Photo from Silent-Porn-Star’s blog.
According to the very interesting Silent Porn Star’s blog, one hundred years ago this year, Australian silent-film star Annette Kellerman was arrested for indecent exposure for wearing the swimsuit in the picture. Until she came along women’s suits were actual dresses (usually wool knit!) with ankle-length pants!
It’s worth noting that in the early 1900s Kellerman was deemed the world’s most perfectly-formed woman. (No doubt sociobiologists have dozens of competing theories all of which explain how gene-based human standards of beauty could have evolved in just three or four generations.)
SPS, who puts a lot of work into humanizing early, early dancers and actresses, has quite a lot else to say about Kellerman in the original post. In addition to ending Victorian bathing-dress decency standards (which, she correctly argued, resulted in the drowning deaths of countless women) and appearing nude in pre-MMPA mainstream silent films she was a screenwriter, a swimming-education activist, a role model for Esther Williams, a physical-fitness instruction-manual author, and founder of a fitness club. Who knew?
Submitted by 1833 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-12-26 12:26.
Thanks for mentioning my post -- and for adding your thoughts to the conversation!
I love "narcasstic" and think we should all begin using it; maybe it will even enter the dictionary next year :)
[You bet, SPS. Thanks. (p.s. And yes, "narcasstic" really is a cool new word!) --fl]
Submitted by 1833 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-12-22 19:13.
Wow. It's wrong for there to be any one standard of beauty, and especially for it to matter so damn much, but I might mind less if the standard were that healthy-looking and (relatively) achievable.
[The interesting thing about Kellerman is that, I'm pretty sure, her "perfect" form is perfectly average (for then and now) instead of one of the several extremes of really skinny or really big that have been popular around the world. So *if* one was to try to define a standard of beauty, it would be nice if, as in her case, it *actually was a standard form!* That said I agree it's silly to try and pick some miracle universal "one." Thanks, Christina. --fl]
Submitted by 1833 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-12-22 19:23.
Thanks for all you have written about standards of beauty for women. It should be just about enough to get me through the holidays with my husband's family. You are right, by the way about men and what they notice. What I mean to say is my husband hardly notices if I lose or gain 10 pounds (although if I lose it makes me happy so he's happy, but he hardly notices unless I tell him). It's my sisters-in-law who notice every zit and wrinkle. Yeesh. I find myself dressing up for them. It pisses me off and I am going to stop doing it. Maybe I will wear sweat pants Christmas Eve, although who am I kidding? I will dress up only so I won't look like such a slouch next to them.
[Wow, thank you, Mag. I appreciate it! And good luck with your in-laws. Oh, one thing though. Remember, even in a room full of in-laws we're often our own worst critics in whatever dimension we're most worried about. In particular they easily could be completely merciless but *in general* people often pick up 100% on stuff their critics mean only 5% or 10% of. If that makes sense. --fl]
Submitted by 1833 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-12-23 16:18.
After reading the article, all I could think of is how wrong it is that people today would say this woman is 'overweight' or 'fat.' You know what, good for her, though, because there are worse things to get arrested for than wearing a swimsuit. I felt actually decent in the end because I see someone who looks like this woman when I look into my mirror (not being narcasstic, but hey, I share a similiar body shape).
[Yeah, I think what's funny about Kellerman is that, for once, they actually picked what we'd consider today a non-extreme form as an ideal. Mileage at the time might have varied considerably (fashion changing so radically, as it does, from decade to decade.) What may have been unusual about her is her athletic good health, which as late as the 1900s was still being actively discouraged since vigor had long been believed to be dangerous to (middle-class to affluent) women's health! Thanks, hlynn. --fl]
Submitted by 1833 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-12-23 22:15.
That's really interesting.
I knew about the outfits but not the drownings.
[I can't cite an authority beyond the article itself but I remember hearing about the risk from, I think, stories about the "old days" among my still-pretty-Victorian great aunts. Thanks, Kate. --fl]
Submitted by 1833 (not verified) on Mon, 2007-12-24 09:53.
Hi Figleaf and friends!
Delurking for the first time to wish you a happy, healthy new year and tell you how much I enjoy this blog--lots of productive thought here. I also love this recapcha anti-spam-while-reading-books idea. Brilliant!
As to the awesome Miss Kellerman, I notice she is formed quite like Marilyn Monroe in many of her swimsuit shots. So I hope the current ideal figure standards represent a temporary pendulum-swing (as occurred in the 1920's) towards thin.
In response to your response to Christina: the trouble is, there's no "*standard form*", and hlynn, we all enjoy seeing people who look like us reflected in the world at large. If that's narcissistic, then so be it, but I don't think it is. It's just a reminder that we are not totally alone, isolated, misunderstood, and unappreciated.
That's why the postcards I select for my little sister feature Jane Russell, while those she picks for me have Audrey Hepburn :)
Finally, I know hlynn's "narcasstic" was a minor typo, but it's a brilliant new word, and should see much use, no? I'm totally stealing it!
happy holidays!
["...there's no "*standard form*'" Teach me to try plays on words. :-) I meant, of course, "average" which isn't the same as "standard" at all. Thanks, SKM. --fl]