Symbolising Subcultures – Change, Identity And Rebellion

The definition of subculture begins with a rebellious deviation from the natural order, but ends with the creation and symbolisation of a unique style. As Dick Hebdige suggests, members of a subculture often signal their membership through a distinctive and symbolic use of style, which includes fashions, mannerisms and language.

Since the 1950s and the rise of the active consuming teenager, subcultures have developed. At first, subcultures were symbolised by the way in which their members resisted mainstream styles and beliefs. The mods, the teddies, the skinheads, have all appropriated and subverted the traditional meaning of mass consumed fashions and as a result, been viewed by society as rebellious and potentially dangerous.

Above: Images of the Mods, the teddies and the skinheads.

Recently, however, interpretations of subcultures have changed. Subcultures are seen now, for the most part, as being different to mainstream fashion but not necessarily threatening. Sarah Thornton suggests that subcultures represent the creative while mainstream fashions represent the commercial. These two groups work side by side and are distinguished merely because of the way society interprets the stylistic symbols seen in their fashion.

Each subculture interprets and alters mainstream fashions to represent their individual and personal belief system. Perhaps the only reason subcultures attract so much attention is due to their past association with violence and danger. Nowadays, however, they exist in society as style leaders and active consumers.

To Suit All Seasons – From The Matinee Idol To Rough Trade

Hollywood has long since presented us with two faces of masculinity in films - the smooth and the rough. In the mind of a fashion designer and stylist, these two styles essentially “rotate on a seasonal basis” according to what society wants and values (Pamela Church-Gibson, Fashioning Film Stars).

Men’s clothes, predominantly suits, are used in films to make a clear statement about the particular form of masculinity the characters embody. The 1930s saw the beginning of this trend, with the “Great Masculine Renunciation”. Men abandoned their claims to be considered beautiful and instead were dressed in functional and practical attire. During this time, women were seen as the image, while men simply embodied the look (Laura Mulvey, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema).

From then, up until the 1960s, men were portrayed as “the fully clothed hero”. They were suited and characterised as sophisticated and professional middle class men. The suit concealed the male body and rendered it in such a way that it appeared inaccessible and controlled.

The image above shows Cary Grant in North By Northwest (1959). Here Grant manages to run away from a plane full of men chasing him and still remain clean and neat in his suit. At the time this film was made, men were to remain covered and sophisticated at all times while women embodied the desirable and attractive features. The suit came to create the matinee idol image for men.

The 1960s saw a period of social mobility and, therefore, shifts in masculine fashion both on and off the screen. There were significant demographic changes with the rise of youth cultures and questions regarding traditional gender roles. While the suit remained popular, the style was not as rigid and the body was not hidden. Actors in Hollywood came to portray the rough trade man, with bare chests and open shirts. 

In the image above, James Dean (Rebel Without A Cause, 1955) wears a suit but in a more rugged and worker-style manner. This change in Hollywood fashions affected the consumer and social world. The male consumer was identified and targeted in such a way that suits became very popular with young teenage boys. The suit during this time pertained aspirational connotations for the newly recognised youth.

During the 1980s the face of masculinity through fashion once again changed. This decade became known as the “men’s wear revolution”. Men no longer had to be masculine as such. Whether smooth or rugged, men were sensitive and got in touch with their feminine side.

To a large extent this is still evident in the Hollywood we know today. The image of masculinity here, however, is visualised through a combination of the popular suit styles we have seen in the past through the rough, the smooth and the sensitive male lead. In many films, the main relationship exists between two men. We can see both the distinction and the connection between the rough and smooth man. Take a look at the image below of George Clooney and Brad Pitt in Oceans Eleven.

In one film we can see two very different representations of masculinity through fashion. Clooney exists as the untouchable bachelor. His shirt bares very little skin and his hair is neat. In this film, he personifies the classic Hollywood male. Pitt on the other hand, portrays a rougher image of men. The shirt is unbuttoned to reveal the top of his chest and his hair has been tousled and spiked. Here he becomes the James Dean of today, with an image that alludes to a more youthful and sexualised character.

Hollywood On The Catwalk – The Film As A Fashion Show

Over the years it has been as much the film narratives that have told us the great Hollywood stories as it has been the costumes – and couture.

From the first feature films of the early 1900s to the Hollywood blockbusters we see today, fashion has been used to emphasise the story on the screen, the characters and the stars. “Fashion films started out by being simple displays of gowns then progressed to a story-line built around the display” (Elizabeth Leese). Fashion in films has shifted from costumes, which were fabricated to serve the purpose of the narrative, to couture, which allows films to be structured around the staged exhibition of fashion on the catwalk.

 “One could line up all the gowns and tell the screen story”

As costume designer Adrian states, whether it be costume or couture, fashion was used in film as spectacle and was so closely linked to the story telling mechanisms of the film that it could function independently of the body.

The stories created by fashion in films created spectacle by heavily impacting on consumers and the production of clothing and material. During the 1930s and 1940s the distinction between costumes and couture fashion was minimal, leading to the emulation and mass produced imitation of screen fashion in everyday lifestyles. Film techniques, such as the creation of a specicific style through soft lighting, assisted in rendering the clothes in such a way that audiences, particularly women, that sought to dress themselves in replications of the star’s styles.

An interesting comparison of the types of fashion used in films can be seen by looking at the film Sabrina (1954), starring Audrey Hepburn. In the film, the transformation of Sabrina from the innocent daughter of a chauffeur to a sophisticated and glamorous woman can be traced through her change in fashion. Edith Head’s costume designs portray Sabrina as she is at the beginning of the film, while Givenchy’s couture reflects Sabrina’s new found elegance. It is in this film that “the demise of the costume designer and inverse rise of the couturier is contextualised within the narrative” (Stella Bruzzi, Undressing Cinema, 1997). Many films made at this time expressed a similar notion and established a hierarchy amongst film fashion designers. Costumes started notable trends pertaining to the streets while couture represented high fashion.

Above: These two images of Audrey Hepburn in Sabrina emphasise the distinction between costume (left) and couture (right). While very different visually, the impact of such style on the silver screen bore many similarities.

In terms of consumerism, costume and couture essentially had the same effect on society. In many films made in the 1950s, film fashions were created that shared some of the features of the trends of the day but were dramatised and essentially non-functional. During the 1960s, however, a more harmonious relationship between couture and street style developed. This most likely came about as a result of the ascendency of European cinema and fashion in Hollywood. The idea of shopping for couture items to clothe the stars rather than designing costumes from scratch came to the forefront of cinema styling. This trend within the film industry in turn influenced fashion and as a result the ready to wear collections appeared on the market. 

Wishing On A Star – Hollywood’s Star System

With the growth of film audiences throughout the twentieth century, came the creation of the Hollywood star system and the transformation of actors and actresses into identifiable role models both on and off the screen.

Improved technologies as well as the increasing public fascination with Hollywood’s stars meant that publicity surrounding films and film stars rose dramatically. People were intrigued to learn more about the stars – their fashions and their personalities.

Hollywood transformed film stars, creating new looks as well as new personas and, to a large extent, lives. Every aspect of Hollywood focused on creating a public image for the stars that people could relate to and appropriate. Whilst this had arguably the largest effect on the consumer and commercial worlds, it also contributed to the significant social transformations that were to occur, particularly in the 1930s and 1950s. As Richard Dyer suggests, “contradictory ideas were resolved for the audience within a star’s image”. People looked towards the stars to answer their questions and concerns about fashion as well as their place in society and their qualities as a person.

…and of course, the same star system applies to the celebrities of today. The Hollywood stars we are now familiar with portray certain images – rags to riches, the girl next door, the self made man, the hero. Creating and publicising a celebrity with a certain story of transformation and growth behind them, gives people either something to relate to or something to aspire to be.

Going back to the 1930s we see the rise in the fascination with female power in Hollywood. Known as the ‘woman’s picture era’, the costumes of the 30s served to parody, invert and denaturalise social distinctions. Take Marlene Dietrich for example. Never before had Hollywood seen a woman gender bend quite so much as she did in Morocco. Women looked to stars like Dietrich to define their social identity through dress and performance. With her top hat and pant suit, Dietrich became a symbol of the new power and social status women had within society, having taken on many preciously male dominated jobs during the First World War and the depression. Female stars today still embody a feminine social power through their fashions and styles. Actresses take on a more masculine style in order to break down ideas of women as objects. Women are seen as equal to men in the workforce, unlike they were in the past, so why not be equal to them in fashion as well?

Morocco star, Marlene Dietrich (left) expresses the new freedom of women in the 1930s. Actresses such as Anne Hathaway (right) continue this trend in today’s society and expresses the social status of women through her fashion.

The 1950s saw the rise of female stars, each with their own style and personality. Within the star system these actresses represented a variety of different social ideas and trends. After World War Two, women became increasingly liberated, both on and off the screen. In differentiating the stars of the 1950s we cannot escape the styles and popularity of both Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn. Both women, whilst displaying very different personas on the screen, impacted on the social role of women during their time. Monroe allowed women to aspire to glamour and a liberated sexuality. Hepburn provided society with a more sophisticated, elegant and intelligent woman.

Above Compare the sensuality of Marilyn Monroe (left) with the sophistication of Audrey Hepburn (right).

Today the same theory applies. The difference is, however, that today’s female stars are more individual and may be ambassadors for a style or idea they believe in, rather than one Hollywood dictates for them. In a sense this star system is more influential off the screen than on. Actresses such as Gwyneth Paltrow become influential and iconic not only though their films but through the creation of their own brands and product lines.  In recent years, Paltrow has essentially moved away from the silver screen to focus on her new TV show, lifestyle Web site, cosmetics contract and a gym. Actresses such as Cate Blanchet, however, remain in Hollywood films whilst still influencing social change through campaigning against climate change and promoting the introduction of the carbon tax. Women not only look to these women as stylistic icons, but also as powerful social figures that promote ideas to impact life decisions and beliefs.

Hollywood Beyond The Screen – Fashion, Film and Consumerism

Since the first feature film was released at the beginning of the twentieth century, Hollywood films and their stars have made their mark on society, both on and off the screen. In a world of constantly changing fashions and desires, consumers look to what they see on the silver screen and to celebrity culture to transform and improve their lives.

“What Hollywood shows today, you will wear tomorrow”

While here, Chanel may have been referring to the glamour and spectacular fashion displayed by classic Hollywood film makers and stars, we cannot escape the fact that the world of celebrity today expresses the same notion – whether subconsciously or not.

With little to no access to magazines and televisions in the first half of the twentieth century, films were one of the only ways people could view and consume fashion. Whether it be clothing trends, accessories or interior design, Hollywood films showed images of what was new and desirable; and consumers responded to it almost immediately, without hesitation.

Women of the 1930s and 40s embraced and adapted the styles seen in films such as Gone With The Wind, wearing dresses with tight fitting waists and full bodied skirts.

Above: Vivien Leigh in Gone With The Wind (1939) wearing a dress typical of the period in which the film was set – the 1860s. Women in the late 1930s and 1940s, adapted this style as can be seen from this dress pattern on the right.

Men too are influenced by filmic fashions. During the 1950s, for instance, actors such as James Dean appeared on screen in films including Rebel Without A Cause. The casual fashions portrayed, translated into everyday male couture of the time.

Above: James Dean in Rebel Without A Cause (1955) breaking away from the typical male fashion of suit and tie. Young men of the time appropriated this style as can be seen in the image on the right.

Today, however, consumers may have taken the idea of appropriating cinema fashion a bit too far – not only adopting fashions seen on the screen but now seeking to imitate all aspects of celebrity lifestyle as published in magazines or as seen on television. We can now see what celebrities consume outside of the cinema world. Take Jennifer Aniston for example. While she may have influenced many women to take on the “Rachel hairdo” during her Friends days, we now aspire to drive the same car that she does or use her home as the basis for the design of our own house. We want the celebrity car, house, lifestyle.

      

Above left to right: Jennifer Aniston showing the hairstyle made popular by her role in Friends. Aniston appears on the cover of Architectural Digest, showing the impact of celebrity on our lifestyle decisions. Will seeing the car that a celebrity drives do more for sales than an expensive advertising campaign?