American Fan Magazines in the 30s

and the Glamorous Construction of Femininity

ANNE JERSLEV

Fan magazines. Popular culture’s pulp fic- ture’s ideas of femininity at the same
tion for women. Reading for millions of time. 1
women and an important contributor to Not much research has been done in the
popular culture’s construction of stardom area of film fan magazines, despite the
and the star persona: the intermingling of fact that they are an important research
star image and film character (cf. King field if one wants to understand popular
1991). culture’s construction of celebrity. Like-
The rise of the fan magazine phenome- wise, they are an invaluable source to the
non coincide with the rise of the star sys- understanding of film as popular culture.
tem but fan magazines were most widely Finally, a study of the fan magazines’
distributed in the heydays of the studio stories about stars can contribute in an
system, that is from 1920 to 1950. The important way to the understanding of
first issue of the first magazine, The Mo- classic Hollywood’s reception history
tion Picture Story Magazine, came out in and, thus, provide us with preliminary an-
February, 1911, and, according to Studlar swers to questions about Hollywood and
(1991), the largest fan magazine, its female audience.2 Fan magazines both
Photoplay, claimed in 1922 that it had contained and constructed (together with
about 2 million readers. The magazines the newspapers’ gossip columns) the
functioned often as the voice of the stu- extratextual part of film fascination. First,
dios’ public relations people but they they contributed to the construction of
were not published by the studios’ PR- the star persona: Not surprising, a very
departments. They were their readers’ important part of their content were arti-
voice from Hollywood and educated their cles about the lives of the stars outside
own staff of writers (such as Dorothy the studios and, just as important, vari-
Manners, Gladys Hall, Adele Rogers St. ous gossip columns containing rumours
John, Ruth Waterbury, Elizabeth Wilson); and details about the very same ”private”
likewise, the queen of Hollywood gossip, life. Secondly, and almost as important
Louella O. Parsons, contributed from time part of the magazines material as the
to time. At the same time they were wom- elaborate stories about the stars’ doings,
en’s magazines, directly addressing them- were extensively illustrated fashion arti-
selves to female readers with first and cles, connecting films and filmstars with
foremost fashion material, and in that re- the female readers. Either the female stars
spect they reflected and constructed cul- posed in the dresses they had worn or

1
were about to wear in their newest film, cept of glamour in relation to a discus-
or they posed in their ”private” ward- sion of the glamorous publicity still,
robe, thus illustrating the latest of fash- since it seems that no one really knows
ion. In addition to the glamorous photo- what glamour is all about.
graphs, the readers could obtain informa- Fan magazines functioned as mediators
tion on how to make the clothes them- between Hollywood and the cinema audi-
selves or where to buy patterns to sew ence. They built up interest in advance
dresses that looked like the ones worn by for new films to be released and they
the stars – on and off screen.3 In this re- helped maintain film fandom. No doubt,
spect fan magazines are also, as Gaylyn the studio system had not been so pow-
Studlar (1991) notes, an important source erful had it not been for the existence of
to the understanding of different histori- fan magazines. They construct, and at
cal constructions of femininity, not least the same time point to, different kinds of
ideological struggle for definitions of intertextual digression (cf. Klinger 1989);
femininity. Studlar’s research material is actually, they point towards digression
20s fan magazines and she argues that as a mode of reception. In this respect
discussing the ”new woman” they bal- they draw attention to the fact that not
anced between acclaiming the modern, even classic Hollywood narratives makes
socially and sexually liberated woman, on sense only inherently, each textual seg-
the one hand and, on the other, domesti- ment gaining meaning only in relation to
cating her in the family kitchen and bed- what comes before and after. From the
room. Studlar also discusses ways in point of view of reception classical narra-
which fan magazines contributed to the tives are not as coherent as film theory
construction of the female gaze. Here she has understood them. Regarded as
argues in favor of a double reading posi- source material in a film historical recep-
tion: the magazines invited readers to po- tion study fan magazines contain – and
sition themselves between belief and dis- make visible – an important part of female
belief, at the same time engulfing them- audiences’ prior knowledge and interest
selves in the stories and yet be aware that structured and made different forms
that it is all made up. of digressions in relation to narrative pro-
Focusing on 30s fan magazines and gression possible.
partly in continuation of Studlar’s argu- It is possible to understand stagings
ments and by means of a critical discus- of fashion shows in 30s women’s films
sion of parts of Joshua Gamson’s (1994) (fx. Roberta, 1935, Mannequin, 1937, The
book about ”celebrity construction in Women, 1939) as an invitation to the fe-
contemporary America”, I am going to ar- male spectators to adopt a (female) di-
gue that stories about artificiality – Hol- gressive mode of reception. These fash-
lywood’s, the stars’ – were very ion sequences interrupt narrative flow
conspicious in 30s fan magazines. The and construct a different space, just as
different stories about glamour and the song-and-dance sequences often do in a
magazines’ many publicity stills contrib- musical. Presumably Spencer Tracy’s
uted to the accentuation of artificiality at character in Mannequin, a millionaire in
the same time as they projected feminine love, can be regarded as stand-in for the
ideals. So, following from the first argu- male spectator and Joan Crawford’s
ment, I will, furthermore, theorize the con- mannequin’s poses as the quintessential

2
symbolization of Laura Mulvey’s (1975) and
thesis about the visual construction of
Thousands of women, every day, attend
the female character as to-be-looked-at-
theaters – and conscript their husbands
ness in front of and by means of the male
as escorts – because they want to see the
gaze – within the filmic narrative and out-
styles which are being created by Holly-
side it. But Tracy’s character can also be
wood’s designers -
interpreted as a very conscious, ironic
commentary to the film’s gendered ad- Through the fan magazines readers could
dress. The character interrupts the fash- mail order do-it-yourself patterns for the
ion display and, thus, he disturbs the dresses they had watched and evaluated
show as well, I will suggest, the female while, simultaneously, they followed the
members of the audience in the cinema love story. If this ”consumer’s gaze”
who want to watch this sequence – as ex- attributed by Goldwyn to the female
actly a fashion show. The Tracy charac- spectators – supposed to come from em-
ter has arrived to persuade the beautiful pirical facts – is understood as a digress-
model to marry him and he addresses her ing gaze, in line with the theorization of
repeatedly during her show so that her Barbara Klinger, then this leads to quite a
poses continually are interrupted. The different understanding of the female
same must, consequently, go for the spectator than the one usually theorized
many supposedly admiring and fasci- by feminist film theory. Whereas the lat-
nated gazes in the cinema audience.4 ter theorizes the implied feminine specta-
Sociologist Leo Handel (1950), in his tor position as overinvolved and, thus,
study of primarily 40s sociological sur- rather: deprived of a gaze, then, accord-
veys of movie attendance and age and ing to Goldwyn, the female gaze is not
gender differences and genre preferences blind at all, on the contrary. It is matter-
among the audience, draws attention to of-fact, trying to obtain quite specific in-
the fact that ”story type” ranks under formation from the films, first and fore-
”cast” in ”drawing power” among women most by means of a critical, evaluating
(Handel 1950: 118). Correspondingly, film gaze at the wardrobes of the star perso-
mogul Samuel Goldwyn, in an article in nas. 6
Photoplay, March 1935 under the head-
ing ”Women Rule Hollywood”5 states:
Histories about the Stars –
Men, no matter how much they enjoy
seeing pictures, are by nature, and by
Truths or Lies? Who Cares!
training and habit, much more analy- One part of the questions Jackie Stacey
tical. No matter how brilliant the cast, (1994) raises in the questionnaire in her
they are quick to detect and condemn empirical study about Hollywood films
story flaws. Instead of asking, ”Who’s and their female English fan audience is
the star?” they are more apt to demand, about fan clubs and fan magazines. The
”What’s the picture about?” The ave- study is about female English spectators’
rage man likes a western ... or a costu- memories about their fascination with
me picture ... or any other type of story Hollywood and its stars ind 1940s and
which appeals to his particular taste; the 1950s England (”This is thus a study of
average woman likes any picture in white British women’s fantasies about
which her favorite stars appear glamour, about Americanness and about

3
themselves” (p. 17)), and her empirical two narratives – different but coexisting
material is letters from 300 female fans (and with roots in ancient history of the
and their answers to a semiopen ques- Western world):
tionnaire. Most of her respondents read
In one, the great and talented and vir-
Picturegoer and many of the women
tuous and best-at rise like cream to the
mention that they read another two or
top of the attended-to, aided perhaps by
more magazines more extensively. Stacey
rowdy promotion, which gets people to
concludes:
notice but can do nothing to actually
These magazines were devoted to repre- make the unworthy famous. In this
senting the lives of stars, as well as to story, fame is deserved and earned,
other features on topics such as new related to achievements or quality. In
releases, fashion tips and results of the second story, the publicity apparatus
audience polls. But women cinema-goers itself becomes a central plot element,
in my study read them to find out about even a central character; the publicity
the stars. They featured photographs of machine focuses on the worthy and
stars and a mixture of press releases and unworthy alike, churning out many ad-
inside gossip. The material possessions, mired commodities called celebrities, fa-
wealth and leisure time of individual mous because they have been made to
stars were a source of constant fascina- be. (Gamson 1994, s.15-16)
tion for readers (s.107)
Now, Gamson’s main thesis is that equi-
She does not, however, include a closer librium between the two narratives is
study of fx. Picturegoer in the interpreta- gradually displaced in the course of the
tions of her material. century and that this displacement
In his book, American sociologist and causes trouble for the studios’ public re-
cultural researcher Joshua Gamson (1994) lation departments already in the early
studies historical changes in what he part of Hollywood’s golden era. The
calls ”the discourse of celebrity”. The story about stardom belonging to the
first part of his discussion about ”The gifted one who, precisely because he or
Great and the Gifted: Celebrity in the she is gifted and unique, deserves fame,
Early Twentieth Century” – that is, be- stardom and fandom, comes to ring more
fore the decline of the studie system – is and more hollow, as the studios’ public-
based on two collections of articles from ity departments grew larger and more
American fan magazines (Levin ed., 1970 conspicuous. According to Gamson, film
(1991) and Gelman ed., 1972). Object of industrial development, thus, constitutes
his discussion is then, obviously, not fan a threat to pupular culture’s story about
magazines as magazines, rather it is arti- outstanding individuality. Likewise, vis-
cles once printed in magazines. Neither ible publicity manufacturing threatens
does he consider the fact that their over- the idea, more or less explicitly inscribed
all address was women. Gamson analyzes in celebrity discourse that the star is cre-
the celebrity text but not the fan maga- ated by the audience and therefore, in a
zine as text, nor does he analyze fan certain respect, lives on borrowed time
magazines as communication to a well de- with its fans. This is the paradoxical logic
fined audience. He states that 20th cen- behind the creation of a third, mediated
tury discourse of celebrity consists of story that invites the fan to take a closer

4
look at the star: The story about the per- balance (cf. Dyer, 1979, as well). These
son behind the facade, the individual be- stories are then part of what I will prefer
hind glamour, gossip, persona, a story to call the star discourse, consisting of a
that is meant to show readers that the mixture of authenticity discourse and ce-
star is, basically, just like other people, lebrity discourse. (Gamson understands
just as human, just as special – with only celebrity discourse as the general
the slight difference that he or she is (a whereas I chooses to let celebrity dis-
little bit) richer: course form part of the star discourse).
But the question is whether Gamson is
But the skepticism heightened by incre-
right when he states that disclosing pub-
singly visible publicity activities was
licity manufacturing and image construc-
contained more commonly by being
tion represents a ”threat” to the story
acknowledged: by pulling down ”the
about the ”gifted self” in the 30s, a threat
expensive mask of glamour”. Here we
that must then always be kept in balance
arrive at the key to the drive toward
by intermedaitory strategies. And, corre-
”ordinariness” in early texts. By embra-
spondingly, is it right that the story
cing the notion that celebrity images
about ”the individual behind the facade”
were artificial products and inviting
must be understood as a form of mediat-
readers to visit the real self behind those
ing textual praxis between discourses of
images, popular magazines partially
authenticity and celebrity? To whom?
defused the notion that celebrity was
And in relation to what? one must neces-
really derived from nothing but images.
sarily ask. For, as I mentioned earlier, if
(ibid., s.38)
fan magazines are seen as voices from
So this story does not exactly deny that a Hollywood these voices do not emanate
star is a studio construction; still, it isn’t from the public relation departments of
thematized, either. the studios.
Gamson continues his argument by The precondition for Gamson’s analy-
stating that focus is explicitly directed to- sis is the idea that fan magazine stories,
wards the star as product in fan maga- basically, construct an ambivalent, yet
zines after the studio system’s decline, coherent ideological system, a system in
first and foremost by means of an ironic which ambivalences and contradictions
mode of distanciation in celebrity stories. are always mediated by certain textual
Thus the reader is constructed as operations. From this point of view
complicit to a cynical play with staged Gamson’s interpretative approach re-
human bodies as saleable pawns. Read- minds of 70’s structuralist analyses of
ers are now not only invited behind the popular literature, and, likewise, he im-
facade but back stage, right to the place plies that the female readers he inscribes
where star persona production takes in his analysis – although he speaks only
place. A star is no more than her image, in general about readers without any
or a star is a star is a star; this is celebrity gender differentiations – want to be ab-
discourses new truth. sorbed in ”realistic” human interest sto-
In classical Hollywood fan magazines ries and do not want to be disturbed by
stories about the ordinary and the ex- any sort of distanciating reflexivity, such
traordinary, or a democratic and an as economic calculations or images of
aristocratic point of view must be kept in Hollywood as imitation and artificiality –

5
precisely in the way classic Hollywood Success” (March 1931). And this example
cinema absorbs its audience by means of is not an illustration of the work of an
disguising formal markers of enunciation. unprofessional editor, rather, it is a point.
So even if Gamson only names the maga- The magazines are filled with stories
zines’ readers audience or fans, he in- about the ”private person”, stories none
scribes the common understanding of the have ever heard about this absolutely
female spectator in his textual analysis: brilliant and natural human being, of
overinvolved, narcissistic, on the verge course, but these narratives do not pre-
of blindness – and vice versa: He is able vent the coexistence of quite another
to construct this unambiguous reader po- type of article warning readers that they
sition because he regards fan magazines should not believe a word of what they
as texts that continually, devouring their were reading.7 Each fan magazine mar-
readers, work towards creating an un- keted itself as the only magazine report-
equivocal, coherent system. ing truths about ”Hokumless Holly-
But it seems to me that the 30s fan wood”, to quote the title of a poem
magazines did not at all construct this printed in Motion Picture February 1931,
unambiguous, ”feminine” reader posi- contrary to the newspapers’ gossip col-
tion. On the contrary. My point is, that umns – and the other fan magazines. As
the magazines are quite openly deeply they were published monthly they com-
ambivalent. They do not construct one peted with the daily papers for valuable
textual system but consist of many such news – what, after all, makes gossip gos-
systems. From this it is not possible to sip. Nevertheless, the recurring warnings
theorize a simple reader position; neither to the readers against believing what
would it be possible to understand ”be- they read draw attention to the maga-
hind the facade” stories as representa- zines themselves, as they had all of them
tions of ideological mediations. Already one or more sections containing dozens
in the 30s there are far too many articles of pieces of gossip.8 Finally, a very
about the star persona as publicity con- conspicious formal strategy in many 30s
struction for ”behind the facade” stories articles, in the wake of new journalism, is
to work. Articles which display no inten- their self-reflexivity. They are just as
tions of making the readers believe in any much about the journalist and her effort
sort of authenticity as part of or behind to get her interview as they are about the
the persona, but which, on the contrary, star and what he or she actually says in
speak in a deeply ironic and sarcastic the interview;9 in ”Chase Me!”, printed
tone of voice about Hollywood, and, to a ni Silver Screen, July 1935, about
certain extent, about their own communi- Katharine Hepburn and her reluctance to
cation with their readers. meet the press, the journalist, calling her-
Two articles with exactly opposite self Lisa, starts by telling extensively
view on the same material may be placed about her own naivety: initially, when ar-
right after one another in an issue or in riving as a reporter to Hollywood, she
two succeeding issues. The last two arti- saw only authenticity, but:
cles in a series about ”The Seven Deadly
Sins Of Hollywood” in Motion Picture After the first Great Illusion comes
are called ”The Unforgivable Sin of Fail- (mine came the day the newspapers car-
ure” (February 1931) and ”The Sin of ried headlines on a famous star’s divorce,

6
 which happened to be the same day that textual systems show no effort of trying
my exclusive story of her happy mar- to mediate distinctions and contradic-
riage appeared in a fan magazine) you tions, rather, they seem to expose a kind
really don’t care anymore – why it’s just of deliberate schizofrenia. And, finally,
a lot of crazy fun after that [...] The my point is that all the histories may be
first time that Katharine Hepburn read as equally good or valid. Summariz-
screams at you, ”I don’t want any public- ing, I regard the textual contradictions as
ity. I hate publicity”, you will be surely illustrations of a kind of accepted – and
tempted to scratch her name out of your appealing – part-singing, not of tensions
copy and scratch her while you’re at it, that necessitates formal strategies of
but then you’ll remember that this is ideological mediations in order for the
Hollywood and that Katie, in the quaint system not to break down. And I con-
way, is trying to tell you that she wants sider this textual appeal, this part-singing
gobs and gobs and gobs of publicity [...] an important point if one wants to under-
And Katie isn’t the only one in Holly- stand both the ways in which magazines
wood who goes in for dodging publicity, addressed their readers and the pleasures
in order to get publicity. Why there’s a taken in reading them.
whole school of them. Garbo is the head- This deliberate schizofrenia corre-
mistress, since it was her idea first [...] sponds to occurences of undisguised
You can always tell the girls of the and ironic representations of the star as
Publicity Dodging School by the peculiar studio commodity in films from the early
clothes they wear, the peculiar cars they 30s, and Victor Flemings Bombshell (alt.
drive, and the fact that they are usually Blonde Bombshell), from 1933, for exam-
found running like mad in some public ple, is at the same time very conscious
place, done up usually in an Inverness about the importance of fan magazines to
cap and dark glasses. I’ve never yet seen the construction of star personas. Star-
a movie star run in a chic gown. ring Jean Harlow in the title role, Bomb-
shell is about a film star, whom it depicts
It seems to me that Gamson’s general with humour and solidarity. On one hand
point with his description of historical it is about the star as victim of publicity;
changes in fan magazine discourse, the she is run by an officious publicity agent
construction of an idea of some sort of who with his one hand is the stars’ clos-
authenticity related to the star gradually est friend and the other makes up sale-
disappering as 1950 comes closer, is able stories about them to the press. In
questionable – or, at any rate, it needs this respect the film is an example of
further historical precision. My point is, Gamson’s thesis about mediating stories
contrary to this that, in the 30s, stories in celebrity discourse. But this is not the
about publicity, about gossip as gossip film’s only point of view. For on the other
and about the constructedness of stories hand it deals with fan culture and fan
about the stars’ work and life, in all, magazines, representing these as power-
ironic metacommentaries to Hollywood ful and mendacious communication chan-
as dream factory coexist unproblemati- nels between the star and her fans. The
cally together with ”true stories” about film’s diva is determined to represent her-
the private life and every day joys and self as sweet and authentic to a journalist
sorrows of stars. Correspondingly, their from Photoplay, but when the harmoni-

7
ous image she wants to project dissolves In rather a similar way I will suggest that
in front of the journalist she concludes, 30s fan magazines, due to their undis-
with resignation, ”I guess you know eve- guised ambivalences, made open invita-
rything anyway”. So the film stands by tions to interpretative negotiations. They
the idea of a person beyond the star per- offered, simultaneously, two different
sona, but it also says that fan magazine strategies of reading, one strategy not ex-
stories about authenticity are just as cluding the other, one not less enjoyable
fabricatd as their stories about the glam- than the other, both reflecting that being
ourous life of a celebrity. a fan is part of the continuing construc-
Discussing different representations tion and restructuring of identity:
of the glamorous staging of a female star One could choose to read the stories
in three Hollywood metafilms, Jeanine with involvement. In this case they con-
Basinger (1993) makes almost the same sisted of truths brought to the fans by
point as Joshua Gamson. Her examples skilled journalists, and the pleasure of
are George Cukor’s What Price Holly- reading would then be the pleasure of
wood (1932 – starring Constance gaining privileged insight into the private
Bennett), William Wellman’s A Star is lives and psyches of stars. If the articles
Born (from 1937 – starring Janet Gaynor) were read in this manner, then the self re-
and Cukor’s A Star Is Born (from 1954 – flexive journalist was given the role of
starring Judy Garland), and she con- the reader’s representative in the text. By
cludes that: ”Bennett is born with it ... means of the journalist, readers were al-
Gaynor gets it ... and Garland survives it” most placed in the middle of it all and
(p. 142). That is: Authenticity discourse they were given the opportunity of
recedes more and more to the back- pleasurable fantasies about the stars and
ground of popular cultural texts. But, themselves as stars. Or one could read
again, on the other hand: This line drawn the articles distanciated. In this way they
by means of three Hollywood films about might be interpreted as good stories, that
Hollywood is not unchallenged. As a might or might not necessarily be true.
metafilm from the early 30s Bombshell With this strategy readers were offered a
discloses publicity manufacturing and position of sovereignity, in control of the
Hollywood as producer of fabrications as fan magazine discourse, enjoying the fan-
well. tastic fictions at a sceptical distance of
Jackie Stacey’s study shows that identi- the articles’ ”informations”. So the tex-
ficatorial processes between her female tual address of the magazines seems to
respondents and the stars were quite invite their readers to relate to the contra-
complicated. The pleasure of identifica- dictions as one of the pleasures of read-
tion was not synonymous with passive, ing fan magazines. Studlar makes a simi-
narcissistic overinvolvement, but female lar point in her reading of 20s magazines,
spectatorship a fact that adds to my critique of
Gamson’s thesis. It seems, thus, that a re-
involves the active negotiation and flexive attitude became a common part of
transformation of identities which are this fan discourse quite early.10
not simply reducible to objectification. Adela Rogers St. Johns, in ”Gossip Ne-
(Stacey, 1994: 208) ver Hurts” in the October issue of Photo-

8
play, reflects on the relationship between am going to look at the very concept of
truth and lie. Besides representing Holly- glamour, since it seems that it is used in
wood as a village whose inhabitants re- many different ways in the film historical
gard all privacy as public property and literature about Hollywood.
items for gossip, and besides, of course, If anything, it seems that the Golden
reproducing lots of gossip, her point is Age of Hollywood is connected to a pic-
to state that: Truth value! Who cares! torial idea about glamour, both in relation
Mendacious gossip is better than no to the female stars and to Hollywood
gossip, and this goes for both stars and mise-en-scène. The word is repeated
readers: again and again, but researchers dealing
with female stars and women and film
The other stories may be true, but what
have not been espe- cially interested in
of it? Unless they actually involve cri-
finding out, what the word glamour more
me or one of those things that ”aren’t
specifically covers in this period, be-
done” – like cheating at cards, they
sides, obviously, agreeing that it has
simply serve to add lusstre and glamour
something to do with especially
and a fictitious air of excitement and
the female star and her beautiful appearance.
novelty to wellknown personalities.
In The Oxford English Dictionary, gla-
What is stated in the quotation may illu- mour is explained as ”A magical or ficti-
minate precisely the pleasure of reading tious beauty attached to a person or ob-
fan magazines. Readers gain privileged ject”. This understanding is repeated in a
insight into the lifes of stars – that is the picture book like The Glamour Girls
quintessense of fandom – and even if the (1975); here glamour is associated with
stories are only partly true, they do offer beauty, an inner flame, a certain
themselves as actual and pleasurable photogenity, and to being unattainable:
”mise-en-scènes of desire”. At the same
From the silent era on, the history of
time they reach beyond the cinema
movie glamour comprises a series of
screen and right into its center offering
changes in style, but regardless of diffe-
readers an ambivalent identification with
rences in demeanor, all these women
the star.
shared an aura of the undicperable, un-
attainable. (p.22)
The Visual Construction Danish cultural researcher, Bodil Marie
of Glamour Thomsen, in her work about the rhetori-
In the following I will discuss 30s fan cal changes in the construction of the
magazines’ occupation with and con- star from 1920 to 1940 only mentions
struction of the concept of glamour. glamour en passant as a question of
Partly, I am going to qualify my opening style, of wrapping (p. 141), and as some-
remarks about fan magazines and the his- thing having to do with the stars’ per-
torical construction of femininity. Partly, I sonality, a historical new kind of sex-ap-
shall use selected texts about glamour as peal marketing Hollywood stars. Jeanine
further illustration of the intermingling of Basinger (1993) titles one of the chapters
a discourse of authenticity and a dis- in her book about the ways Hollywood
course of celebrity in the overall star dis- films addressed their female audiences,
course. Finally, but not least important, I ”Fashion and Glamour” (p. 115 ff.). As

9
the title suggests, in Basinger’s opinion ents memories of luxury and opulence
glamour is not synonymous with fashion (”the glamorous interiors of British cin-
(”It ultimately involves more that what a emas” (p.99)). More precisely, though,
woman puts on her body. It deals with she tries to interpret the women’s memo-
the lady herself” (p. 137)) but involves an ries in relation to what she terms a ”dis-
entire programme from the ”Hollywood course of feminine glamour”:
Glamour School” (p. 140). In Jackie Sta-
Stars are remembered through a discour-
cey’s reception study, the respondents
se of feminine glamour in which deals
seldom use the word in their recollections
of feminine appearance (slim, white,
of ”star gazing” when they were young
young and even-featured) were estab-
women in the 40s and 50s. But Stacey,
lished and in comparison to which many
herself, uses the word often when she in-
spectators felt inadequate. (p. 152)
terprets the letters; when I am discussing
the understanding of glamour in her So a specific bodily ideal is constructed
study below, I am therefore referring to in these memories of female stars. It is
the author more than to her respondents. contrasted to the women’s own bodies
Glamour is used in order to explain the and Jackie Stacey namess it glamorous.
difference between American and English In all, in Jackie Stacey’s book glamour
femininity, and, likewise, it is used to is partly used in an architectural-aes-
separate exotic Hollywood stars from thetic sense to designate opulent mise-
English actresses.11 The glamourous en-scène, on the screen and in the audi-
world of Hollywood is the desirable fan- torium. But when the word is used in
tasy picture, which connects glamour to connection with the star persona, it
images of wealth and property (p. 154). points, partly, to feminine psychological
So all that is different from the women’s qualifications such as strength and selv-
English everyday life is glamorous. In confidence. Partly, it refers to a mysteri-
this respect, glamour stands essentially ous, unattainable beauty. And, finally,
for Hollywood films as a utopian fantasy Jackie Stacey(’s respondents) use glam-
screen. Glamour is fairy tale, everything our to designate a specific bodily ap-
and everywhere you are not, difference pearance. What is interesting is that ex-
envelopped in a mysterious and splendid actly this female appearance (”slim,
light. But glamour is also more than just white, young and even-featured”) is
appearances; it is a sign of inner grace staged and glorified in fan magazines
and qualifications such as self confi- from the end of the 1920s and onwards.
dence, self-respect and sophistication It is striking – but at the same time a
(ibid.), that is, psychological qualities at- very precise thematization of this design
tached to the star persona. Glamour, thus, for femininity – that when fan magazines
forms and expresses feminine strength. tell the story about the events that
Stacey states somewhat imprecise that turned Greta Garbo and Marlene Dietrich
”American femininity is frequently con- into glamorous stars, it is underlined time
structed as more desirable, be it in rela- and again, that they were extremely
tion to clothes, glamour or sexuality” (p. plump, before the Hollywood Glamour
237), as if the three nouns were all School took care of them: In an article
syntagmatically related. But she also called ”The Inside Story of Garbo’s Great
uses the word to describe her respond- Success!” (Motion Picture, June, 1932),

10
readers are told that when Greta Garbo phone, and because of her temper and
arrived in Hollywood she was ”too plump her impulsive behaviour she was con-
to photograph well”; she was ”a plump, stantly brought into the limelight of gos-
laughing girl with freckles” who, in front sip journalists. All this was good enough
of the journalists, ”giggled as she an- reasons for failure. But maybe the most
swered their questions – and nothing is important reason is that Clara Bow was
so unmysterious as a giggle”. It seems not capable of glamour manufacturing. Or
that without the enigma of the sphinx maybe she was not interested. To begin
there is no glamour. The presence of with, she was too plump. And even
laughter is too down-to-earth, because though her increases and losses of
glamour encompasses distance and pa- weight were reported extensively in fan
thos. Without distance and a kind of fro- magazines this uncontrollable body was
zen emotionality even the wildest of not photogenic enough compared with
luxury is not glamourous. modern ideals of the female body. Sec-
In ”What Is This Thing Called X” (i.e. ondly, it seems from publicity stills that
glamour) from Photoplay, April 1933, it is the Bow persona could not encompass
said about Garbo that: seriousness and distance in bodily pos-
ture, the precondition for creating picto-
Certainly no young actress seemed to
rial glamour. Bow incarnated the ener-
have less X than Garbo when she first
getic flapper and in some of her publicity
made pictures in Sweden. She seemed just
stills she recreates it emblematically,
a nice wholesome, buxom country lass,
hands cheerfully and firmly planted on
Yes, we said Buxom. Milkmaid variety.
the hips of her small and thickset figure,
Charming, but without that potent lure.
one eye winking cherful and ironic at
Glamour is here obviously associated viewers. This kind of uneven, self ironic,
with modernity; the lack of glamour in and lively body is not glamorous; it
Garbo when she lived in the back of be- seems to escape references to staging; it
yond, called milkmaid’s charm, connects is not abstract, controlled and stylized,
glamour to modern culture. And, obvi- and it is not moulding, it is even denying
ously, the text regards with contempt a pathos, in short it opposes everything
culture that allows natural growth for the that visualizes the female body as glam-
female body. orous. Whereas another 20s flapper,
In other words; glamour is associated Lucille La Sueur, ”a biggish girl who
with the slender female body, with bodily weighed, by her own confession, a hun-
control. Glamour is inextricably bound up dred and fifty pounds”12 lost weight –
with this female body of modernity, in and turned into Joan Crawford! The often
fact glamour is not possible without it. reported story about Joan Crawford’s rise
If glamour is the ”Schein” constructed to stardom was exactly constructed as a
to market Hollywood in the 30s, as Bodil literal interpreted modern version of the
Marie Thomsen states, then maybe this fairly tale about The Ugly Duckling who
fact explains why the career of the big- became the beautiful swan. A fairytale
gest star in the late 20s, Clara Bow, hit so about outer appearances and transforma-
low a relatively short while after her real tions due to hard work and willpower
breakthrough with It in 1927. It was ru- more than about the revelation of inner
moured that she was afraid of the micro- beauty.

11
 However, if one looks at those ”be- placed in actual time and space, too
fore” and ”after” pictures often illustrat- much a representation of a concrete indi-
ing fan magazine stories about the rise to vidual to be glamorous. Whereas, on the
stardom, it becomes clear that glamour is other hand, the picture of Joan
not just a question of cultivating a cer- Crawford’s abstract femininity is essen-
tain bodily appearance. Glamour is also tially glamorous, her finished facial fea-
the very visual construction of this ap- tures illuminated by the spotlight and her
pearance by means of camera angles, slender body in the elegant gown placed
light and bodily postures. In short, glam- in time and space beyond the world of re-
our can be understood as a alities.
specific aesthetic visualization of femininity. In a sense, the glamorous publicity
Pictures illustrating ”before”13 are obvi- still denies Roland Barthes’ definition of
ously amateur photos, which makes it so the photograph in La chambre Claire
much more evident that glamour is not (1983). The photograph, he says, bears
just beauty but the proper, stylized expo- witness to the fact that something was
sure of the face; the kind of exposure and once present; the publicity still, on the
the make up that made it into the perfect, contrary, attests to another matter,
invisible mask called feminine beauty; the namely that a glamorous beauty was
mask, says Edgar Morin (1960) that once constructed. If glamour represents
depersonalizes the face in order to super- the staging of the body as present and
personalize it. This glamorous face can- absent at the same time, then glamour
not be understood as stiffened cannot be brought into existence without
”Mienenspiel”, as conceptualized by a spectator and a stage. Glamour is the
Balazs (1924), on the contrary; the con- the camera’s star gaze, exemplified and
structed typicality of the face confers visualized as the star’s to-be-looked-at-
distance, pathos and mystery on it, and, ness. The article ”If You Want to Be a
thus, bestows it with glamour – because Glamorous Beauty” in Photoplay (No-
the star’s face is never totally individual- vember 1937) has it that ”No other femi-
ized and, threrefore, in a sense, never to- nine star can hold the spotlight against
tally recognizable. Marlene’s spell”; here glamour is the
The pictures illustrating the article light and the staging; glamour is a set-
about Joan Crawford also tell that glam- ting that at the same time requires a set
our is not about only the face’s but piece and devours it. It is said in the
about a whole bodily stylization. Glamour same article that
is ”frozen femininity”, in two respects.
”They say” that Marlene takes into
Not only frozen by the camera in a frac-
consideration the coloring of the room
tion of a second but a body frozen in ad-
into which her presence is to be projec-
vance in honour of the photographic
ted, the lighting, the length of time
gaze, striking a pose of not-present pres-
she’ll be there, the type and favorite
ence. The photograph of smiling Lucille
colours of the other women apt to be
La Sueur with her stout thighs, looking at
included in the guest line.
someone outside the frame, her body
captured in a movement of dance or Glamour is the star-sign, at the same time
game, throwing a shadow because of a breath of something indefinable (”pres-
sunlight not spotlight, is far too present, ence”) and a body, at the same time

12
brought to life by the camera gaze and taneously, within the overall tension be-
preexisting as flesh and blood. But glam- tween authenticity and artificiality.
our is also frozen time, denying the his- Partly, glamour is represented as fe-
torical determination of the very same male nature, something emanating from
gaze by trying to stage femininity in ab- within, thus enabling a female actress –
stract, eternal terms. With glamour pho- or anyone else – to rise to extraordinary
tography modernity has – in stardom. And partly glamour is cultural,
Beaudelaire’s sense of the word – in- technical skills that every woman can ac-
vaded publicity still aesthetic. Because in quire. But, finally, glamour is not only
Beaudelaire, modernity is precisely at the culture, it is also artificality. In this un-
same time the eternal and the passing, derstanding, glamour represents the es-
both what is not historicized, beyond sence of studios’ manufacturing of stars.
time and place, and what is the dynamic None of these ideas about glamour are
symbolization of specific historical mo- used in just one sense of the word, how-
ments (cf. Frisby, 1985). ever; they are in most articles matched in
In this respect, glamour is as well a different combinations. In the following I
specific visual mythologizing of the fe- will discuss three articles about glamour
male body as an aesthetic construction, a in order to exemplify the different
highly stylized and concentrated histori- understandings.
cal and cultural artefact. It points to- The first and second understanding mer-
wards cultural realities and is at the same ge in ”Any Clever Woman Can Develop
time ”only” sign. But I will hypothesize Glamour”. The initial part of the article
that precisely because the glamorous states that
publicity still is both concrete and ab-
If Lucille La Sueur could acquire Joan
stract, placed in time and beyond time, it
Crawford’s glamour in a few short years,
is very suitable as dream screen in rela-
there is hope for you and You and YOU!
tion to female readers’ fantasies about
Joan insists that any girl can learn to be
stars and femininity.
attractive to men,

Joan Crawford insists that glamour is ten

Glamour in the Written Texts:
percent physique and ninety percent
Nature, Culture and Artificiality mental qualities. ”Emotional force, poice
However, one thing is the way publicity and intelligence” are much more impor-
photographs construct glamour as stage tant qualities than beauty, and this is
and projection screen of femininity, quite why glamour, as the headline tells, is a
another thing the written part of the texts. potential in every woman. Glamour
In fan magazine star discourse the word emerges by cultivating (already existing)
surfaces in articles providing the readers inner qualities.
with advice and tips about beauty and So glamour is a possibility for any
how to come to look like the stars. This is woman, according to Crawford; working
why these articles do not understand with oneself makes it emerge. But the arti-
glamour as the camera’s staged beauty, cle is not only about the star’s view of
but as an inner and outer radiance which glamour. The overall aim seems, not sur-
is a possible attribute to every woman. prisingly, to be to help maintain Joan
But this glamour discussion is led, simul- Crawford’s star persona. This is kept up

13
through publication of her ”personal” under no circumstances manufactured. In
opinion that you are able to succeed if this respect the star is superior to studio
you really go for it. These statements fit manipulations, their ”tricks in trade” as
in with the well known history about she calls it; the star is immaculate indi-
Crawford’s rise to the top by means of viduality in show business. So the moral
herself and hard work only. Likewise they of all this is: Do not play roles! Or: Bring
are consistent with her film characters: In your own inner star to the light! It is ob-
the early 30s she often portrayed the av- vious, that this interview, too, is contrib-
erage young woman with big dreams and uting to Bette Davis’ star persona, the
zest for life. strong and self-sufficient woman who
In ”Don’t Be Afraid To Be Yourself never compromise, just as much as it is
Says Bette Davis” (Motion Picture, Sep- about glamour. And Davis draws atten-
tember 1935) Bette Davis combines the tion to herself as different from one of
first and second understanding of glam- the other major stars, Greta Garbo.
our, while she, simultaneously, denies the An interesting and genuine example of
latter smartly by stating that celebrity discourse can be found in
”Dietrich is Still Selling Glamour” (Mo-
It’s my personal belief that the studios
tion Picture, 1937). It is about ”Holly-
have tried to make too many women
wood’s Number 1 Glamour Girl”; that is, it
glamorous. You can’t make a woman
is a story about the construction of a
glamorous. You either have it or you
star, ”one of the most amazing pieces of
haven’t [...] Glamour, to me, represents
glamour-manufacturing ever perpetrated
something you can’t get at – something
by Hollywood” (my italics).14 It tells in no
mysterious – a little different [...] I con-
uncertain terms about a mask hiding
tend that a lot of players are trying to
nothing, about a star produced as a
live up to the surface personality given
glamorous appearance by means of (von
to them by make-up men. That’s the
Sternberg’s) ”skilled lighting effects and
hardest and most idiotic job in the world.
magnificent photography”, an appea-
That means that many of them are so
rance that disappoints in the end, becau-
busy trying to be what they’re painted
se it looks like any other when one takes
to be that they lose sight of their real
a closer look.
selves! If one hasn’t glamour, why not
”Built up” it the word most often
come out and admit it?
occuring in the article. It is used nega-
In Bette Davis’s words, glamour is inner tively and contrasted to talent: ”But it is
qualities, a kind of authenticity that be- a career that has flourished on built-up
longs to few people – Davis mentions glamour rather than talent”, and ”The
Greta Garbo as an example – which the problem of her acting ability still remains
studios try to copy in their star manufac- in doubt”. The star doesn’t seem to be
turing. But these are only ”players” in much of an actress, and, furthermore, she
Davis opinion. By implication: stars are is not even nice; she is reluctant to coop-
those who do not need a surface erate with the press, the writer says – so
personality because they are real person- she does not possess the inner quality to
alities. So glamour is not the sign of star- legitimize her stardom. Finally, her looks
dom in Davis’ view. Either a star has are not that special, according to the
glamour or she hasn’t, but star glamour is writer: ”the difference between Miss

14
Dietrich in real life and Miss Dietrich in or without glamour. Another states that
the photograph was between a hand- glamour is the sign of inner strength.
some woman and one built up by studio And a third that glamour is industrially
artifice into a glamorous idol”. Dietrich is fabricated imitation. Different construc-
in fact extremely ordinary and what is ex- tions of the relation between fan and star,
traordinary about her is pure artifice; she at every reader’s disposal. And scattered
is not democratic and her air of aristoc- in the magazines are glamorous publicity
racy is pure imitation. Neither is flattering stills, emphasizing historically con-
and there is no glorious balance to estab- structed ideals of femininity at the same
lish between poles. time as these ideals are visually material-
Like so many other fan magazine arti- ized in a utopian, abstract frame, lighted,
cles ”Marlene Dietrich is Still Selling Gla- and, thus, in a way, brought to life by the
mour” is profoundly ambivalent. By us- studio spotlight. These photographs do
ing the phrase ”simulating glamour”, the not conceal the fact that they are one of
author seems to imply that glamour, nev- the manifestations of celebrity discourse;
ertheless, just like in the other two arti- with their highly stylized visibility they
cles, contains something ”real” and re- point towards the star as construction.
fers to inner qualities. But the aim of the The stills are larger than life, but is there
article is, evidently, to stress Marlene a person behind the mask? Who cares!
Dietrich’s artificiality and, likewise, to un- On the contrary, I would suggest that it
derline that her glamour comes fron noth- is precisely because of the figures’ styl-
ing else but the studios’ PR-departments. ized, de-personalized stagings that is,
So Marlene Dietrich’s position on the their glamorous appearance, that they
stellar firmament is solely the product of could function as a surface on which the
clever ”glamour building”; the star is female fans could project their fantasies
pure simulacrum in this article from 1937. and desires.
So, in summarizing, one article argues
that it is important to be yourself – with

Notes 3. Jane Gaines (1990) discusses the fashion dis-

course in the context of classical film nar-
1. In the following I am only referring to rative. Charles Eckert (1991) the connec-
American fan magazines, as these have been tion between films and fashion as commo-
my research material. Moreover, I allow dities reciprocally marketing each other.
myself to speak of fan magazines in ge- 4. See Basinger (1993) and Herzog (1990) for
neral. My study have included Photoplay, discussions about fashion shows in Holly-
Silver Screen, Motion Picture, Movie Clas- wood films.
sic and The New Movie Magazine. The pe- 5. The headline refers to information given by
riod studied is 1930 to 1940 except for Goldwyn who underlines it with an excla-
Photoplay which I have studie from 1925. mation mark, namely that more than 70%
Photoplay was the biggest of the fan maga- of the cinema audience in average is female
zines but they were all more or less alike. in the middle of the 30s.
2. Another source for such a study is press 6. For further discussions about the construc-
book material. I am only discussing fan tion of the female spectator as consumer
magazines in this article. see Doane (1989), Eckert (1991) and Gai-
nes (1990).

15
7. For example the following articles: ”Don’t 11.To Jeanine Basinger glamour is also connec-
Believe All You Hear About Dietrich and ted to ”presence” (in contradiction to ”ac-
Other Stars – It’s a Lot of Hokum”, Motion ting”): ”A serious performance by an
Picture (May 1932), ”Poison Pens”, The actress molded by the Hollywood glamour
New Movie Magazine (December 1933), school was defined by having her wear no
”How Hollywood Manufactures a Star”, Mo- lipstick. A first-rank star appearing on the
vie Classic (July 1936), ”Misinformation”, screen without make-up, elaborate hairdo,
Photoplay (June 1928), ”Meet the Press”, or wardrobe was defined as realistic acting
Photoplay (September 1930) and ”Those [...] an acknowledgment of the false nature
Awful Reporters”, Photoplay (May 1931). of the Hollywood images implied by these
8. The gossip columns constructed a discourse ”honest performances” in which glamour is
quite their own, addressing their readers erased” (p. 140).
directly, using a quick and almost intimate 12.In ””Any Clever Woman Can Develop Gla-
mode that, at least before Production Code mour” – Joan Crawford”, Motion Picture
also affected fan magazines, was almost (October 1934).
frivolous. 13.The examples are ””Any Clever Woman
9. Gossip journalists often made use of a self- Can Develop Glamour” – Joan Crawford”,
reflexive rhetoric. The famous Walter Win- Motion Picture (October 1934), ”The Insi-
chell who, like Louella Parsons, was also a de Story of Garbo’s Great Success”, Motion
member of the Hearst staff, was the most Picture (June 1932) and ”If You Want to Be
exaggerated. He started a paragraph called a Glamorous Beauty”, Photoplay (No-
”Mr. and Mrs. Columnist at Home” in his vember 1937).
column in 1934, and here he reported small 14.The article is printed in Levin’s anthology
and large from the Winchell family! (cf. which is without dates. I haven’t found the
McKelway, 1940). article in my research material, so I cannot
10.Henry Jenkins (1992) analyzes contempo- give the exact date but as it talks about
rary tv-fan cultures and ”fanish reading”, Marlene having ”taken out her first Ameri-
and his point is, too, both that their form can citizenship papers” and about ”her new
of reading can be characterized as at once picture” Knight without Armour, it must be
distanciated and involved and that fan cul- from a 1937 issue.
tures are active interpreters in relation to
their favorite media products.

16