Melodrama and Meaning . , 1,. „,i,-riMlcxivitx. and, in particular, dtstanclating effects, tnerei - *' ***?, ulki1( enjoyments suspected of soap operas. This reí^"" '! dvorce the critic from an image of .1 mindless, hedonistic cm^ T,I noctis notions of female taste and subjectmcy. Critiques of ma * SÍÄ- - ^ a dfedalnW ima8e °f lhe femÍnÍne t0 -P-sentt depri« the corrupt-on ot the people- The process of tastemaking in both historical periods operated, then, t0cre ate hierarchical differences between the aesthete and the masses through the construction ot canons and aesthetic positions antithetical to the perceived un- restrained and tasteless pleasures of the crowd. Star Gossip Rock Hudson and the Burdens of Masculinity occupy a privileged place in the social apprehension of films in mass S Iture Films often attract audiences and remain in the public memory on ,he basis of celebrity performers (a "Humphrey Bogart" or "Mel Gibson" movie). The prominence of stars in mass media interviews and feature stories strongly enhances their status as significant cultural icons. Indeed, celebrity coverage ranks as one of the most visible, pervasive staples of the mass media, and one 01 the key forms mediating the relation of people to their culture. Edgar Morin's work in Les Stars introduced the notion that the star phenomenon was best analyzed as a combination of both movie roles and offscreen personality (constructed by studio press releases, magazine stories, etc.).1 While movie roles couid create a certain definition of star persona (such as Lauren Ba-call's friendly femme fatale in To Have and Have Not [ »944]), personal details were at least equally important in adding an aura to stardom (the fact that Bacal! and Humphrey Bogart fell in love during the filming of To Have and Have Not). Biographical revelations were a constituent part of the celebrity image, creating dimensions of fascination and meaning for stars beyond any specific role they ™8N Play. This perspective suggests that to capture a star's meaning, the analyst iilrn, dUenU Ul an inherent interte\tuality spanning from film roles to "extra-'sü«tS0UrCeS depiCtin8 lhe actor's offscreen self. The star thus emerges as a ln8s r n* ysemy' a signifying entity composed of multiple but finite mean- .generated by diverse texts and subject to change over time.2 histonni nmg Vllriou* sources that constitute star identity within spev "-"'v-iil Ct)n(i^\K iL .1 mt-anino . 1 , tneorist can explore the relation between a star s popular '6 anu the sfM'iii ( ^brity D 'unction this meaning serves. The star is never a mere a X,ndle ot "Tedia constructed traits that reflect cul il prec* 9 Mebdrjnu and Meaning \_________________ ** 5Concep female sexuality.' T ;r1,ťK ! "AT1 'ľrai^Tler',he*js *• ■mnc >t dimension ol star study. As R.charcl de Cordova ta 11 ^r affects the Jitual other equal* important »men**...... -j- ™.....■ — r anal- ^>uW «* ,he qu0StiOn ^^ '" ^^ , „Im/ The exact relationship between a celebs,, lluenexU ľľjna and its impact on viewing a particular film may be difficult to determir* wiih certain*. But the star's strong social presence and ability to attract audi-l^ suggest that it has a particular power over the consumption of artifacts that requir erious consideration. Rock Hudson: Creating the Image Of all the stars who have passed through the Sirk universe, including Jane Wvman, Robert Stack, Dorothy Malone, and Lana Turner, Rock Hudson is the actor most identified with this director and his work at Universal Pictures. Hudson gained his first major success in a starring role in Magnificent Obsession (1954;. and appeared in seven other Sirk/Universal films during the decade: Has Anybody Seen My Ca/? (1952), Taza, Son of Cochise (1954), Captain Lightbot (1955), All That Heaven Allows (1955)- Battle Hymn (1956), Written on the Wind (1957), and Tarnished Angels (1958). During this time and into the 1960s, Hudson enjoyed tremendous popularity as a beefcake idol and romantic lead. However, extra-filmic information about him late in his career dramatically transformed this image. In the 1980s, Hudson was the first major celebrity to publicly announce he had been diagnosed with AIDS, revealing his long-hidden homosexuality and virtually dismantling his previous ultraheterosexual identity. Given Hudson's close association with Sirk films, his role in each decade as a central cultural symbol, and the drastic revision of his persona, he represents a particularly compelling case with which to explore the impact star discourse has on the meaning of Sirk's melodramas. I will thus analyze the media's construction of Hudson's persona in the 1950s and 1980s-the two moments in his career when he attained his greatest social importance—to examine how his star image affected the perception of Sirk's films within such different historical contexts. , Whlle h ,s verV tempting to look on the 1950s ironically, equipped with '9ÖOS revelations about Hudson's gay identity, an ironical approach to the de- .nľthľ eaS,ly d,Sre8ard Hudson's ac,ual importance to postwar culture. Dur- usLllv a!505' HUdSOn had ,he kind oí ioon°graphical sexual signifu ance critics »cute with the more flamboyant types represented by Marilyn Mon- Star Gossip 99 d Marlon Brando. In contrast to these figures, Hudson em-. Elvi?- Pr&W' , of ^xuai normalcy, a normalcy every bit as important jjodied a ,rrMinenor of the times as the more excessive. As I will later argue, |n tjefining the ^nCtjoned defensively against changing conceptions of mascu-Hurfcon'5 if,1t1^ ua|jty in the post-World War II era. In a society obsessively |ine power ant s^ fem of ma)e »wea|g this period, Hudson appeared in westerns, war films, a nture Melodrama and Meaning wo , rinmas romantic comedies, and melodramas. Within the«* ^ 0051 " Luded American Indians, army officers, swashbuckler, HUH^; hi, doctor, journalists, and gardeners. But despite such di^ Muo^nv starring roles emphasized a consistent persona: a strapping, ph . o Hean-cut, often sensitive, and ultimately morally upright chanc appealing, dean-cu, ry^«:- aracter biers. rsity, The larger role of his early career, that of boxer Speed O'Keefe in Iron Man (19c,) demonstrated how he would be typecast m his later films. In this f,|m l plavs a young, wholesome boxer whose honesty contrasts with a "dirty" figl% played by lead Jeff Chandler. Similarly, in Bend of the River, while his character begins as ambiguous in terms of good and evil, by the end of the film he has joined with protagonist Jimmy Stewart and even gets the girl. Hudson's parts in Sirk films helped cement this persona. In Taza, he is the good Indian who allies himself with the white man against other warring Indians to secure peace in the West. In Magnificent Obsession, his character (Bob Merrick) begins as a careless playboy who indirectly causes the death of Jane Wy-man's husband, and then directly causes her blindness. Stricken with a sense of painful responsibility, inspired selflessness, and love for Helen Phillips (Wyman), he returns to medical school to learn procedures that could restore her vision, eventually saving her sight and her life. All That Heaven Allows accentuates the essential simplicity and uncluttered Tightness that lay at the center of Hudson's particular kind of masculinity. His character, Ron Kirby, is overtly linked with nature both by his gardening vocation and his lifestyle. Kirby is presented as the "natural man"—earthy, generous, soft-spoken, and unassuming. As someone who rejects social artifice, preferring the woods and down-to-earth friends, he stands in contrast to the cronies of his beloved, Cary Scott (Jane Wyman). Similarly, in Written on the Wind and Tarnished Angels (despite his drinking problem in the latter), he appears as the personification of stability in contrast to other players tormented by psychological and sexual problems. Even in films that toyed with his wholesome persona, such as Magnificent Obsession and George Steven's Ciant, in which he plays a bigoted patriarch, the narrates were preoccupied with restoring his "good guy" status. Hence, we see a airly qu.ck transformation of Merrick from an irresponsible ladies' man to a commuted lover and doctor, while Ciant ultimately finds Hudson's character Like Be»r n "^ °f MeX'Can palrons lo te served in a white TeX3S ^ Pender/ * aWailed ,ransfor™tion from dowdy spinster to radiant, inde- *<^Z7^^ V0ya*er l,94*), Hudson's roles in films like these eventually Jeľhh T* ^^ a kind of dramatic StriPteaSC ** in question. Image oi tne *ar behind the disguise of the character ijn" ilthe Star Gossip ,0, elease of Pillow Talk in 1959, the first in a series of sex comedies r that included Lover Come Back (1961) and Send Me No Flowers With Ľ)°ris a jty 0f Hudson's film roles depicted a romantic hero whose rela-l|(,64),,hef emotional complexity was matched by generally unerring moral in-"ve laCk ° orting basic social ideas of right and wrong. Although coded visually 5tincts supp ^udson,s sexua| allure remained on the path to monogamous de-3S beef ' ^ fj|ms The Day/Hudson trilogy and Hudson's other sex com-V0"0n ľthe 1960s founded his second wave of popularity and a new persona— e(lie^°helor playboy—apparently at odds with his earlier, more pristine image, !!! ramifications of which I shall discuss later. While film roles were undoubtedly important in providing the contours and eals of Hudson's star image, extra-filmic coverage added prolific and signifi-a nt dimensions to this image that clarified how it was to function within the culture at large. As mentioned, Hudson received prodigious press coverage during the 1950s in fan, women's, and general circulation magazines. The kinds of stories appearing in these magazines—behind-the-scenes accounts of the star's personal and romantic life—originated in the story formulas of confession magazines in the 1920s, which focused on intimate revelations about ordinary people's lifestyles and love problems. From confession magazines, fanzines, and scandal rags to respectable middle-class sources, publishers found that such "inside" stories sold. Mass media "gossip" featuring apparently private information about notable people had a sizable market value resting largely on a female public. Star gossip typically relied on biography as a foundation for its revelations about star lifestyles and romantic status. These biographies were inevitably derived from studio press books which provided the "official" life story of the star. The basic life story tended to chronicle the star's childhood, adolescence and adulthood, building to the moment he or she was discovered by Hollywood, tach step of the chronology was punctuated by facts about his or her romantic relationships. No matter what the variations in the writer's perspective or in par-llcular (lelails included in the account, the same major biographical facts tended 10 form the basis for most star commentary.- The backbone of the official Hudson biography was comprised by the fol-^W|ng information. Hudson was born Roy Scherer on November 17, »9^5 in dj «netká, Illinois, in a poor section of a well-to-do neighborhood. His parents husbri When he WaS ÍOUr' and he was later ad°Pted by his molher's second Mari Wallace Fitz8erald. His mother subsequently divorced Fitzgerald, odd bbcCürps ollker whom Roy never liked-From an ^'yage'K WOfked 0 )s lt> help support the family, including soda jerk and window washer. He /melodrama and Miwniny, 102 , 4 swden, i" high school, bol liked by his classmates who rcm «* ' ' TZ -od-loaking. and a "one-woman man. He was 0,^ as quiet, sny, b^^ ____, .__ä nu„0 kö »«ae>«—*--_._.- —^^ by nt Í 1 bytost wrecking a plane, he was transferred lo p ^ £5 U After the Navy, he worked at a post office and as a truck * ľtr ck driver friends urged him to try to become a movie star, and ,hrou Mutual acquaintance, he was introduced to Henry W.llson in ,947, who * in charge of talent tor David O. Selznick. Biography reP°rted thal "When WÍllSOn a5ked Íf he COUId act< Kock ,old the truth, 'No.' 'Good/ answered W.llson." Thus began Hudson's famed transformation at the hands of Willson, who hoped that Hudson's good looks would appeal to female fans. However, as Roy F.tzgerald, he had a crooked eye tooth, a slouch, a bad haircut, a Midwestern twang, and an uninteresting name that had to be changed for this appeal to be truly realized. Willson fixed all of that. As the man who created the names of Tab Hunter and Rory Calhoun, he coined Rock (from the Rock of Gibraltar) and Hudson (from the river), and took charge of necessary cosmetic and locutionary alterations to add finesse to Roy's new identity. Hudson's career began slowly with a one-liner in Fighter Squadron, which allegedly took him thirty-four attempts to get right. After a few more films, he landed the part that made him a screen idol in Magnificent Obsession. Since coming to Hollywood, Hudson dated script girl Betty Abbott, starlets Vera Ellen, Terry Moore and Julia Adams, and Henry Willson's secretary, Phyllis Gates (whom Hudson married in 1955 and divorced in 1958). Fanzines recounted these details with adulatory rhetoric and often with assurances that theirs was an especially exclusive look into the actor's life. For example, Joe Hyams's "The Rock Hudson Story," published in Photoplay, the most successful fan magazine of the decade, offered itself as an unprecedented study of the "real" person behind the star hype. Hyams's purpose was to counter Hudson's simple "beefcake" image by giving an account of his complexity as "a solid, stable, intelligent young man who has built up an almost uncanny ability to take life as it comes and make not only the best but the most of it-"7 Like other star stories, Hyams's biography was intended as a backdrop for an dabo-rate w0rk of characterization, defining traits, hobbies, and romantic dispositions * would help define the person behind the celebrity. In Hyams's account ^Z^Th aS a handS0^' ^ easygoing fellow who "laughs abo* and anxielV < " Wľ°te' "R°Ck ÍS and always has been a stľangeľ * tr* ľ'tterbLľ: ľe learn thal Hudson ioves ™sic' ™||eĽts retords'dül! *PPed to worT "T* adores iood- Hyams established Hudson's tremens 0men W,th ** from fans (women who proposed to him or ** > * V to buy him cuff links without their husband's knowledge, etc.). saving UP m°n^5 hysteria by describing his dating life as selective and seriously ^ qUflone woman at a time.8 f,K • Hyams's proclaimed desire to counter the beefcake image, his essay DeSpl,e other biography in promoting and capitalizing on Hudson's obvious joined every ^ ^ featuring numerous photos of Hudson's naked upper torso, sex appea '° embrace5 with co-stars and real-life dates.9 35 well as romantic status in "reel" and "real" life was so important that HU ^ types oi essays devoted exclusively to this subject matter: lifestyle lherC t I status reports. Lifestyle and marital status were often inextricably an: Jľ. magazine articles. In the early 1950s, essays on Hudson's bachelor sta-eh unded, as they did for other unmarried male stars. In "How a Hollywood r h lor Lives," the writer described Hudson's house (a mountaintop glass and dwood structure) and lifestyle (the fact that he is a casual host, barbeques teaks, has parties centered around his player piano, and sleeps in the raw in the summer) to characterize his particular embodiment of a single male's home existence.10 Supporting photos show him with a dog, in his convertible, and answering the phone outside the shower wrapped in a towel and baring his chest. After his marriage to Phyllis Gates, the home continued to be the site most revealing about the star." Photoplay's "Planning a Heavenly Love Nest" described Hudson's dream home as a direct extension oi his personality. This nest, for example, would be built on high ground, for "a fellow who has. . . wanted an uninterrupted view of whatever world he found himself in." In addition, it would be close to nature (relating to his past as a golf caddy and his summer trips), have an unplanned decor (jokingly referred to as Early Ad Lib), be filled with the kind of chairs he likes ("big, deep and comfortable with a hassock in front so a guy could stretch out and take it easy"), and be free from draperies w'th fringe and doilies ("Rock's dislike for these decorations was developed at an early age" when he visited an older woman's house decorated in this manner l'nd ,l,)ped over a Christmas tree).1' Despite his marriage, this essay was at pains . SUStam an iroage of "free" masculinity for his fans by so strategically minimiz-ln« any sense of domesticating feminine influence in decor, ojl • covera8e of Hudson, then, generally depicted his humble Midwestern |ifg8lnS' ""implicated personality, love ot nature and the simple pleasures oi exo/ti hlS apPea,in8 man,»ness. Throughout, Hudson emerges as a rather un- dioTdeT ÍOllOW eXCept ÍOr hiS ,orso- This deP',ction owed Partia,ly to tne stu" Wbrld v\T to COní0rm to contemporary public tastes about stardom in the post-ar H era. During this time, the public resented the aristocratic profite Melodrama and Meaning rt* ** thai traktier* had been generated by Hollywood pubfc ľl-*v rpsooodetí bv portraying the "real" lives of it .,_ * domestlc, rmckfle-das- «aery _____________sfó hroueh^— Hudson's media idem ^* Z^lo other actors that better explain his tremendous popufa,^ "J* 0 culture. The media used Hudson to onm^ conception ot masculini- An Alternative" Masculine Ideal f -•« stories expfcciny presented discourse on the home as discourse -r the 'natural' man. We see Hudson the bachelor living on top of a mounta»» r a »eowood house with a dog, eating steaks. Through such associations with rug. ged indrviduafeni and nature. Hudson emerges as a historical throwback , quasi-Pauf Bunyan figure who has maintained innate masculine dwactensfc: jxjdkfted bv tame or civilization. The description ot the "heavenly love nesť lis marriage sustains this impression. Although describing interior _a -ywcvj: vpicaBy affiliated with domestication and women, tne mše-en-scene of the nest is carefully described in terms that evacuate the ierninine The unplanned, disorganized oecor, chairs structured for men, and an absolute rejection of anything ierninine like doilies and fringe, attest to the domination of pure masculine ethos opposed tc jltivation. Such elaborations conesponded nkeK to the wholesome rotes Hudson played in 1950s films, particularly te "" ' That Heaven Allows. In addition, while promoting his sex appeal afee photos, the press balanced their flagrant display by consistent >jn luanisrn, emphasizing that "Rock is the farthest thing from a In this way, Hudson erne- a wholesome, conventional. i*ö-American, and prist** üne type Given such ventionai del ms of Hudson's image, why, then, reier» ■*** * an -ahernative- rnascuJine idealí His extra-film and filmic identities £«**> asfiooated with normalcy lhal there appe^ i to be absolutely nothnS '. "" '-/!- ' " **aw- when m ptace his image in the contexto*** . thereasons lor fcs -alternative- label become clearer. the , Jľľ; ^ ** P0*"460 «*• th* Popularization of psychoanalysis * Imity in ^ ^ fc*4^ pr,or k^ing. -pective portraits of mas^ •hair- vrth (he Romantic tra< such as Valentino) with an •"•V Oft mi- ' Tr **"> >*fr>-*ai ■ «he ,95c*-*"' ö*n*v cw ', ** james ^'-preser»ted a tormented vers** «"■«fa*^ S^Ü . Evert acton who oreviouslv had been de«*0 CMC .«'-< h as James Stewart and lohn War»™, appealed in J An***1 ^Jľľhaľchallenged their prior wholesome characterize«« * tlSo* "£ rt Naked Spur I „53I and The Searche *VZ, lev****1, 7*.^,, 0f Hudson who attempted to attach him V »•«"d °* ' JÜ* boots with anxiety, and W«»J anger.■• Such ac-*n's fe* ^ pef^ľľd Hudson to the more obviously troubled and increasing * probably >**V actors like Dean and Brando, modifying his persona *•***Tn'TwwUof attraclive neurotics. But such presentationm^over- not i^Tbali team, and favorite Hollywood hero.-' m *eap(a"1 °* "L«« could not have been at more complete odds with the "**' ľľľc Sľ2*> * *ando and Dean. ^£J bol Zl and Dean came from the Midwest as weU. reporters JÄ^ÍsS or a*niraWe about their off-camera behavior. Brando's ^ Sn^ P<««8ious. They included the constant presence «ÍNs pe. ~ *£* feeing raw eggs to a kitten on a hotel dining room, tab^ ' ;,._.,.., j^fife, H^amrs desa^tion of ttafcon at * ,he simpliatY . ^ most fans ^^^ was -the boy „ext door ,^,o worry and an ry Hollywood hero." n addtex, • •.ti.4- exercises on hotel lawns, setting on nrecra««> - «— "™~"fľ^ tf^ them with his l^ad encased in a rubber monster mask, runnjng boad Jpfinto pods, rude sitences, messy clothes, and wild »^ ~* tpstoners and gazelle eyes.18 These act.v.ties perhaps overshadowed Deans penchant for beating tom-toms on table tops, setting fire to napkins or pouring bowls of sugar in his pocket if he felt he was not getting enough attention at restaurants M Hence, Brando acquired a -screwball' reputation that reporters ,mJ^V •completely uninhibited animal nature, born of a Bohemian upbringing," **** Dean could be labeled, even amidst the adulation he enjoyed after his death, 'sadistic, uncouth, arrogant, cruel, and a filthy slob."" ^^ Brando's unconventional^., like Dean's, even caused reporters to psycho-**• hem. A scandal magazine, Rave, declared Brando the "world's worst •a*' This report claimed that Brando's love life was a "mess" because hehap-Po*d to be "one of the most neurotic and unfortunate men, a d^M>^" ******* Don Juan." Calling h.s -inadequacies" as a lover more psychic than P*****'. the write» cited psychiatric opinion of Don Juanism, which finds that •»Wed in doubt ot one's own v.r.l.tv, and a loveless childhood.- The future * k*e life depended "on what luck he has on the |»ychoanaly«'$ oou^« ■* **«n resting h.s curly head on lately.' Such speculations were probaWv ' enhanced bv mass r^^ ^ r™^ nervous breakdown and his »eat- Melodrama and Meaning 06 maM K a «tarnst .n -954 before the f.lm.ng of The I , ^ Jh«**d to *ar De.- sociopalnic behavkx was attributed to Jľ? w* ' ^ adolescence." which turned him ink) a sullen, bad-manry ^' í^ľlpr far some 'there was nothing in (Ms) boyhood to accour , jT ^^. exNbrtkxwsm, and dowr ad manner 'hat Dean 1**^' "" while the psychoarvih/tic examination of these actors by the oopd* no doubt generated exc.tement in fans over their "bad boy" appeal, n ^ served as a means of explaining and defusing the Brando/Dean assat rjn ^ feed behavwr and social norms as the conduct ot "s.ck," maladjusted peopfe Magazine information on Hudson often acted exactly in the spirit of this sort of defensive gesture. That is, constructions of his image presented him as an afcer-native to the psychoanalytic romantic hero, a testimony to the continuing appeal of the normal - he face of disturbing new trends in male stardom. Above al, the Hudson persona communicated a masculinity that was always nonthreateiv ing and that supported the tradition of a "dean-cut," masculine ethic. He was seen as providing «efef from many actors of the time who "have been sensitive and spooky ttse Jimmy Dean; the public got tired of decay. So now here's Rock Hudson. He's wholesome. He doesn't perspire. ... He smells of milk. His whole appeal is deaniness and respectability—this boy is pure."25 The role of Hudson as foil to the psychoanalytic tenor of post-World Via M Hoiywood was nowhere more apparent than in an essay in the tan magazine Filmland, which I quote at some length because of its particular relevance here. Ironically titled 'Hoiywood Exposé," this artide featured Rock Hudson, George *ier (another young, aspiring Universal star;, and their dates on a picnic. The article began, -Hollywood i aazy, mixed-up town? Peopled by oddballs and >l let's take a look at four typical tiA /• 5____Sorry to disappoint you.' I - "ödhouse town, where battiness is practically a vogue, these two guys terrifically, sensationally, super-colossal I y normal. This makes them the I ones. After all, when everyty/: se is talking about his psychiatri: «« * his love af; thes haven't a thin* to say. Rock ^^ .. heing thought ige .....,_., ______ *>d avoid the p.ll-taking, psychiat seeing gang like the •• * lot of other nor mal o 1 s, they live in h ood ju« * they wouVJ in Anytown, L fruit u^a **ge, and their dates devour a lur* sandwiches "^£fS' cleans up. Star Got V ^n»cal torso shot of Rock Hudson. Photo **"*» Photo A/cNve C .95^ '■«*" ****** Metodrama and Meaning and fetev^i^T"^00 ^h^of Photos by Sid •i': Star Gossip toy - versed in its usual association with shocking facts Hgtr the le"" **££^esence of normality in a sea of disintegrating per-^ p the conti ^ ^ Americana that invokes 'a happy, normal, good «n**5 ^ PÍ^Si"banquet with lemonade and mifc, pre-sexual, uncompfi-**•' a bCY5Cl^ures and ape **** natures anawcf to psychiatric therap. ^d r pie36ii\^0 served as the basis of a Saturday Evening Re spread *** a pertPeCÜV^f charades and a backyard barbeque wit'r Hudson and his ***** ^^ this kind of iconography, wholesome htodson appeared as t**& VC*°\) an overdose oi unstable oddballs—drugged. rJvorced, and i wi of antido*^ v ■ of their identities. /iceíla*1 loři at Hudson's film roles confirms how extra-filmic and cinematic ^"V*^ together in endorsing this function. r-kjdsor. - persona was í!ľ^ery foreign to the neuroses and violence characterizing the screen •^ ^ nenod. Even in films like Magnificent Obsession and M\ That ab~m* in which he fells in love with an older woman, the OecfipaJ befc that could easily go off with a Paul Newman or James Dean are -Bffled by Hudson's image of stalwart normalcy. Further, in many rotes. Hudson jpgóficaBy represented a moral and psychological counterpoint to the deep chaos and social rebellion represented by the psychoanalytic male. This is evk ^1 in his pairings with neurotic characters—tor example, the alcoholic m-oofcalv castrated, and Thanatos driven Stack in Written or ne Wind and Tar-itshed Angeis; the power hungry and potential, sexually subversive Dean in Giant; and the incestuous Kirk Douglas in The U Sunset I19611. In each of these films Hudson not only provides the voice of reason, but acts as an ideological anchor of sanity. Even in his later sex comedies, his zestfui bachelor contrasts with other male characters who have therapis In lover too*, for example, Tbnv Randall plays a businessman who cannot exercise * power effectively and says things like v,v rjsydwtrist gave me that waking **kto build my confidence.* Hence, film pairings often acted out the same <*** between Hudson's relative psychological star and the neurotic Other ***" » ** gossip. _£ * clear r'rom these last examples, Hudson's normalcy did not operate ^abLT*' POnt psychoana - in?|ec^ ™ascu. Randati e- Wphattľ" * °8 StÍCk re,,ed ** 'lS hum0f ^ the SlKľk s obviOUS compcn_ em^lT^ ^'^^nce tor a charac x>se neurosis ¥ iea- ked to and lr weakness m an ascending spiral of pc **'* »nage r *° perwrsion and homosexuáli On a deeper teve %jó- represented a -heah . that solidly he mascuJini Melodrame and Meaning A Um mm*"*- *** «•4 **» 4«, Ur tk* éry u p"-ír » Ummwét. myi Gmmrg* i i>,-> íhé f m tri ".unity, ,• rf,^ j^ HOLLYWOOD EXPOSE ri m* t . pi. luU -n Star (sxsip 11i P0H ^......!<.■»*«"" *"«U' ,h*tt hmntlt *VU i, ;\ vn+4 HOLLYWOOD EXPOSE U/ II, J* ''<*" 'Hollywood Exposé" ľhe timpUdtyand santtyoŕAmi "" ">',/, court 4 the Academy of Motion Pfc I and Sciences. v ama I Meaning ,..., . , , u páons aboul the deterioration of virility and jts • š for national I**« ,mil,al stah,lltv "^ Specific ultural concern, about male weakness tended to be expr ^fcion K o male types: the rx sexual and the breadwinner. The hľľ ai and the n*) ™ «e subj*:ted to intense scrutiny, always as subjľ" 9019 aathotogN underwritten h anxieties about emasculation. By the end o, the ws the continuing assimilation of Freud and the popularity psychy had gained after widespread psvchiatric screenings of armed forces induc^ help iewtop notion- - ck and healthy behavior that invaded the public con. «eness. h vr. what was defined as sick often centered on deviations from normative ideals proper male and female roles.26 In a culture still uncertain about the success of postwar civilian readjustments and enmeshed in a Cold Wfr that k? í powers somewhat in question, the definition of gender roles attained paramount importance, particular because of their implicit affiliation with social stabitv. ConcomitantK failures" at assuming proper gender responsibilities, such a> - •«y °y cwIU' * lhe Same time as il heightened anx.ette *** seonty. ^^ as a serious social menace and threat to na- ^ POllUQZwg tf - "Xiatty deiir^ pathology had a definite impact on o-.ť Star Coss/'p »;3 -I the time. As Elaine Tyler May has written, "National .-$ of mascu im ^ «^ ^j|jty of strong man|y men to stand up against com-^gtn flcf*''1* ( ervert5' , . . presumably, had no masculine backbone."30 mUn,.t ^^^'iLpe's Mike Hammer might stand as too extreme a version of „le Micky ^P1 macho, concepts of a sound nation were nonetheless inex-,nl,-comrnu ^ ^ morality that bestowed the imprimatur of virility, in-trkrablv boun ^ patriotism on male heterosexuality. Within this logic, cornjpt'b' rty, havjors ^h as homosexuality bore the taint of a debilitated •unmascu 1 ^^ certain individuals susceptible to communist propaganda, ^ľľrľe' bv implication, weakened an entire nation. h econd instance of public anxiety about male weakness, that con- the breadwinner, was similarly subtended by fears of homosexuality. TV tme the well-being of the family, always the symbolic subunit of the nation, was the focus. Psvchiatric theory defined adult masculinity strictly in terms of the breadwinner role—the husband and father who earned a living for his family and thus assumed family responsibilities. At best, failure to achieve this role signaled immaturity; at worst, it indicated impaired manhood. In the psychological terms of the time, "immaturity shaded into infantilism, which was, in turn, a manifestation of unnatural fixation on the mother. . . [reaching! its clinical climax in the diagnosis of homosexuality."31 This perverted family romance led to a series of equations: "I am a failure = I am castrated = I am not a man = I am a woman = I am a homosexual."32 A refusal of marriage and its attendant commitments often cast dire suspicions, then, on the masculinity of those indulging in such -'irresponsible* behavior. Once men attained the desired status of breadwinner, however, their ps\ «bogies were no less subject to the scrutiny of apprehensive professionals. Cer-***/. the coercive conformity perceived to be at the heart of postwar corporate j^Pr'se raised fears about the loss of rugged individualism and manhood. ^seling books such as David Riesman's The Lonely Crowd (1950) and Sloan s 7he Man in the Cray Flannel Suit (1955) sounded the alarm about the ^,s or conform.sm on society.n to lh* !oomShr,lleSt analvsis of the Problems of the family man linked his failure — «wrung presence of the -modern woman." According to some contem-*■*> 'ters, the modern woman enjoyed increased authority in societv due *"^mber of development v Mnong these were: changing conceptions ot ^ ,,fe lhat 'ound her sharing housework and dec.,.on-making with her hus and hľ a "*" SP,nt °' ^roo^^Y. her '"creased participation in the work force. ^ 8-owing prominence as a sexual being w.th equal right to Si on a and Meaning -: I • **.*< -tor- Vcoirfng » some, the modem woman « emanapahon (W^ "Tätigt WDgyofthel man .who tound ^ D -petticoat ruk ^jp r T«gaz«ne called 'The American Male: Why Do Vw_. HimT repealed this ideotog anoorGong social scientist Day* Margaret Mead, scientist Aimed TOtivattonal Didier, and other professionals, this essav produced evident Changing in such a \%<- ^a^ they had more pov*, «Mch the> often chose to ewrdse as a series of harmful demands on men. Of prtoi» concern was womar - Tne» sexual ag^essivenes? resulting in the send dornmation of men >etectJveh cu*ng fac rom the above authors—tha corner regulated the extent of physical contact, that thev made birth control they expected sexual satisfaction on par with their hus-—_ooK defined the impact of this new aggressiveness on men. Men suf-svmptxm mat ranged from fatigue, pass and (about satisfying so impotence and the Freuden 'flij^tf from masculinity" that resulted šexualitv By eťHJJig her powers, the modem woman could thus 'seriously damage his mate capacity.* Unsexed by failure, the male's potency de-dnes. Tne author concludes by warning, *Wfe are drifting toward a structure wade up of he-women and she-men.'* The tamiy man had, then, a difficult double duty to fulfill. On the one hand, he was to be eminently mature and responsible, while on the other, he was 10 safeguard his family against any imbalance in internal power relations that and disastrously confuse sexual identity, definitions of masculinity were at the center of ideological tur-health of the nation and the family.'5 Through contemporary ps obsessively detected a causal relation between new **»* «tevekiprnents in the Cold War era—from the greater visibility of homo-**"* and the rnodern woman to a business world oriented toward the corpo-**?~and the emasculation of the U.S. mate. In the.r respective national "n** contexts, the manly man and the responsible patriarch represented ^k^ - arnted against the subversive infringements on trat*- L ^inCeplS * "****"% sianiiied by male ne , and its logical terminus • «a Me DeadiyT °Wert,y deal1 w,th antkommunist macho (sue* <*** * M. , TUr t the soc,al ten&r* of weak paternal function ** rhetoť HUdSOn S T,!mi ana star 8^jP lacked SüCh * **** * *»» constrtuJ^' ,he/ nooe,ne^ resonated with reigning de appropriate masnilin!^ .~w -ä— »u« ctA* of devia- Star C "5 norm For the postwar era, Hudson represented the ouin-fro * *siia,Tman ,he Great Straight Hope in an environment increas-.-rt of the man v • , conceptions of manliness. defined bv c ^ ^ grapp|e v.,rh « ^ and identities in the .ative function only sharpened. As Vito Russo has argued ^ rijdson's _ _ Hudson's emblematic vir; came to be used as a*00 .^Jľjinľand supplanting 'weaker' versions of masculinity that fre-1 r^Íľľaľhomosexualits The pairings of Hudson with Tony RandaH in QüenrtV N^medies with Doris Day, with Gig Young in Strange Bedfellows te lhee C^ľsb^vn in A Very Spec/a/ Favor («965) placed him ufieouivocaÄy "^ id actors whose physiques and roles conveyed an 'impaired' ^Whf-» —;- lm_j----- ima had to compete tnese í^as the Stacks, Dea and Brandos offered attractive images Mtv with wnicn uic- ■ <^-~......-o- Zľľd the neurotic mate of ar. sexual allure, pushing his characterization into ... e,^H namm OT "^5 ? w -Jng characterizations provided one forum tor the specter of the fero-inizeTrnale to appear in these sex comedies. But Hudson's characters thern- also associated with homosexualit • A running gag through Pifiow «..*» ..udson mistaken for a man of contused sexual identity by the medical eaabfishment. as he appears in a ladies room, a gvnecology and obstetrics waiting room, and as he announces. 'I'm going to have a baby," at the end of the rlkn to a doctor who carts him off for observation. In Lo\er Come Back, he has *»etmll thrr-iak a krvtol Lr-vhhv in a mink the Onlv thinfi he COuW Tind tD WeST after Doris Day stranded him naked at the seaside. Upon seeing him, two men who had been observing his sexual exploits throughout the film remark, "He the last guv in the world I would have figured." And in A V Special favor, wdSOn Oretenrls to pn ntf vs. ith snnthpr rr»An tr* A love trvst as a means of making Laron teel guilty about her attempts to emasculate him. 1 's debatable, however, whether these plays with Hudson's sexual identity sefio»l> tamper wuh his established persona. In one sense, the incongruitv be-'*** n' 'ite persona and the possibility of -compromised" masculinity e-Sp0nsiWe tor securing the jest, an incongruitv already heightened by the overall ^^ between Hudson and Randall or Shawn. The jest is carried out, in ad-^n; as a clear e or mistaken or assumed kientii - a charade. But perhaps ^J^portant, ,n accord with the Pb\bov ethos, Hudson's new playboy image ^^ a depiction ol the single male that «was so heterosexually ited that »t ^ ' the homosexual implications that had been attached to bachetor- «' ůJTlT ln the ,950s- Since his D^^tor status alwavs terminated at the end ,ilm with marriAo« »~J . ..,,^1 l;^ »k., i«^,itahilitv of beten b i/TM and Meaning „a sw ial norm still hold sway, ľhus, despite the sexual Cnn( ľTbc I the comedy in these films Hudson's manlin, , ^ -mnentlv heterosexual and ultimately family oriented. "* ^ -,1m roles might ioke about Hudson's sexual identity, star gosS( „ *quivorallv straight in its representation of the actor through the u)f left tew doubt- as ID his personification of the manly man. Extra-fi|mic (J a í _ I_ _ _ _ A _ __ __ £ 1 ■ t len lew uiw----- ■ __ - wveraap could attempt to reveal his neuroses (such as stagefnght and anger). But, as 1 have seen ' most often presented him as uncontaminated by traits that migh, tamper with his healthy manliness. By detailing such things as the Bunyan-esque decor of his home, devoid ot any remm.ne acquirements, his participation in ,be small-town, bucolic ritual of the picnic or barbeque, his monogamous disposition, and his difference from "spooky" types like James Dean, star gossip created a male image that was simultaneously distinctly American, traditionally masculine, de-feminized, and antineurotic. The continual presentation of Hudson as beefcake operated to make all this "normality" hyper-virile and sexy. Characterizations of male stars both in and out of films were often, then, deeply informed by Cold War rhetoric about masculinity. "Is Tony Perkins a Mama's Boy?" and "How Rock Hudson Dodges Dangerous Dames" blared the headlines for one magazine in 1957, indulging once again in contrasts between male types distinctly rooted in sexual disposition.38 At the same time as the new ultra-emotional, neurotic male star was rewriting the kind of masculine appeal represented by prewar types, he invoked postwar anxieties about the national and social repercussions of maladjusted masculinity. We can thus regard Hudson's popularity during the 1950s and early 1960s as owing in good measure to the fact that he reinforced notions of "normal" masculinity in the face of growing public evidence that masculinity was under siege. Since, in Cold War terms, this crisis had dire implications for the contin-uat.on of the American way of life, Hudson's strong media presence reassured the public through an apparently unchanged and unchangeable facade of exemplary manliness, marked by sanity and status quo sexuality. Hudson was in this sense the veritable "Rock," a sign of the stability of certain old-fashioned notions ot the "natural man" uncontaminated by complex social developments. Star Vehicles and Sirk dramľs> oľPaCt S* HudS0n'S ■** unification have had on Sirk's melo- his pr^,,rrr unbwer ,o ,his questi°n««"«^ <*•**runc,ion "*! as intentions Cime critics nave oílen **" ,hť depiction of nor- - «V bonng and parodie in post-World War II cinema, so much Hict dominant ideological values, rather than salvage ^ems »o nelp m , operates as an insipid backdrop against which *,haľm a^i,ion' the subversive forces take ideological center stage-such Writing- dangerously ^ ^^ ^ ^ fami|y jn fi,m noir and ^ '"l iemme gale's or n áscourse> diabolically flashy characters have Í* *2Stl. norma, (banal), acting as evidence for the transgress.ve ^^'rJ^rC^ treated Sirk's "split" characters *ch as I" ,his Ve,n', H Dorothy Malone (Marylee, in Written on the Wrnd, as Robert Stack (Kyle) and ^ ^^ ^..^ ^ ^ ^ ^ characters charismatic s-gn-t-ers ^ .^^ divisiveness that fuels the emotional ***a kÍnd ľ..T famHv melodrama (such as Kyle's desire for paternal respect complexity of the a|coho|ic compulsions). This divisiveness leads to violent which is undone y ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ have read progres. confrontations w ^ character's counterpart is the one-d.- 5ÍVe,y a\, eS uncomplicated, "immovable" character, p^ved frequently :;:ľHudt, l ** as a dU.. u * the ***** <**«»« ***»***■ ness.40 However if we consider how strongly Hudson's image was fre.ghted with ,he appeal of the normal, how the normal in turn was posed as such a crucial defense against shifting sexual tides, and how the abnormal itself, though exerting could conjure up the specter of social disaster, we could imag.ne a different ideological chemistry between "split" and "immovable" characters «n these films. In this revised chemistry, the latter would attain a strong degree of parity with the former, qualifying the ideological impact of what critics have seen as the overpowering presence of the misfit. When placed more fully within historical context, though, we can see that the significance of Hudson's image was not that it totalized the meaning of Sirk's films in some new way. Rather, his star semiosis joined a number of other ideo-!ogical meanings circulating around and through these melodramas during the •9505. It was the particular social function of Hudson's image to embody reactionary protest against postwar transformations in male sexuality, while giving the normal a certain persuasive attractiveness. But, as I have argued in chapter 2. * crazed or sexy character had a charisma of its own, invoking voyeuristic Paares focused on the objectification of the female body and on the sensa- ***« of intimate stories. Whether we examine the climate of sexual displas f.j^'l,| War anxieties about masculinity, Hudson's case continues to suggest that bale 1 ,Ve * Sltes ior the confluence of various, sometimes contradictors, ideo-(°ncerns. Sirk's films could at the same time act as a forum tor the t.t.l- Melodr.miJ .wd Moaning »8 h(Ion 01 psychological and sexual excess and as a commentary on ^ Z» and normal gender identity. '^ ' But the diegetic implications of Hudsons .mage do not exhaust his im „ ,he film experience. As we have seen in previous chapters, extra.fi|mic ^ cial productions of meaning create modes of engagement with f,|ms tha, '^ from the narrative proper.4' Whether through the publicity of sexuality, * sumer items, or, in this case, stars, the intertextual network surrounding fjZ and spectators adds a significant dimension to viewing that is not driven sole|v by film dynamics. As Miriam Hansen so aptly writes in her work on Valentino -By activating a discourse external to the diegesis, the star's presence enhances a centrifugal tendency in the viewer's relation to the film text. The star's performance weakens the diegetic spell in favor of a string of spectacular moments that display the essence of the star.'"'2 Hence, the extra-filmic presentations of the star's body, background, personality, etc. inspire a rapture with the image that takes the viewer beyond the horizons of the narrative, encouraging a spectacle-driven sensibility that derives pleasure in a sporadic, alinear, anarrative manner. When reconsidering the presence of the "strapping" Hudson body in Sirk's films in this light, we can suppose that it created a series of tableaus of desire for the viewer, attracted to the essence of healthy masculinity that Hudson's persona and physical representations in his publicity signified. For the female fan at least, to whom Hudson's publicity was largely addressed, his image could serve as a catalyst for a series of extra-filmic adventures of the imagination that related his diegetic presence to the lore offered by the publicity machine. In this process, his filmic presence offered an arena of fantasy and pleasure for the viewer, rooted in the vision of the virile boy-next-door. Through these viewing dynamics Sirk's films were truly reduced to star vehicles, contexts for the exercise of a sensibility fixed on the appearance and subsequent imaginary romance with a star who typified certain masculine ideals. 1964-1984: Beyond Popularity here-.'h™^0"^ * ^ °U,Set OÍ ,he chaPler' ' am focusin8 °" ,W0 deCadeS son attailll505 ^ ^ '9ÖÜS-since they were the periods in which Hud-*** to *ľ I 8?teSl SOCÍal and media Prominence. While I do not have the *me sensľr k "*""*"* Vears ''" detail, I would like to give rhe .<** the .980s tranSpired in his (areer during this time before turning to ^^^H Star Gossip ^^^^^M ., SUCcessful comedies Hudson did with Doris Day, A«* ,he ^ľniľhedgsubstantially. His reign as number one at the box office After tne *r- , ,ubstantialiy. nis '^" ««---------- - - - ^pul.'rity dim.n.shed s ^ ^ comp,ete,y dropped off lhe Rlm Buyer's US in -9** an Ij Hudson continued to make a few comedies, and no-office attraction CM ^ ^^ 5econc/s (ig66)/ but nis comedies fizzled, and W*"1? Frankenheimer's aramd xcu. —,-^—., iably)°hn , dwindled in number. By the late 1960s, Hudson tended to his dramat'c th t underscored a more authoritative, less romantic sta- uireer, his inability to draw all but the most marginal audiem '' leadlng man. son ji Melodrama >md Mr.ming 120 „00^, extra-filmic average of Hudson during this period .—e ihr exception »as the -umor ol udson s sec re, wedding to |im N " ' ; ^ ^eaed the first major public nft in Hudson's ultra-hetero^ jnv - The St was picked up by «he press and caused such a stir that Hupics in their reportage on the star.41 Like 1950s sources, the press continued to write about Hudson's personality and lifestyle, but with a particular emphasis on him as an expert on classic Hoi-I v wood, able to provide behind-the-scenes information on what it was like to be studio star in the past. In these stories, we still find biography and character portraits confirming his unassumingness and generosity, accompanied by photos of him with dogs in nature. But we also discover that he is freer now that he is out from under the control of the studios—in his language, dress, and behavior.44 Among other things, Hudson debunked the cherished myth of the star discovery (such as Lana Turner sitting in a drugstore), discussed his resistance to roles he was forced to play (such as Taza, Son of Cochise), and commented on the difference between film and television.45 By treating Hudson as a seasoned Hollywood veteran, the press transformed him into a kind of historical artifact— in keeping, as we have seen, with the 1970s nostalgic interest in Old Hollywood. Thus, between the 1950s and 1980s, Hudson's image entertained some flux without any serious constitutional changes, despite the Nabors incident. While his social centrality diminished substantially, he was quietly enshrined as a piece of Hollywood history. The 1980s: Reversal The issue of Hudson's sexuality was dramatically resolved on July 25, >9Ö5 rench publicist Yanou Collart announced that Hudson was in Paris for AIDS foTed1' haV,ng been dÍagnOSed m0re ,han a year eaHier in June '984' What tar. t u WaS a ÍUr0r that one writer compared to the media melee during the Beirut hfKtaat* ,-,,,:, r Beirut hostage crisis. ^t!sľauľf lhÍS, ann0Uncement was dramatic, but not only because of the «* of ceľebr e ^ The V"US Was «^V co™ected t0 a ^^ ^t is on the' « 'ma8e"reversal' as we" as * the issue of representativeness^ *w hand, the announcement precipitated a vertiginous reversal ./<*■< — ublic emblem of masculinity and celebratory hetero- sexuality- v announce his affliction with acquired immune A6 the first public f.gun2 ^ ^^ the worid and shattered an £*"* 5T Zer three decades ... for fans who knew him onscreen iL* cultivated over indestruct.ble and qu.ntessent.al iS ** * reThCt'hat of the insidious and quintessential '80s disease.--cos movie star wi 1 krause a star (a super-human, invulnerable type) had gotten the other hand, be ^ a ^ ^ ^^^ «|f a wealthy - the implications ^ ^ ^ _ ^____ ^ . f ^ ^ol^hritv With celebrity can On _^^__^___________ lh an et it, who's safe?"47 And it was not just any celebrity. With , ok the u-nn oi government spending 0 - d, as Hiiabethjaylor's massiv,^ benefit in Hudson^ ,.hf j pun donations to medu al resean h through his aids found ' .he. «t tesolve the rr^y problems AIDS victims had * x ol so< ..I prejudice and ignorance, part ol the media blitz |hľ ped raise publk consciousness. In the process, he becamľ! lôndofhero . .iilbLizor. martyi tor .1 real-life cause. '' Howeva Hudson's affliction and death bred .1 second response that wa „o, itable. m an essay titled The Media and AIDS Panic: The posM J rome," Geoffrey Sokes labeled this response "media hysteria/ com. menting 1: before Hudson AIDS was nowhere, "now it's everywhere."*1 The New Kxk A ran features titled "AIDS Hits More Hollywood Stars" and "School >ok Die> ol MD5," while the July 1985 issue of Life announced, "No One Is Sate from Ai: and News wee* ran the cover "Fear of AIDS" in September 1985. journalists proliferated articles about the possibilities of infection in public places—on campus, in prisons, in Hollywood, in the military, and in the work place. This media hysteria helped generate a "moral panic" over contamination. This panic often arose in relation to concerns over both sexual behavior and professionals who came into contact with blood, such as doctors, dentists, and morticians. But just as frequently, fears of contamination were incited by confusion over the tacts of transmission. Sometimes simple contact was perceived as a danger. Thus, bus drivers worried that they might contract the disease from paper bus transfers, social workers were afraid to handle papers from people with AIDS, and patrons stopped going to restaurants with gay waiters.54 As AIDS historians and critics tell us, the particular power waged by AIDS contamination fears has its roots in long-standing cultural attitudes toward disease. What Cindy Patton has called "germophobia" in this culture, an irrational, visceral response to the contamination possibilities of germs, was only worsened by the epidemic proportions, sexual origins, and the marginality and "otherness" of those most associated with AIDS (such as homosexuals, IV drug users, prostitutes, and Caribbean nationals). Thus it was that bus drivers, social work, restaurant patrons, etc. reacted with disgust and paranoiac alarm at the very thought of the most quotidian contact. But more important, the discourse of contagion served a powerful political ^Z both the plague and venereal d.sease before it, the fear AIDS i. paniedTľ"* * ? P°lenlial for ,nvasion ™*> the general populace was accom-y a m0fa,i2in& bourse that used disease as a means to justify and rfiis was no more apparent in the contemporary set-,, il,|1" " , , commentary on AIDS, which blamed homosexuality JLthan m n ua||y liberal society that encouraged it for a new potential '^1 the moóe^' tWs perspective, AIDS was a just punishment visited on the jpocslyp** From n homosexuality and the sexual revolution. At the same time, i",i,|sl'''r< V ' I the New Right's pro-family platform, the return to "tradi- |i; prr,nce ratmea tjonal v',lues' right-wing interpretations of homosexuality branded it with AS m '( C sive disease that had implications for catastrophic national sub-lhe °k • the "Commie" homosexual, the otherness of AIDS victims seemed VerSIOn th message that difference was the problem. It was difference that 10 ^"diseases which have the power to leap social barriers." This logic dic-caU hal the ansWer to diseased difference would be for individuals "to conform ,a d traditional standards in order to protect the health of the whole soci-"56 Thus frenzy over contamination fears suited an agenda bent on eradicating social and sexual otherness, while implicitly confirming the Tightness and importance of the white, middle-class, nuclear family. The panicked media response to Hudson's illness, then, helped set off a rhetoric of contamination with historical roots and ideological ramifications. While the sensationalists coverage of AIDS developed in relation to otherwise legitimate medical and ethical questions raised by the Hudson case, particularly those concerned with transmission and disclosure, it used these issues as a means of profitably capitalizing on cultural paranoia toward disease and nonconformity. The much-publicized "Dynasty" kiss between Hudson and Linda Evans stands as a case in point. For nine episodes during the 1984-85 season, Hudson appeared on "Dynasty" as Daniel Reece, a wealthy rancher update of his Giant 'mage. Although at this point he knew he had AIDS, when the script called for im to kiss Evans, he did, with very little information available about the transmission ot the d|sease and without telling Evans about his diagnosis. This occa-w prompted coverage of the means of transmission of AIDS (in this case saliva non-sexual contact) and the tension between disclosure and the privacy "8hts of aids victims. «n'Ev'wIsT''. PreSSeS like The E«B*W tixated on tne moment of the Hud-slror»8ly i h'SS dlsplaVin8 large, color, cover photos of their embrace which J outrage ľ^ ^ moment witn a sense of deadly contagion and pseudo-ethi-his diagnos' ifl Cnrislian s lawsuit against Hudson's estate for tailing to disclose j s,s inflamed the disclosure issue substantially, at the same time as it Melodrama and Meanin The much-publicized "Dynasty" kiss. heightened the sensationalistic aspects of Hudson's personal life. This type o press •„«•rage promoted Hudson as antithetical to heroism, binding Huds°", tbe-homosexual to a fear of contagion.57 The fact that this fear was so Im with the kiss, the cornerstone of the major Hollywood convention of neter-sexual romance, caused reverberations in the film industry; actresses were portedly fearful of playing opposite gay actors, and a "legion of actors were ing a groundswell of paranoia."" jn I" IxMh his hero'K and plague-associated images, Hudson's SO< ial ,mpa<(.(^ the !ybos rivaled his significance to the 1950s, encouraging liberal and reac • «laments alike around a crucial national health crisis. Also, as one rnjj^ ■ " '"spired alterations of his 1950s image. Intertwined with press age of Hudst a medical and ethical subjeci were the inevitable rev'si »ographies designed to reconsider his Hollywood image. star Gossip 1 /- Revising the Image ress rewrote Hudson's past according to the revelation that he Th' hlen homosexual- Revisionist forms included the first television 11,1,1 ''''VlY Hudson telecast in January of 1990,** talk shows featuring his 'l"<"'lľ'ia"l ry-lovrs, magazine ','ories, and an authorized biography. The format ir""''",nf '(rts recalled i'j50S biographies in that the press covered his early "f lh'"' ulv- b'-;',inning of his career with Henry Willson, and his rise to fame, '. a |>y photos from each period. However, biographies were substan-^altered to emphasize his "hidden" life as a gay person; they focused on ľ Y the studio protected Hudson by planting stories in fan magazines that em-hľsized his heterosexuality, by arranging his marriage to Phyllis Gates, and by encouraging his own successful secrecy about his private life. In keeping with traditions of celebrity journalism, these pieces juxtaposed Hudson's "real" and "reel" lives. But this time they acted not to support the screen image, but to savor the contrast, bringing out the artificiality of classic Hollywood and the romantic roles Hudson played in light of his true sexual orientation. People's cover promised "the other life of Rock Hudson" in a story titled "Rock Hudson: On Camera and Off." The first line of the story read, "The tragic news that he is the most famous victim of an infamous disease, AIDS, unveils the hidden life of a longtime Hollywood hero." The magazine explained that from the start, "Hudson projected one image in front of the camera and another away from it—he has always been gay."60 More explicit revisionist work took place outside the framework of magazine publishing. Rock Hudson and Sara Davidson's Rock Hudson: His Story, an authorized biography published in 198b, rewrote his history in candid detail.61 This hook follows Hudson through the various stages of his career, concentrating on His homosexual lifestyle and, ultimately, on the details of his affliction with AIDS. w* find that it was his first lover m California, Ken Hodge, who urged him to W lTl"H' n()t UU(k ClriVer ír,,,|uls 'ls ,,,n maKazines hacl reported, and that Henry 1 S()n was a "notorious homosexual." The story of how Hudson got his '""' U"(,H • a similar radical shift. Davidson reports that Hudson's name was book a1 a Hay p,irlv~ Kück" fa strength ami "Hudson out oi the phone 1,1 addition, the story „( how he got to k 1 his job in Magnificent Ob- n ater .1 broken collarbone threatened to keep him off the set involves a out rej,!'' lud50n's ima8»-reversal is dramatic, l should note thai it is noi m to certain conventions 01 pu-ss coverage of stars. Around iru íha« the pres^ ** reportim *\ Hudson and AIDS, .t w,ls also dn ,n ,,-„,. ,t u.th breast cancer, as -t nad on previous occaJ? ľ** ' ... no, Her, Bett) Ford, and l.ll Ireland. One has only to th*T* **> Belosi- s drúc overdose Len Bias's death trom cocaine, or Drew Bar ^ drug addiction to realize how prevalent such star coverage was during^'* nod, and continues to be with more recent example, such as Michael L ľ*" Magic lohnson's diagnosis with HIV. HnH^ a^' [ver problems wa celebrities. Similarly, sensationalistic exposes of stars' prTvateT^' death from cancer and Magic lohnson's diagnons with HIV. Hudson Wa much a part of the "sick star" convention by which the media elaborated'^ are a publishing mainstav. From the 'kiss and tell" accounts of Shelly Winters„ Zsa -a Gabor to biographies detailing Carv Grant's bisexuality, the exposé is part of a publicity machine focused on celebrities. But even given these commonplaces of star stories, Hudson's case is especially powerful because its obliteration of his 1950s identity afforded more than just a revealing glimpse into Hollywoodiana. It was inextricably bound to a shared, and in some people's minds scandalous, health crisis. Whereas Grant's bisexuality could actually suit his suave image of the 1940s and 1950s, Hudson's homosexual i ty directly affronted the public's conception of him as a romantic (that is, heterosexual) icon. Hudson's i m age-reversal was not only associated with sexual behavior still at the center of social debate, but with the relation between that behavior and an incendiary disease which, as we have seen, tapped strongly reactive public sentiment. Given the substantial revision of Hudson's image from "healthy" heterosexual to 'stricken" homosexual, how can we conceive of the impact such a transformation might have on the signification of his past screen roles? Following the cues of press coverage, I offer some tentative hypotheses on this subject. The Politics of Clashing Codes Extra-filmic material can often instigate what Richard Dyer has referred to as a "clash of codes" in star signification; this clash is produced from a severe disalignment of on- and off-screen images.62 According to Dyer, Charles Eckert, and others, the star image typically functions to manage or resolve contradictions w.thm ideology. The fusion of role and "real" person creates the impression of seamiessness within this process. We can see such a function for Hudson's image ,n te '950S, when his roles and extra-filmic depictions created and sustained ancifon of an ideal, "old-fashioned" masculinity at a time when masculine types were becominR morp cnri*u.. -„l_.i. ' '■*/ tin-, tvp" al operation of ideological management is no longer ap-H°V^hen we consider the i<)»os. Star gossip in this period introduced a plicable * ( |H,|ween the -.«-miotics of Hudson's past roles and extra-filmic jubstanlfai ^ |tjng jn a paradigmatic instance of a "clash of codes." Rather informal"»0' ^.^ turmQJ| by asserting the status quo, the later rewriting of ,h',n mľim'iľ-' produces ideological tension in relation to his screen roles in the 1,11,1 '"ih'c contemporary press created fundamental doubt about his on-screen '"heterosexual image by underscoring the contradictory "facts" of Hud-"min'ivate life as a homosexual. The overall impact of this tension lends an M"r to Hudson's roles by directing attention to the apparatus of deceit on Ühich the "magic" of Hollywood is based, as well as to its primary convention, rosexual romance. A self-reflexive and distancing element is thus introduced the spectatorial experience of these films. As a result, Sirk's films were most ... I »made strange" in ways totally unforeseeable by him or his critics. Press accounts suggest that this awareness of artifice could operate in a number of different ways. Like Judy Garland, whose MGM image of the girl-next-door was smashed by press coverage of her suicide attempt and personal problems,6' extra-filmic knowledge converted Hudson into a tragic figure. The press constituted him as a tragic hero, not only because of his public admission and death from AIDS, but because of the duplicitous existence he was forced to lead as a Hollywood star. For liberal readers, Hudson's films become evidence of the compulsory het-erosexuality of the film industry and society. His films act as testimony to a schizophrenic relation between public/straight image and private/gay reality, underscoring the price that social mores extract from nonheterosexuals. Awareness of this kind of schizophrenia is closely related to a camp aesthetic. Camp has always been affiliated with a heightened sense of style as well as role—a theatricalization of the person who affronts social conventions of appearance whether embodied in a "camp" person (such as Oscar Wilde, Andy Warhol) or projected as a sensibility on an image (such as layne Mansfield, Victor Mature). While to my knowledge there is no record of a camp canonization °' Hudson,"4 the clash of codes characterizing his image creates a situation ripe l(,r this kind of reaction by its dramatic unmasking of heterosexist presumption a key facet of the camp aesthetic of identity. As ' mentioned in the preceding chapter, reviewers have sometimes recog-™Jed the 1 .„„p values apparent in Sirk's melodramas, especially in their excesses Hu(c|,)ür/lnd mise-l'"-^one. Because of the commentary on gender it produ. tSO"S irna8e offers another potential source for camp reaction to these film Melodrama and Mean« »highly structured by the ____ The Sirk mctod«^ Hudson's rev ed image produces a keen , incs< ol sex roles. The disjuncture between his hom ^Icon ~ h ixua||ty defining his screen roles undermii ."" m th( «*al conventions oi Hollywood cinema and**). ***" ,1 EmnrtciHrm« on (OrullH 1 Siirh -»nil acteristic ol the genre «-^^^-^™ th< '■ .ilitv and thel____________ ,inarent naturalness ""' ~--------^___ „constructing -hem as artificial impositions on conduct. Such artifi^, . k a mments, mates fun ol "the whole cosmology of restrh .,v, r0i ual identification which our society uses to oppress its women an() j to men, including those on the screen." hen viewed from this perspective, romance in Hudson's Sirk melodramas or Dav comedies no longer operates as a point of complicit identification of the audience with the emotional center of the film. It appears, rather, as a kind of role-playing demanded by a system that obliterates contradictions in sexual iden-tjty and defines the world heterosexually. In this way, Hudson's romantic narratives are injected with heightened artifice around roles, undermining the com-pulsory heterosexuality that forms the core of the Hollywood film. Extra-filmic knowledge ultimately operates to ironicize sex roles, making the Sirk melodrama into a showcase for tragic and humorous recognition of the contrasts between the heterosexual rule over Hudson's public life and the contradictory private tacts. On the other end of the political spectrum, the incongruity can produce reactionary responses as it did in the press. We can consider again for a moment the rewriting of the "Dynasty" kiss between Hudson and Evans from a scripted, dramatic, romantic moment of transgression against marital bonds to a profound example of AIDS contamination and threat. The kiss, shown on television and m print media as one of the emblems of the dangers of undisclosed AIDS, sparked revaluation of a major institution within the cinema and other media that signifies heterosexual romance—the kiss—but not in a progressively self-n way. The press showed it as contamination, a negative routing ol screen convention where homosexuality makes an unwelcome appearance. In addition, the "Dynasty" kiss often appeared with similar irn.i; of romantk in-«J W from Hudson's previous films, seeming to suggest thai tl m"';''** too were somehow compromised, i kidsorťs n reen kis thus i ease to r< the height of romantir commitment and desire as the aura of contamination X™**j^**k to redefo* «en distant screen embrace«. to find an awareness of artifice here that, like liberal camp, underm« 'J fast ..inj mi or/dlt:iiev> 01 dníme ncre uun, ■■**: ••"■•"■ it romantk conventions and their heterosexiil presumptions-, however, materializes as a son of "retro camp," where i'ri Star Gossip 129 , 1. between role and private life results In .1 rea< tlon- kpowl'"l,'r "' ?* '".dm'/ Sin h a response transforms the screen embrace into botnoP"0^ ' ' ,' momem of hilarity. This may very well be the reason ','.'„„n,». Of 1,",r"rio('),ni' wl|, noW howl at the line in All That I leaven Alio tlJffcnis i" a ' l','|ir". in€ wyman that he wishes she were more like a man, or where Hudson te 11 ^ ^ jnsjsts ,o nymphomaniac Dorothy Malone that in WW'"'" "" . f h,.r Extra-filmic knowledge thus converts romantic scenes he COUld ř^^J|ded'conventions, without the slightest hint of sympathetic into P«ir0 ie ,,wareness. political *nti!"*n,n shoW in this chapter how Rock Hudson's star image func-1 haVe « a socially in the .950s, and how through changes in extra-tí0ned fibnically ->" _ ^^ ^ ^^ profoundly difierent from rilmic information, that in. j ^ ^^ ^ ^ mmsáon of ^^ ils initial des.gn. Huo ^ demys||f|caöon „me thirty years later. By this and heterosexual my exercised over reception was mag- bler period, the aut c«*£*£ J^ a confounding of the original «* "J h,S ľJÄÄta appeared. I specd-ed on how defi-design of many of *"M™ {erms un(jer which S,rk films are nitions of masculinity mayh a e, J ^^ rf ^.^ ^ received by their aud, nees a*M.ng o V> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ä r,: ä ; sssnTL—s. j^x^sss:..........-*.«. fib». This will be the focus of the last chapter. Rock Hudson: Film, Television, and Theater Performances Films and Dim tors 1948 1949 1950 '95' F/ghte/ Squadron, Raoul Walsh Undertow, William < astle Peggy, Frederick de I ordova I Was a Shoplifter, Charles Lamonl One Way Street, Hugo Fregonese Winchester 73, Anthony Mann rhe Desert Hawk, Frederick de Cordova lhatedown, loseph Pevney tomahawk, George Sherman The iron Man, loseph Pevney 03 ■ 95* '953 '954 '955 1956 '957: .958: 1959: 1961: 1962: 1963: 1964: 1965: '9č>6: 1967: 1968: Mebdrůma and Meaning The fei Man. w,,,,am Ca5tte Bright Viewy- Mark Robson The Lawless Breed, Raoul Walsh Horizon West, Budil Bootticher Haf- Anybod) ven My Calf, Douglas Sirk Bend tif the River, Anthony Mann Scarlet Angel, Sidney Salkow The Sea Devils, Raoul Walsh The Golden Blade, Nathan Juran Seminole, Budd Boetticher Back to Cod's Country, Joseph Pevney Cun Fury, Raoul Walsh laia, Son of Cochise, Douglas Sirk Magnificent Obsession, Douglas Sirk Bengal Brigade, Laslo Benedek Captain Lightfool, Douglas Sirk One Desire, jerry Hopper All That Heaven Allows, Douglas Sirk Never Say Goodbye, Jerry Hopper Giant, George Stevens Battle Hymn, Douglas Sirk Something of Value, Richard Brooks A Farewell to Arms, Charles Vidor Written on the Wind, Douglas Sirk Twilight for the Gods, Joseph Pevney Tarnished Angels, Douglas Sirk This Earth Is Mine, Henry King Pillow Talk, Michael Gordon The Last Sunset, Robert Aldrich Lover Come Back, Delbert Mann Come September, Robert Mulligan The Spiral Road, Robert Mulligan A Gathering of Eagles, Delbert Mann Man's Favorite Sport', Howard Hawks Send Me No Flowers, Norman Jewison A Very Special Favor, Michael Gordon Strange Bedfellows, Melvm Frank Blindfold, Phillip Dunne Seconds, John Frankenheimer Tobruk, Arthur Hiller fee Station Zebra, John Sturges 9: 197 0: 197 1973 i976 .978 198° l98i> Tbe, TülV Blake Edwards D*M. Nest Ph'l ^rlson H0rnet \ r AH in* *». Roger Vad.m pľelty ^^ s^on showdown,Geotz , Riloh Nelson £mb0'O;p Corey Allen ^tonche. Cow Hami„on iE SÄ i-onlY on tetevision i97''76: l976-77: ,978: '979: 1973-75 1976: Television Shows «McMillan and Wife" "McMillan" "Wheels" "The Martian Chronicles" 1981: 1982: 1984: 1984 -8 Theater / Do! I Do! John Brown's Body 1977 1979 "World War III" "The Starmaker" "The Devlin Connection' "Las Vegas Strip Wars" "Dynasty" Camelot On the Twentieth Century