During our discussion of monsters and deformities, I instantly thought of the Phantom of the Opera, one of the most complex characters in Broadway history. From birth, the Phantom is extremely disfigured. Therefore, his physical deformity comes to define his position in society. He is deemed “ugly” and lives in the darkness beneath the Parish Opera House. The Phantom takes the young and beautiful chorus girl Christine Daae to be his protégé. Through the lessons, he comes to her only as a voice. She calls him the “Angel of Music.” His singing voice is indeed an instrument of beauty , yet his deformed face prevents him from taking part as a regular member of society.
In the same way that the Phantom's voice of a beautiful angel did not reflect his outer appearance, the intelligence of Socrates was not reflected in his outward appearance that was said to be ugly (Eco, History of Beauty 133). Therefore, these musical and cultural geniuses blur the line between the extreme categories of ugly and beauty - the beautiful monster persona.
Because of the Phantom's distorted facial features, he did not “elicit the automatic reaction of protection and care that more infantile faces do," similar to the study done on abused children (Etcoff 36). The Phantom was doomed from childhood to serve a life as outsider to the “bubble” of beautiful people because his deformity prevented the automatic reaction of protection and care as an infant. His moral character begins to reflect his deformed face as he does murder and terrorize the managers of the Opera House. This complex character begs the question: Did his physical deformity reflect the murderous soul within, or did the circumstances of his deformity lead him to a life of immorality because he was not accepted as a member of society?
This represents the dangerous side of physiognomy that associated facial features with moral character. According to this theory, “ugly people are bad by nature” (Eco, On Ugliness 261). In “Finding the Individual within the Group,” Elizabeth and Stuart Ewen also claim that criminals somehow shared a physical clue as to their future depravity. During the eighteenth century, the “order of living things was predicated on the idea that the character of each individual organism was defined by its relationship to a clearly demarcated physical standard” (Ewen & Ewen 223). With theories such as these taking precedence during this time in history, the Phantom based strictly on his deformity never had a chance to live as anything other than an ugly criminal.
Click here to view video.
In this video for the sequel to the Phantom of the Opera, Andrew Lloyd Webber continues the story of the Phantom ten years later. The Phantom, who comes to New York City from Paris, finds his place in society as the leader of Coney Island, a place for “freaks.” Because of his deformity, he is compartmentalized as a freak in society, and he finds the place where he can belong among others like him. In this scenario, the freaks of Coney Island once again conform to society’s standards that they cannot have a successful place in society beyond that of a circus freak role.
For the Phantom, his deformity becomes “the ‘body prison,’ the skin a barrier. This skin-wall prevents both knowledge of the other and emotional connection. Underneath the skin, in the place to which one cannot penetrate is the ‘heart’ or the ‘soul’ of the other” (Benthien 34). The dualism of body and soul can be seen through the Phantom because he hides behind a mask, which becomes a pseudo-replacement of his skin to hide the deformity on his face. At one point of the play Christine says, “Your face holds no horror for me now/ It’s in your soul where the true distortion lies.” Through this, we can see that the deformity led to a prison for the Phantom as his moral character took on an ugliness beyond the physical. He uses the mask to hide from the judgments of society as "other." The people denied him the chance to show the beautiful nature of his singing because his physical appearance pigeonholed him into the bubble of ugliness. Society blinded themselves to seeing any beauty in the Phantom.
As representation of the other extreme, we have the episode of 30 Rock (See transcript below) aptly named “The Bubble.” During this episode, Liz Lemon dates Dr. Drew Baird, played by Jon Hamm. Because Dr. Drew is so good looking, people obviously treat him differently. Jack Donaghy tells Liz that because Drew is a beautiful person he lives in a “bubble.” Once Liz shows Drew the status he receives as a result of his beauty, he decides he doesn’t want to be treated differently because of his beauty. However, once the status is removed, Drew cannot handle life outside the bubble, and he decides to return to the beautiful bubble as a status symbol of his attractiveness.As Nancy Etcoff says, “attractive people merely felt entitled to better treatment” (Etcoff 47). Liz gives Drew the opportunity to burst out of the beautiful people bubble in order to live based on merit rather than beauty. However, at the end Drew decides to return to his bubble of status because he feels entitled to special favors. Drew can no longer feign ignorance of his status, yet he cannot envision living without the support of his beauty bubble.
In this scenario, society’s perception and value of beauty incidentally creates the bubble for beautiful people in the same way that it prevents the Phantoms of the world from ever entering the beautiful bubble. The perception and status given to attractive people serves as a gatekeeper to typecast people into two competing categories: beautiful vs. ugly. These compartmentalized categories leave very little room for movement.
At one point in the episode, Liz considers continuing to date Drew even despite his lack of reality. In a way, Liz serves as “the image of the woman whose desire is kindled through gazing,” which is “a risk that she takes” (Baker 29). In society, we are bombarded with images of beauty, and it is easy to get caught up in the irresistibility of accepting beauty as the norm. As Liz looks through the photos of her and Drew, she becomes temporarily blinded by his beauty, allowing her to forget the fact that Drew’s attractiveness does not go beyond his Prince Eric-esque good looks. Her internal battle is fueled by the question: Can beauty alone fulfill us? In the end, Liz decides to break up with Drew because her interest in him never looked past his attractiveness. Her gaze and desire were merely appreciative of his outward appearance.
.jpg)
In the end, we find that society’s perception of beauty becomes a major player in the way that we perceive our own self worth and value. Once Drew was deemed beautiful by society’s standards, he entered into the bubble of status and value - a place that provides him comfort and entitlement. On the other hand, the Phantom was labeled as an ugly monster due to his deformity, and he never had a chance to defy the odds against him, no matter how beautiful his voice was. The society-established bubbles incidentally lead to the compartmentalizing of value and status, both by our own as well as other’s perceptions.
Liz Lemon: Hey
Jack Donaghy: You went to Plunder for lunch? How did you get a table?
Liz Lemon: I don’t know. It was packed, but they just gave Drew a table. It’s ridiculous how people treat him. The chefs sent over food, ladies sent drinks, Mayor Bloomberg asked him to dance.
Jack Donaghy: Well beautiful people are treated differently from moderately pleasant looking people.
Cerie Xerox: It’s true.
Jack Donaghy: They live in a bubble. A bubble of free drinks, kindness, and outdoor sex.
Liz Lemon: How did Drew turn out as well as he did going through life like that?
Jack Donaghy: The bubble isn’t always a bad thing. Look at me. I turned out okay, didn’t I?
______________________________________________________________________
Liz Lemon: Okay Drew, this is how most people live. Because of your whole, you know, Disney prince thing.
Drew Baird: Actually they used footage of me from my high school swim team to draw Prince Eric.
Liz Lemon: Right. Because of that, you live in a bubble where people do what you want and tell you what you want to hear.
Works Cited
Baker, Susan. "Naked Boys, Desiring Women: Male Beauty in Modern Art and Photography." Hunks, Hotties, and Pretty Boys. Steven Davis and Maglina Lubovitch eds.12-48.
Benthien, Claudia. "Boundary Metaphors: Skin in Language." Skin: On the Cultural Border Between Self and the World. 17-36
Eco, Umberto. History of Beauty. New York: Rizzoli, 2004.
Eco, Umberto. On Ugliness. New York: Rizzoli, 2007.
Etcoff, Nancy. "Beauty as Bait." Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. 29-53.
Ewen, Elizabeth and Stuart Ewen. "Finding the Individual within the Group." Typecasting: On the Arts and Science of Human Inequality. 223-234.
"The Bubble." 30 Rock. NBC. 19 March 2009.
I think make an interesting case for the different "bubbles" on the spectrum of beauty and ugly. I think the Phantom presents an interesting conversation as to how beauty in realms other than physical appearance can skew the impact of the physical. This often happens to me when I see a comedian or musician who I would otherwise not find attractive. I think it would be interesting to define the bubbles a bit more. What constitutes access into a certain bubble and what are the general advantages/disadvantages? Also, bubbles suggest exclusivity, so what does that mean for all of us inbetween? Are we all treated the same or does the bubble represent extremes on a scale?
ReplyDeleteRE: us in between- I think that people have different, sometimes overlapping "bubbles". For example, an exceedingly beautiful hispanic woman could have 3 bubbles- beautiful, woman, and hispanic. People may treat her differently based on which trait they single out. So, someone who is neither beautiful nor ugly may have other bubbles based on religion, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your responses. The designation of beauty versus ugly represents the extreme language that we tend to use in our mediated society. The exclusivity of these bubbles leads to the dangers we have brought up in class. Beauty can be destructive, possessive, and deceptive. Ugliness can bring about connotations of racism, artificiality, and exaggeration. I think this is the major disadvantage of using beauty vs ugliness as competing extremes. The mediated examples of the Phantom and 30 Rock point out the blatant use of these extreme categories. Even from the 30 Rock clip, Jack points out that the in between of beauty and ugly is "moderately pleasing," which I think personally is one of those backhanded complements. Would you want to be known as moderately pleasing?
ReplyDeleteThese examples represent the extremes of beauty and ugliness that tend people to characterize each other as one or the other. I personally see the advantage of seeing these bubbles through the lens Simone suggests as bubbles as not completely self-containing. You can indeed belong to more than one "bubble" at a time; the features of your appearance, lifestyle, culture, etc. come to define you. When we take the time to understand that these bubbles can overlap, then we became part of a greater community of people. The question remains if we as a mediated society can look past the extremes to see that "moderately pleasing" is not such a bad thing. In magazines, we see before and after pictures, but very rarely do we see the in between images. Once we are able to accept our membership into many bubbles, then we can push the envelope on what beauty and ugliness really are.
Simone brings up an interesting point in relation to this concept of "bubbles" - the fact that we have many different, often overlapping bubbles. Which bubbles supersede and inform the others? Beauty, race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc.? Would Drew's beauty bubble be less influential if his race, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation were different?
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Drew's beauty bubble would indeed be less influential and important if his race, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation were different. From the Plasticity podcast and Metropolis video on skin whitening in Zambia, we can see the risks people are willing to take to be whiter in terms of race. The pain and money that it takes to upkeep this whitened skin illustrates the importance that race plays in society's opinion of others. At one point a woman in the video says, "We cannot stop bleaching. It makes us look beautiful." In the cultural bubble that she belongs to in Zambia, lighter skin belongs in the beauty bubble. People will spend time and money as well as endure pain to achieve entrance into the lighter and beautiful bubble.
ReplyDeleteIn just the same way, the repel of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the fight for the Marriage Equality bill illustrates the important role that sexual orientation also plays a role in our society. The different aspects of social and cultural life affect which bubbles we can belong to with others in that different societies have different stipulations for entrance into the ideal bubbles.