Megan Sullivan -- Core Response #2

In the William Brown reading, Audrey Hepburn the Film Star as Event, Brown takes into consideration the environment and factors that contributed to Hepburn’s rise to stardom. Two of the factors Brown brings up particularly piqued my interest: the rise of tourism in the post-war period and Hepburn’s individuality as it contributes to femininity and fashion. 

As part of the effort to rebuild the economy in Europe in the post-war period, the Marshall Plan included the Travel Development Section to encourage Americans to spend nongovernmental money in Europe to help rebuild their economies. Additionally, Hollywood made films in Europe to encourage this effort by depicting European cities in romantic ways, but also to maximize profits from their theatrical units they still owned in Europe (Brown 132). Audrey Hepburn’s films, such as Roman Holiday, served as a picture of European serenity and an enchanting travel destination. Hepburn, over the course of several films, rarely is characterized by work. In fact, she is known to not work in the majority of her films and is associated with holidays (vacations). It is fascinating to think about how cinema has the power to influence economic growth and plunder in the way the Hollywood industry aimed to do in post-war Europe in the 1950s, and consequently, how stars such as Audrey Heburn become icons of that effort and unpredicted movements. 

Additionally, I really enjoyed the part of the reading that discusses Audrey Hepburn’s contributions to femininity and fashion. One page 138 Brown says it “is not just a femininity as defined by males, but a femininity that has space for Haskell’s tomboy (that is a femininity that has space for masculinity), a gamine/elfin look that has its own, feminine interests at heart..” (Brown 138-139). In discussing Hepburn’s overlapping sexuality represented through fashions, I think this is really interesting when put in conversation with Hepburn’s fanbase mimicking the “Audrey style” (Brown 137). Because many women related to Hepburn’s feminine individuality, fans would assert their individuality by dressing similar to Hepburn. This is no surprise, specifically in 1950s post-war America where women were often subject to reverted to traditional gender roles before the war and desired to hold onto some individuality. Furthermore, when the war started, many women took over traditionally “masculine” roles such as entering the workforce and going out to the town which is reflective of this femininity that makes space for some masculinity that Audrey Hepburn represents. This shows how the relationship between fashion and film is a unique device for disrupting the historically prominent male-orientated relationship between the viewer and female image (Brown 139). Brown discusses women dressing in the “Audrey style” as a “paradoxical individuality” because it is an individuality inspired by Hepburn, so is it actually individuality (Brown 138)?

I think we see this with stars and celebrities today as many women strive to find their own individuality, but are influenced by the fashion of prominent stars in film and on social media. For example, the Taylor Swift Eras tour has triggered a lot of individual expression through fashion, as fans create “eras tour outfits” inspired by Taylor’s albums. However, all of these fashion creations are in the style of Taylor Swift, triggering this same sense of paradoxical individuality seen with Audrey Hepburn in the 1950s.