a flock of women, and the power to dole them out as he pleases, pausing only to collect the profits from his "bevvy of beaties" (As i continually hear all the girls cloistered up at the Playboy Mansion referred to... ala, "Hef's Bevvy of Beauties")
I also feel that these films, and especially the pimp aspect of the film, is an attempt to place a sympathetic male figure (one that the audience can identify with) in charge, of the process of prostitution. An effort, I think, for the male machine to somehow try and assert control over an inherently feminine process, one that in ancient times, was even used to empower women. Men know that sex is one of their weakest points, and through their desires they can be controlled. (now we get back to the heroine's manipulations.) Especially controlled by women, (whom men think are less a slave to sexual drives and urges, and therefore will have the upper hand in any sexual negotiations, such as prostitution...) The Pimp exists to exert the male influences, the control via force, the mangagement of the business aspects, while the female lead exists to control the pimp, but only enough to win her specific freedom. (the resulting conflict between wife and harem is conveniently never breached, as the film usually ends at this point.)
These exploitive films seem to me to be just a rehash of this inherently male fantasy... to see and possess as many women as possible, to deny the feminine by recapturing and belittling it's strengths.
Anyhow, here endeth the rant...the pictures are, (in order of their hyperlinks... Eugene Delacroix' "Female Nude Reclining on a Divan" (i couldn't find a picture of the Delacroix I really wanted to show, which is titled I believe "Odalesque Reclining on a Divan" the drugged look is much more prevelant.) Of course, Eduard Manet's "Olympia" (known as the "most scandalous painting in the world" when it was first shown in 1880, not because of the nude woman, assumed to be a prostitute by her public, but because she meets the viewer's gaze, challenging them as an equal, and she receives flowers from an admirer (assumed to be upper class) as a rightful tribute. Finally, and my personal favorite of the three, Ingres' fantastic "The Turkish Bath." Ingres was the resident artistic genious (say on par with Picasso) when Manet, Monet, and the Impressionists were making the rounds. In 1904 or 1905, when Ingres was 90 years old (and still painting by the way.) the Louvre held a retrospective. Upon visiting, Matisse was so impressed by the "Turkish Bath" and it's unabashed voyeurism, that it inspired his rather unremarkable (but widely acclaimed) painting The Joy of Life Some similarity can be seen in the arrangement of the reclining Courtesans (or as they were called by the Orientalists, "Odalisques.") and the reclining figures. This painting, when displayed in 1906, so angered Picasso (who felt that the advances made by Manet were about to be erased by Matisse's celibration of objectification,) that he reacted with the work that made him famous, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, You can see that once again placement of bodies hearkens to Ingres earlier work, as does the placement of the tea set in the bottom center of the painting. But more importantly, Picasso not only uses the Courtesan's gaze toconfront the viewer, as Manet did, but with it's odd placement of heads and bodies, and its leers and african mask inspired gazes (implying disease, death,) it actually goes as far as to threaten the fat pompous little sexist french jerks of the day.
In that time, Studio 54 was still in it's heyday, only beginning to loose some of it's gold flaked charm, and all the taboos had been dashed by the sexual revolution, and Stonewall was making all of the gay folks feel empowered. Soon, we would have Reagan driven moral backlash bolstered by the onslaught of AIDS, but not yet. I guess the idea was that the young hero would be a fool not to take the opportunity to make money off of prostitution. Of course there is a downside, the conflict is presented in the threat of violence to the young hero, who must battle the previous pimp, and act as protector and punisher for his "crew." But there is no thought given to the women in the film, only the female lead is given any depth... She is the "Whore with the Heart of Gold," always smart, tough, and really the mover behind the scenes, manipulating the situation to try and make her break from prostitution (but not through savings and wise investment, but instead by capturing the love of the young hero, who will walk in and rescue her from her life of sin.... She is not shown as someone strong enough to free herself, but strong enough to manipulate a MAN to free her. (keep that in mind, i'll get back to it.)) The rest of the prostitutes are flat chariactures really, showing no emotion other that a bawdy sort of "joy of life," living to be the naked girl in the party, to dispense sexual pleasure only... with no lines other than "Frank told us to make him feel good. " No one regrets prostitution or doubts it at all, in fact, they seem to be enjoying it.
All of this reminds me of the Art movement "Orientalism" in France, of the 1820's, where the woman was depicted by artists like David, Ingres, and Delacroix as a courtesan in a harem setting, an exotic animal, with one real purpose, to be taken sexually. To be possessed... Often the woman would literally be depicted as having clouded features, as if drugged... NEVER (at least not until Manet's Olympia in 1880 (controvertial for just this detail,)) would the woman's gaze ever meet that of the viewer (understood to be male,) as if the woman has no choice but to grant full access to her body. In one case, Ingres depicts the harem on a round canvas, literally invoking the idea of the viewer spying on the courtesans via a clandestine peephole.
And isn't that the real appeal of these pimp personas? A possesor, having unrestriced access to a flock of women, and the power to dole them out as he pleases, pausing only to collect the profits from his "bevvy of beaties" (As i continually hear all the girls cloistered up at the Playboy Mansion referred to... ala, "Hef's Bevvy of Beauties")
I also feel that these films, and especially the pimp aspect of the film, is an attempt to place a sympathetic male figure (one that the audience can identify with) in charge, of the process of prostitution. An effort, I think, for the male machine to somehow try and assert control over an inherently feminine process, one that in ancient times, was even used to empower women. Men know that sex is one of their weakest points, and through their desires they can be controlled. (now we get back to the heroine's manipulations.) Especially controlled by women, (whom men think are less a slave to sexual drives and urges, and therefore will have the upper hand in any sexual negotiations, such as prostitution...) The Pimp exists to exert the male influences, the control via force, the mangagement of the business aspects, while the female lead exists to control the pimp, but only enough to win her specific freedom. (the resulting conflict between wife and harem is conveniently never breached, as the film usually ends at this point.)
These exploitive films seem to me to be just a rehash of this inherently male fantasy... to see and possess as many women as possible, to deny the feminine by recapturing and belittling it's strengths.
Anyhow, here endeth the rant...the pictures are, (in order of their hyperlinks... Eugene Delacroix' "Female Nude Reclining on a Divan" (i couldn't find a picture of the Delacroix I really wanted to show, which is titled I believe "Odalesque Reclining on a Divan" the drugged look is much more prevelant.) Of course, Eduard Manet's "Olympia" (known as the "most scandalous painting in the world" when it was first shown in 1880, not because of the nude woman, assumed to be a prostitute by her public, but because she meets the viewer's gaze, challenging them as an equal, and she receives flowers from an admirer (assumed to be upper class) as a rightful tribute. Finally, and my personal favorite of the three, Ingres' fantastic "The Turkish Bath." Ingres was the resident artistic genious (say on par with Picasso) when Manet, Monet, and the Impressionists were making the rounds. In 1904 or 1905, when Ingres was 90 years old (and still painting by the way.) the Louvre held a retrospective. Upon visiting, Matisse was so impressed by the "Turkish Bath" and it's unabashed voyeurism, that it inspired his rather unremarkable (but widely acclaimed) painting The Joy of Life Some similarity can be seen in the arrangement of the reclining Courtesans (or as they were called by the Orientalists, "Odalisques.") and the reclining figures. This painting, when displayed in 1906, so angered Picasso (who felt that the advances made by Manet were about to be erased by Matisse's celibration of objectification,) that he reacted with the work that made him famous, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, You can see that once again placement of bodies hearkens to Ingres earlier work, as does the placement of the tea set in the bottom center of the painting. But more importantly, Picasso not only uses the Courtesan's gaze toconfront the viewer, as Manet did, but with it's odd placement of heads and bodies, and its leers and african mask inspired gazes (implying disease, death,) it actually goes as far as to threaten the fat pompous little sexist french jerks of the day.
Tags:
