“What is fashionable is not always glamorous, and glamour has not always been fashionable” says Carol Dyhouse (p.3), in her entertaining and thought-provoking Glamour: Women, History, Feminism. Glamour, and a taste for it, have morphed in the wake of social and cultural trends, economic swings, and increasing financial independence for women. Though frequently dismissed as yet another manifestation of women’s conformity and subjugation to men, glamour can be, according to Dyhouse, a form of assertive femininity, an expression of power, defiance, transgression and aspiration.
Across this richly illustrated, seven-chapter book, images and embodiments of glamour unfold chronologically from the late nineteenth century to the present. Along with the usual suspects (feathers and furs, “Cleopatra” eyes, bias-cut gowns, red lipstick), Dyhouse presents the less obvious glamour of second-wave feminism (Germaine Greer, Erica Jong, Gloria Steinem) and high-end grunge. Analyzing the content of popular fiction, cinema, women’s magazines and several published surveys, Dyhouse tells the story of how English women have embraced — or eschewed — glamour in their daily lives. With the widespread allure of Hollywood films in the 1930s (imagine the screen as a canvas of black and white, where texture and light, glittering fabrics and jewels take precedence over color), and the trans-Atlantic “youthquake” of the 60s, American cultural influences often play a key part in this scenario. As the decades pass, from the 70s’ “natural look” to the showy, conspicuous consumption of the 1980s, glamour gradually loses its edge.
With evolving fashion came new fragrances, and while the book focuses primarily on visual seduction, Dyhouse devotes a portion of each chapter to shifting trends in the formulation, marketing and the naming of perfumes. She points out that the dressing table itself, sparkling with perfume flacons, became a sign of Hollywood glamour. A pharmacist’s daughter, the author fondly recalls playing with the discarded sample bottles her father brought home from work. This personal connection to perfume complements well documented erudition. Dyhouse discusses with insight both cheaper, popular scents and luxury bottles. She also distinguishes “tarty” glamour (e.g., British bombshell Diana Dors) from its more reserved version (e.g., eventual princess Grace Kelly). The latter is echoed in modest and elegant perfume names: “Femme” by Rochas (1944); “Jolie Madame” (Balmain, 1953); and Desprez "Bal à Versailles" (1962). Like Patou’s “Joy” (1930), advertised as the word’s costliest scent, these names represent self-possession and high-society luxury, not glitz.
Dyhouse manages to synthesize a great deal of information in this relatively slim volume, thanks in part to her clear, entertaining style. Never moralizing or condescending, the author embraces her subject with an open mind, and invites the reader to do the same. Her exploration of glamour’s multiple personae reveals connections in seemingly conflicting yet concurrent phenomena: the revolutionary nature of both the Cosmo girl and the bra-burner; the self-reinvention of both Madonna and Princess Diana.
I love books as objects, and there is something especially appealing about this one: its dimensions, its design, its weight. I think of it as lithe. At a desk, reading while taking notes on the computer, it stays open to any page, the captions in the inner margins unobstructed. Chapter numbers are bordered in an art deco motif. But wait, there’s more — 37 illustrations of screen sirens, perfume cards, and adverts from women’s magazines, all of them in black and white, many of them full-page size. One flaw (or feature?): the paper is thin, so the pictures leave shadows behind the print on the reverse side, as they would on the pages of some of the inexpensive, illustrated magazines that Dyhouse cites. Glamour’s eye-catching cover design is taken from the March 1935 issue of the women’s magazine, Miss Modern. It reminds me that I was drawn especially to the first few chapters on early glamour through the 1930s, where discussion of pre-Hays Code movies and long forgotten popular novels had me compiling a long list of to-be-acquired books and films.
Like Dana Thomas’s Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster, Glamour raises questions about the very meaning of a word we think we already know. Not as vulgar as bling, lacking the restraint of elegance, and less status-conscious than luxury, too much glamour becomes camp. Too little is simply fashion. Above all, the book offers a contemplation on women, how they see themselves, and how they see themselves through images of other women. I keep turning back to a 1951 photo on page 86. It depicts a sixteen-year-old hairdresser, seated at her dressing table in a sparsely decorated room, chipped plaster on the walls. We see her applying lipstick, from two angles. Her profile could be mistaken for a movie still: a young woman puts on her makeup for a for a night out. But the vanity mirror frames a second image of her face, this time in three-quarter view. In this portrait within a portrait, she appears apprehensive, weary: a young woman just out of bed, taking on the workday, using lipstick as her body armor. The scene captures the double nature of glamour, the tangible and intangible, the good and the bad of it, a blend of hope, confidence, desire, desperation, independence and imagination. It is more an aspiration than an acquisition, more a performance than a product. Fragrant readers, choose your props: tuxedo jackets, diamond tiaras, or drugstore perfume. Glamour is not so much what you wear, as how and why you wear it.
Glamour: Women, History, Feminism
London and New York: Zed Books (2010)
Hardcover: 238 pages
Note: review copy provided by Palgrave Press.
What a wonderful article, thank you! Sounds like a very entertaining read and really touches on a subject that I have been pondering lately.
Glamour, at least in the woman I have known and admired though my life, seems to be the outward manifestation of their state of mind. They believed they deserved to adorn themselves (or armor, as the case may be) and it was simply part of who they were. If it wasn’t authentic to their personality, it was merely a costume.
The best advice I ever heard on the subject was this,
“You can control how you present yourself to the world, not how it perceives you.” So enjoy how you look or change it if you don’t – every day is the first day of the rest of your life.
Very well put, RuthW!
T.E. Lawrence has a wonderful phrase, “the glamour of strangeness,” which has always made me think that glamour requires otherness, which means that it comes in a far greater variety than, say, elegance. It has a transgressive edge, certainly so in the negative context in which Lawrence used it..
Oh, yes, I see what you mean, Jirish. It explains why imitators of glamour don’t come off as glamorous–they re no longer “other.”
Thank you Cheryl for this great article. I now must check out this book! And I never knew that Diana Dors was married to Richard Dawson thanks for making her name a link. Have a great weekend!
Thanks for the fun fact! I intend to test it out on trivia demon I know!
Cheryl:
Thanks for the great review! Another interesting book I’ll have to read.
I think you’ll like it.
At the name of Diana Dors, my trivia-stuffed memory produced this (collected on a playground by Iona and Peter Opie):
Diana Dors lost her drawers.
Won’t you kindly lend her yours?
A treasure, that one!
Wonderful review, my fingers were reaching for my credit card before I was half way through reading it. I’m enjoying pondering the difference between glamour and elegance. Is it that the elegant woman knows when to stop, but the glamorous woman doesn’t, or doesn’t care? Or, to put it more positively, the glamorous woman will take more risks. She breaks through. Glamour does require discernment, I’m sure.
I like your thought process – elegance is about restraint, while glamour lives freely.
Yes, well put. Cate Blanchett turned up to a red carpet event in Australia a while back in a dress made of crocheted squares – you know those black edged things that women used to sew together to make rugs? ‘Granny squares’, so-called. Anything less glamorous could not be imagined. Personally I thought CB pulled it off and looked great. Others might disagree, but you have to admire her daring. Is it glamorous? Have a look at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1214102/Cate-Blanchett-looks-proper-red-carpet-knitwit-crocheted-blanket.html
I think these celebrities get so caught up in the drive for “differentness” that they take it too far. Glamour may include an element of “otherness”, but “other” doesn’t automatically equal “glamorous”. I think her outfit looks just plain silly. Although I must admit, there was almost certainly no one else there wearing the same dress!
Yes, well, it was a departure for CB, who, in any case is not a celebrity in the sense of being a person who exists only on the red carpet. At the moment she is artistic co-director of the Sydney Theatre Company, and she has several children. But I’m sure you are right; celebrities are always looking for difference, and so they end up all looking the same!
Oh, my. Not sure what to call that–but glamorous it is not!
No. Spunky maybe?!
I get endless pleasure out of trying to understand these subtle differences–and I see that you do, too. Risk, yes!
If you Google “elegant”, you find much use of the words “simple” and “refined”. “Glamorous”, on the other hand, yields such words as “exciting” or “strange”–even “illusory”. I think glamour includes an element of overt sensuality, whereas elegance is more restrained. There may be fire beneath the ice, but you don’t see it at first glance. Glamour, however, puts it right in your face. I also think there is a suggestion that glamour is a created phenomenon that is largely the result of the clothes, makeup, accessories, etc, hence the illusory angle. Elegance, on the other hand, is much more inherent to the person regardless of the surface ornamentation or lack thereof. Glamour demands more; elegance requires less. Glamour shouts; elegance, if it does not exactly whisper, speaks in a well-modulated voice that is never strident or harsh.
Nice!
There are such interesting and subtle differences between the concepts of elegance and glamour. And it is fun to contemplate everyone’s insights. Is it that elegance is “observed” and glamour “created”? Elegance seems to be intrinsic to the object, and when it’s a person that is elegant, doesn’t it seem that we think of the person as an object? Grace Kelly was wonderful, but her elegance made her seem like some goddess- aloof, not quite real or part of the same species as the rest of us. More like Helen of Troy, a miracle of nature.
Glamour looks like a conscious creation on the part of the person- who spins a sort of spell to enchant you, and who can alter that spell as the occasion demands. I imagine Cleopatra studying Caesar or Marc Antony to decide how to best manipulate her image, in order to manipulate them. Or Queen Latifah choosing between her rap star persona, or her Hollywood diva image depending on who she’s decided to impress.
Glamour can turn into drag queen burlesque , but it also is changeable and mercurial. Kind of like perfume, glamour shouldn’t be applied with too heavy a hand.
Reading your post I was reminded of a Seinfeld episode in which Elaine says she likes to think she has “just a little bit of grace.” She is told that you either have it or you don’t, not a little, not a lot, and you can’t acquire it.
I just wanted to say how much I loved reading this review.
Exactly like last time, you got me all curious about the book, wishing I already had it under my hands for browsing (and rushing to page 86!).
Did I say I love your way with words?
I am looking forward to reading about your next book discovery.
Thank you so much, Zazie!
Wonderful piece; enjoyed it so much and can’t wait to read the book. To continue on the line of Diana Dors trivia, note that she was in the film, The Scent of Mystery, the failed 1960 collaberation between
Michael Todd, Michael Todd Jr and my father Hans Laube, to add scent, aromas and odor to the world of movies.
Smell-o-vision!!!
A while ago I was trying to find information on the history scented movies (which I think started with silent cinema, in part because many theaters were warm, crowded, smelly and poorly ventilated). I ended up detouring to something else. This is a great lead. Thank you so much.I”m back on course!
There’s a chapter on the Hollywood ‘smellies” in Avery Gilbert’s book, ‘What the Nose Knows’ – a great book by a scent scientist.
I have that book! Has your father written memoirs or chatted about all of this with you? What a fascinating experiment.
I may be getting some free perfume soon. My mother mentioned recently that she seems to have become allergic to most perfumes and wondered if I would want any of hers. I assured her most emphatically that I would take any and all perfumes that she no longer wants. Most of her stuff is 60’s and 70’s vintage.
As far as recent bargains, I picked up a 4 oz. bottle, about 2/3 full, of Revlon Intimate cologne for $11.00 on eBay. Despite the “cologne” designation, it is really potent, and comes off more like an Edt or even an EdP. This is a no-holds-barred, animalic chypre. I have only actually worn it once so far, as it is definitely too much for the 90-something degree weather we have had here all summer.
Yikes–this comment was supposed to be on this weekend’s lazy poll. My computer is playing with me. I will try again and see if I can get this posted in the right place.
I thought you were just sharing some good news! Congratulations!