Gillian Anderson's Photographic Journey: Final Analysis
|
|
Gillian Anderson's Photographic Journey: Final Analysis |
|
|
"The equation of beauty and brains occurs only infrequently and the film/TV industry seems surprised when it does..."
"This distinctly male bias sees women either as sex symbols or as (sexless) equals but cannot integrate both sex and equality, cannot see a woman who is sexy as still a person, but must constantly fluctuate between the dichotomous opposition of object (sex) and subject (intelligence)." |
It's not that it's not Scully...A few words here about the pictures you have just viewed and the trajectory which they have followed. It is clear that with the FHM spread, Anderson has intentionally abandoned the link with the persona which she presents on a weekly basis in the character of "Scully." The image portrayed in the photos shown here is one of an individual who is highly sexualized and has juxtaposed sexuality and anger. This persona does not necessarily represent the "real Gillian Anderson" (though it is possible that her past experience as part of the Punk Rock movement lies behind some of these images) but rather is a representation constructed for public consumption. It's a question of representation, building a new persona...The connection to the person who lies behind it is less interesting than the distance, intentional distance, which it creates between the representation called "Scully" and this one. Is this a strategic move on the actress' part to create larger options for herself after the termination of the series by showing that she can play a variety of roles, some of which have very little to do with the highly intelligent character she portrays on television? Such a supposition seems reasonable. Anderson has in these photographs created another persona, a different representation, which is not hemmed in by the constraints that Scully has. Why would she need a new persona?But beyond the issue of the actress' motivations, we should think seriously about why it would be that an individual who plays a smart, capable, highly educated character on TV should have her options curtailed by such a portrayal? Why would it be necessary for such an actress to create a wholly different representation to ensure continued marketability? The social dimensions of women in the film/television industry...Here we get to the crux of the social problem which underlies these photos, which has nothing to do with issues of pornography or indecency, but rather has to do with a social perspective about women which desexualizes women who are intelligent and stereotypes these women for the future. On the other hand, the reverse is also true. The equation of beauty and brains occurs only infrequently and the film/TV industry seem surprised when it does (a similar analysis could be fruitfully done on representations of Teri Hatcher). This distinctly male bias sees women either as sex symbols or as (sexless) equals but cannot integrate both sex and equality, cannot see a woman who is sexy as still a person, but must constantly fluctuate between the dichotomous opposition of object (sex) and subject (intelligence). Gillian Anderson as a case study of attitudes towards women...The journey which Gillian Anderson has undertaken through these photographs does not (unfortunately) transcend that dichotomy but rather exemplifies it. The words of "Scully" that "Smart is sexy" still ring true and yet are unheeded. |
"Smart is Sexy."
Tell me what you think about our web site or anything else that comes to mind. Be sure to visit my FAQ to see my responses to some of the comments and questions already sent to me. I welcome all of your comments and suggestions.