• Psych out Robertson, Takarazuka: read all intro & concluding materials; esp. Epilogue, and Chapter One
• Use index entries "Homosexuality" and "Same-sex love" to analyze the place of lesbianisms in this book. Read stuff from index that interests you, at least 20+ pages.
Continue with violated assumptions list and note what debates about lesbians in US have connections to this reading?
DUE: Violated Assumptions list 7
Soon you need to have viewed the movie Sayonara. Consider having a viewing party for extra credit.
13 comments:
1. I found it interesting how the members of the Takarazuka took on stylized gender roles, based on physical and sociopsychological stereotypes such as height, face structure, and mannerisms.
2. I found it interesting that the author referred to the gender they performed as their secondary genders.
3. I was surprised at how seriously the academy was taken, and how strict the rules were for the students.
4. I was surprised when the author said that some of the performers live in apartments or homes that fans pay for.
5. I was surprised to learn that the Takarazuka was founded by a man, and was combining westernized entertainment with Japanese entertainment.
6. I was surprised to learn that they used to paint their faces to be “whiteface”.
Violated Assumptions List 7 – Takarazuka
• From the historical information on Japan (Preface), I was really surprised to learn that artisans and merchants were at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Things that I assumed were “traditional” and valued in Japanese society only became so in more recent years (for example, Kabuki).
• I was surprised to learn just how devalued theater and arts were in the beginning days of Takarazuka. Robertson says that actresses were publicly denounced as “defiled women” and associated with prostitution. For something that is often (in modern times) equated with refinement and “culture”, it’s interesting to me that theater and arts held such a base position in Japan.
• Gender roles, irony, and double standards. It is not surprising to read that there is/was a strong gender hierarchy that guided social beliefs and norms. However, it is ironic that Kabuki has become what it is. As discussed by the author (and from personal knowledge and readings), masculinity is valued over femininity (both in Eastern and Western cultures). So how very interesting it is that Kabuki is an all male revue – and that it has become accepted for men to play the roles of women (and in fact has actually stood to be an example of ideal “feminine” behavior (14)). This curiosity about gender roles also pours over into how “second gender” is chosen in Takarazuka. Robertson enumerates the characteristics that are identified as “male” or “masculine”.
• I was somewhat surprised to learn that there was a male in charge of each troupe in Takarazuka. For a revue that is entirely women, recreating gender relationships and roles, it is an interesting statement to know that they still have to be overseen and supervised by a man. The inferior status of women is visible in a number of Robertson’s examples and illustrations. “Social disorder, in other words, was a ‘woman problem’” (15).
1) I was surprised that the Takarazuka Music Academy switched to Western military style uniforms instead of traditional Japanese formal wear. I had thought that as such a mainstream part of Japanese culture, they would want to represent their culture in a more traditional way, and if not traditional, then in a uniquely Japanese way.
2) I was intrigued when I read that many of the former students of the academy still live in the dormitories once they are actually performing. It is only a handful of Takarazuka performers that can sustain their own apartments and live on their own. I had assumed that as celebrities they would be higher paid, but I realize that celebrities are very different in each culture.
3) I was surprised that facial shape was included as criteria in determining “secondary gender”. I had pretty much gathered that height, voice, physique, etc. would be included, but I had not expected facial shape. It showed me which assumptions/stereotypes I subscribe to in my interpretation of gender, and how different cultures have different values for certain features. Also, I am pretty sure according to the criteria my secondary gender would be male but that’s just an observation.
4) I was surprised with the symbolism of hair length in Japanese culture. It was interesting to me the connection of hair and sexuality, or lack thereof. I thought that the shift from short hair being asexual to extremely sexual was a very empowering step for women in Japan, but then again there is a flip side to every coin.
1. My assumption that people performing other genders would be looked down upon was violated by the fact that women were told to emulate Kabuki’s female players (pg 14). Women imitating men imitating women shows an approval of the male to female conversion so long as it is done skillfully, but I thought even a skillful switch would not be enough to compensate for the detriment to gender norms.
2. My assumption that the Takarazuka would perform current Japanese plays to create a sense of reality and connection to the audience was violated by the fact that they want it to be a fantasy in a far away land (pg 7). I assumed current Japanese plays would be performed like in America as a way to make it applicable.
3. The book violated my assumption that cross dressing is not family friendly when noting that the name of the stage area was called “Familyland.” (Pg 5) I am used to parents sheltering children from cross dressers, not purposefully exposing them.
4. My assumption that such a gender bending production would question traditional gender norms was violated by the argument that it in fact glorifies men and masculinity (pg 17). I first assumed that it would question the biological basis for difference, but now see that it does just reinforce stereotypical divides.
amy w
Violated Assumptions:
1. I was surprised that they took American artifacts to construct the revue, and the genre of Takarazuka. I would think that they would use artifacts from different cultures.
2. It is interesting that the Takarazuka was originally promoted as "wholesome family fun" because I think in the context of today in the US, it would be viewed as dangerous to have children viewing people that could be considered cross dressers by some people.
3. Another violated assumption was that I was surprised that people in the revue wore "whiteface". Does it have the same historical issues that black face does in the US?
4.It is interesting that the school trains people in the art of gender, instead of calling it acting. I feel like in the US we take gender as an assumed thing that comes with biology so much that I don't see a "school for gender specialists" opening soon.
5.I was surprised to find that some popular members of the revue had apartments that were financed by adoring fans. How much money do the girls make in the revue?
I had assumed that the actors in the Takarazuka chose their gender preference for their training themselves. I was surprised to see that women are assigned a "secondary gender" as it seems a risky endeavor to put one's body on display to be re-gendered. I am curious as to how often the assignment of the second gender is not in line with what the actor had hoped.
I was intrigued that the review has had such a long and varied history as far as its relationship to the general public. I'm looking forward to reading the book further to better understand the shift between the rejection of the performers as unwholesome to the acceptance of the review.
I was surprised to learn that the review offers a kind of social security to the performers by assuring them work off-stage upon retiring from the show- as long as the actor has not married. I'm curious as to how this is employed (if you'll pardon the pun) when actors are involved in lesbian relationships.
Finally, I was interested in the divide between public and private, and the development of that divide. On page 67 the author explains that in the 1930s the actors who were assigned to men's roles were deemed acceptable in their on stage behavior/dress as long as that did not manifest in any way in their personal lives. In many ways this is similar to what we discussed from Entertaining Lesbians, wherein she addresses the ways in which tolerance of celebrity melodrama and eccentricity started to wane-- at about the same time.
1.) In the introduction under the First Impressions section Jennifer Robertson said that she fist saw the Japanese television show in 1976, which would have meant that the show came out before then. Here in the United States gays and lesbians were still fighting for their rights at that time. I just assumed that the Japanese culture was more strict and reserved when dealing with these kinds of issues.
2.) I was not aware that the Takarazuka was among the modern theaters that marked the return of women performing ever since they were banned from public performances in 1629 by Confucianism. I actually did not know why or how the Takarazuka came about, I just thought it was a play that was cross gendered, but now it makes perfect sence.
3.) On page 38 under the Sexuality and Ambivalence section it discuss cross dressing, men dressing as women in particular. It states that if a man wants to dress like a women he must over exaggerate his appearance in order to insure that he will pass as a women. However, I thought it was a little strange because instead of blending in with society and looking like a normal women, one would stand out from the rest. In other words wouldn’t make it easy for someone to pick out a cross dresser. I assumed that one would want to blend in.
4.) I found it interesting that the Japanese culture might doubt terms such as homosexual, heterosexual, lesbian and butch-femme. I would have assumed that they would refer to these terms to describe characters.
1.) In the introduction under the First Impressions section Jennifer Robertson said that she fist saw the Japanese television show in 1976, which would have meant that the show came out before then. Here in the United States gays and lesbians were still fighting for their rights at that time. I just assumed that the Japanese culture was more strict and reserved when dealing with these kinds of issues.
2.) I was not aware that the Takarazuka was among the modern theaters that marked the return of women performing ever since they were banned from public performances in 1629 by Confucianism. I actually did not know why or how the Takarazuka came about, I just thought it was a play that was cross gendered, but now it makes perfect sence.
3.) On page 38 under the Sexuality and Ambivalence section it discuss cross dressing, men dressing as women in particular. It states that if a man wants to dress like a women he must over exaggerate his appearance in order to insure that he will pass as a women. However, I thought it was a little strange because instead of blending in with society and looking like a normal women, one would stand out from the rest. In other words wouldn’t make it easy for someone to pick out a cross dresser. I assumed that one would want to blend in.
4.) I found it interesting that the Japanese culture might doubt terms such as homosexual, heterosexual, lesbian and butch-femme. I would have assumed that they would refer to these terms to describe characters.
Violated Assumptions #7
1) Cross dressing a form of popular and mass entertainment. Crossdressing is a mainstream form of entertainment.
2) Strict choosing of performers based on secondary and primary characteristics.
3) Regarded as artistic and theatrical accomplishment.
4) Have no issues passing as stage characters outside in public.
- While reading the pages grouped under the term “homosexuality” in the index, I was most surprised when I learned of Klaus Theweleit’s book, Male Fantasies—which documents his attempt to understand “the pleasurable play of cross-dressing in wartime or in military contexts in general” (footnote 12, p. 227). In addition, Robertson states “gender bending homoerotic rituals codified [are] performed at military academies in the United States.” I was surprised to learn of this because I assumed that military academies were hyper-masculinized (read: heterosexual) places that condemned any sort of homoerotic behavior. I’m curious to learn what these particular rituals are and also how and why they have been codified.
- I was especially intriqued when I read Robertson’s section on “the deployment of kinship terminology in the Takarazuka Revue” because I don’t believe I had ever considered examining a parent-child relationship ( in this case, father-daughter).
- I was surprised when I read Robertson’s description of the strict military-like ways the Academy manages and disciplines its students because I assumed that since it was an acting school, it would have lenient rules and policies.
- I was surprised to learn that the Kabuki player of women’s roles (onnagata) was/is “regarded as an exemplary model (kata) of ‘female’ (onna) gender, and [that] actual women have been encouraged to emulate feminine mannerisms of the male actor,” because I assumed that the ideal feminine or female would be embodied by the figure of a woman. Actually, I’m still a bit puzzled by this.
I was surprised to learn that performers sometimes live on the support of their fans (apartments, etc.) Maybe it's because I'm used to American celebrities making so much more money than is reasonable, but I guess Takarazuka performers aren't as wealthy.
I was surprised to learn that Takarazuka performers were from upper class families. I'm not entirely sure why, but I didn't expect that the performing school was so expensive. Maybe it also surprised me that members of the upper class were okay with women performing the masculine gender.
I was surprised that cross dressing within the context of the Takarazuka is considered socially acceptable (and respectable) as a form of entertainment.
Violated Assumptions: Takarazuka
1. I was surprised to read that the first Takarazuka performance seen by the author was set in Italy in the 13th century. I had thought that the performances would be more limited to Japanese settings, or settings in Asia.
2. I was surprised that Takarazuka incorporates such a large cast—about 700 people are needed for the revue to function. I had assumed it would exist on a smaller scale, perhaps because in the U.S., all-female entertainment groups tend to be smaller, involving fewer people.
3. I was surprised that the Academy was well-known as a great performing school, with acceptance rates of 1/17.5 in 1983 or 1/46 in 1993. I had assumed, because of the gender nonconformity and emphasis on spectacle that exists in the Takarazuka, it would somewhat lessen the prestige of the school.
4. I was surprised to learn that the Takarazuka was formed by a rich tycoon who was also a two-time cabinet minister. I’d assumed that people in politics in the 20th century didn’t really have much involvement in the arts, at least, not to the point of establishing an entire theatre group and playhouse.
1. I was surprised that these women seem to live so much of their lives in these particular gender roles; I would have expected them to treat their stage personas as separate from their actual lives.
2. I was surprised at how incredibly popular such a gender-bending concept was, and that it got frequent play on the mainstream despite obvious queer overtones.
3. I was surprised that the actors have such unglamorous living conditions, considering how incredibly popular they seem to be in Japan.
4. I was surprised that fans of the show would be so likely to consider Takarazuka in a heterosexual context, avoiding queer references. I would have thought those references unavoidable, given the nature of the revue.
Post a Comment