Kirk Douglas and Lana Turner in 'The Bad And The Beautiful', 1952. (Photo by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer/Getty Images)
Kirk Douglas was honoured at the Oscars because Hollywood is sentimental and cynical; the first disguises the second, and not well. Douglas is interesting because he exposes how little Hollywood has changed. The posturing of #TimesUp and #MeToo aside, the industry is as misogynistic as ever, which was something Joaquin Phoenix did not mention as he lamented the lack of diversity at the BAFTAs, all the while holding his prize. Is hypocrisy ageing? We must hope not.
Douglas was not a great actor, but he did not need to be: that was not even his purpose. His expertise was masculine rage, but it was, to be fair, a constellation of rage. The critic David Thompson called him “the manic depressive among Hollywood stars, one minute bearing down on plot, dialogue, and actresses with the gleeful appetite of a man just freed from Siberia, at others writhing not just in agony but mutilation and a convincingly horrible death”. Not a great actor then, but a great star; that is, he was only ever himself.
A great star must have a great myth and Douglas’s was doughty: he was the only son — among six daughters — to first generation Yiddish-speaking Jewish immigrants from what is now Belarus. His father was a ragman peddling in rubbish; he was attacked, as a child, by Jew-hating gangs in New York; and there you have the anger. He was born Issur Danielovitch in 1916; 42 years later he and Bernie Schwarz (Tony Curtis) starred in The Vikings (1958), which always makes me laugh — both were Jews — and demonstrates, too, Hollywood’s magical capacity for personal renewal — for some anyway.
Douglas did what Hollywood stars have always done. He invented himself, and that act of will, for the consumers, made him worthy of them. It was a quasi-religious pact. They would worship him, and he would act out their myths: incrementally.
Women were not allowed this, then or now. The average age of the best actor nominees in 2020 is 51; for women it is 37. The “red carpet” is a beauty contest, advertorial for the fashion industry, and no more. They should not sew the names of ignored female directors onto their clothes, as Natalie Portman did. They should come in workout gear. They should get fat.
And what wretched myths females were given, then and now. I watched Douglas’s The Bad and the Beautiful (1952) last week, and I saw Lana Turner as she bounced between sexual object and, more troublingly, child. Her character Georgia Lorrison is the daughter of a famous actor and she is defined by him; that is, she inherited her career. She offers sex to Douglas — here, sexual agency is a reliable indicator of nervous breakdown — who compares her, unkindly, to her father, in a line shrill with injustice: He loved women, you’re a tramp!” Later, another character echoes the term “tramp” and Turner appears to barely hear it, let alone react. Why bother, when it is gospel?
Pauline Kael, the most famous film critic in America in the 1960s and ’70s, asked: “If you were acting across someone like Kirk Douglas in the ’50s what was there for a girl to be?”
The answer is the same that the females in Once Upon a Time in… Hollywood would give to Brad Pitt if they were given the dialogue, which they weren’t: nothing much at all. You lie down beneath the strutting; you beg, if legally still a child, to give Pitt a blowjob in his car; you are, if Sharon Tate, rescued from murder. In The Vikings Janet Leigh looks on the cusp of an eye roll — or am I dreaming? — even while surrounded by the exciting Vikings; at one point Douglas runs along the oars of a long ship without falling off. The aggression towards other men is a given, but it didn’t stop there. Bluntly put, a Douglas love scene often looked more like a rape.
Offscreen it was, and is, the same. I read how Marilyn Monroe’s top was pulled up by a studio executive, to show another studio executive her breasts, because he considered them extraordinary. She smiled throughout; that was the role; it was familiar. We can hear the testimony of her successors in a court room in New York now.
I would say that Hollywood is so far from understanding feminism that a film merely featuring women — Little Women, and how I adored the crinolines — is called a feminist piece of art. It isn’t. It is a faintly interesting film about women from a female director; we are confusing the maker with the made. I could argue that Star Wars is more feminist than Little Women. I really think it is. Even so, Little Women won an Oscar for best costume design, which is both awful and very funny.
The truth of Hollywood is all in the product; you need look no further. We get an occasional female superhero, for manners — Captain Marvel, Wonder Woman, and the Luke Skywalker character now seems to be a woman — but I see no evidence that the ascendancy of what Kael called “hunkus Americanus” is over, although we now have to contend with a frosting of irony that seems like yet more cynicism. “Did anyone believe,” Kael once asked, “in all that butchness the men put on? I find it very unappealing and it’s boring — those rugged blank faces.” Ask Brad Pitt who won an Oscar for playing just that man in Once Upon a Time in… Hollywood.
Whether we believe in it or not — or find it appealing or not — we continue to buy it. Where are the women in mass-market — in profitable — cinema? The answer is: at the periphery, as remote and lovely as ever, watching Kirk Douglas and his successors en fête.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeHe will not leave without a fight. You forget that it wasn’t the middle classes that continued to vote for him. Poor people’s lives in Turkey changed dramatically for the better when Erdogan was initially voted in, people who have never been able to afford imported goods and don’t care about them.. They have applauded Erdogan’s “piousness”. Older poor people remember the past with all the coups and unrest, they don’t want it back. Many ordinary people were horrified at the last attempted coup. I personally think there will be more support than you think for him to hang on in there.
He doesn’t understand justice though and punishes the innocent. Many in opposition are still in prison, so there is no freedom of speech. Poor little Armenia are always getting it from Turkey. The massacres of the population in Armenia were horrific in 1914 but they still attack them. Is it because they are a Christian nation?. We do not need another Ottomon Empire with the slavery and cruelty again.
Erdogan was in the right place at the right time. There probably isn’t a single developing country that didn’t ride the wave of expanding globalisation to vastly increase the income levels of their populations during this period.
Erdogan is a menace to his people and a menace in the middle east. It would be great to see him go. Turkey has a lot to sort out from when he came to power.
It’s worth remembering that it was the (proto-)woke who helped bring Erdogan to power by non-stop complaining about the imperfect nature of Turkish democracy and how Erdogan was the necessary solution to fix it. The likes of NYT, FT, the Economist would publish editorial after editorial to support him.
Looking at what’s happening in US today going from crisis to crisis, I today judge Turkish democracy a lot less harshly than I might’ve back in 2003. The one big highlighted sin of Turkish democracy was about not allowing political Islam in government. We’ll see how that one unfolds in the west with many countries banning certain Islamic garb and outlawing some Islamic teaching already, not to mention Trump banning legal entries from Muslim countries.
As for Erdogan brining prosperity to Turkey, while Erdogan clearly is a capable leader and strategic thinker, there was probably more in that success about simply being in the right time and place. Turkey rode the wave of globalisation like any other developing country achieving comparable levels of income and wealth gains (e.g. see Brazil or China between 2003-now).
Any relation to Yunus? Just curious
Relation? Certainly.
How is Belarus making the migrant gamble toxic?
While Ataturk’s “laicisation” of Turkey was important, Erdogan’s bringing back of Islam into the political fold was an important corrective – Egypt could learn from him. Equally, Pakistan could do well to call them out. He has done the necessary – if he was truly wise, he would now step down. He probably won’t – as Acton said . . .