= Premium Content

Temerity for Posterity

February 13, 2006, 8:59 am

Drew Zandonella-Stannard is videotaping her silly, playful moments as a student at Smith College. And you can see them online. Anyone can. She is one of many college students posting video clips of their daily—and nightly—lives on Web sites for all to see. (The Chronicle, subscription required)

This entry was posted in Student Life. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

7 Responses to Temerity for Posterity

physioprof - February 18, 2012 at 8:30 pm

You are a deft writer of booke reviews.

Claire Potter - February 19, 2012 at 11:00 am

Thankke you, CPP.

historiann - February 19, 2012 at 11:15 am

Thanks for the heads-up on this book, TR: I’m going immediately to my uni library to check it out, or failing that, to order it for our library!

From your review, it seems like the title conflicts with Lord’s argument about Taylor: was she really an “accidental” feminist, if from her earliest years Lord sees her not as a child-star/pawn but as a collaborator with her mother in advancing her career? This perspective twigs with conversations going on now among historians of childhood, and the extent to which many people coming out of women’s history/feminist studies emphasize the agency of children versus the structures of economics and the law. I’ll be sure to pass this title on to my history of childhood friends and colleagues.

edwoof - February 19, 2012 at 3:46 pm

Thank you for the excellent book review, TR.

Aside from some snide remarks or jokes about her multiple marriages (8 divorces is a bit excessive) Elizabeth Taylor’s soft feminism elicited almost no comment inside or outside Hollywood. This was not due to her distracting beauty but rather because she was trailing in the wake of the inimitable Tallulah Bankhead. After Bankhead’s provactive sexual declarations in the 30′s, 40′s and 50′s, Elizabeth Taylor seemed fairly safe. She married instead of having public affairs. She had gay friends instead of proclaiming her bisexuality. She championed causes rather than being overtly political (Tallulah booed Strom Thurmond). She never turned cartwheels while naked. She could pass for conventional, had a passion for jewelry and fashion (considered typically feminine interests), and men could imagine themselves married to her. Taylor was raised in Hollywood where rebellion against the conventional was the norm whereas Tallulah’s reactions amd identity were a product of her southern upbringing and no doubt she had to shout louder to be heard.

Every rights movement needs both the vanguard who can establish new, wider boundaries like Tallulah Bankhead and those who live casually on the outer limits of the newly enlarged boundaries, like Elizabeth Taylor. Elizabeth was socially comfortable though, where Tallulah eschewed social comfort for challenge. Elizabth Taylor’s feminism (if it is actually feminism) could be considered “accidental” only because of the previous and contemporary intentional feminism of Tallulah Bankhead.

The principal ethically-problematic issue with Elizabeth Taylor is her continued support and defense of Michael Jackson long after his sexual abuse of children became obvious. This reflexive support of all that is Hollywood against the rest of us is revolting. Tallulah would never have put up with that $hit.

Claire Potter - February 19, 2012 at 4:23 pm

Very interesting — thanks for this.

urbanexile - February 25, 2012 at 11:53 pm

Like you, I never read the “Cat” movie any other way. The “broken ankle” was always symbolic to me of the “broken” penis. And clearly Skipper was Brick’s gay lover. Was it his betrayal of his friend or his lover he mourned? Probably the later.

But really….2000 a minute! Jeez.

Claire Potter - February 26, 2012 at 11:05 am

I know — it’s worth aspiring to isn’t it?