[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.When people truly feel for a popular artist—when they follow in their thousands behind Dickens’s coffin or Valentino’s—it is only the dues returned for pleasure given, and it never feels like enough.Few artists in any medium have given me as much pleasure as Hepburn.In fact, the marvelous weight of the pleasure ennobles all clichés, and I hope to see the obituaries full of “the last of her kind,” “the greatest star in the firmament” and the rest of that sort of guff because, for once, it is all true.2.NATURE’S WORK OF ARTSeptember 18, 2005, marks the centenary of the birth of Greta Garbo, an icon both resonant and remote to us.It feels a perilous centenary.In twenty years’ time, no one will need to make an argument for the centenary of Marilyn Monroe, with her hourglass silhouette, her voluptuous blondness.It is different with Garbo: you have to make a case for Garbo.She resonates because hers was ultimately a career of photographs, and this we recognize.She is remote because the great photographs of Garbo are abstractions; they are not of a woman, they are of a face.Garbo’s body was an irrelevance.From our twenty-first-century icons we demand bodies: bodies are to be admired, coveted and—if one works hard enough—gained.You can have something resembling Madonna’s body, if you try.But you cannot have Garbo’s face.It was hers alone, a gift she used for as long as she could make it signify and then, aged only thirty-six, withdrew from public view, keeping it hidden until she died.This face was memorably described by the philosopher Roland Barthes, who identified it as a transition between two semiological epochs, two ways of seeing women.Garbo marked the passage from awe to charm, from concept to substance: “The face of Garbo is an idea, that of [Audrey] Hepburn an event.” There was something essential, Platonic and unindividuated in Greta’s face.She was Woman, as opposed to Audrey, who was a woman, whom we loved precisely because her beauty was so quirky, so particular.Garbo has no quirks at all.A close-up of her face appears to reveal fewer features than the rest of us have—such an expanse of white—punctuated by the minimum of detail, just enough to let you know that this is flesh, not spirit.Her vulnerable, changeable face is what comes prior to the emphatic mask of a beautiful woman—she is the ideal of beauty that those masks attempt to capture.Post-Garbo, we have taken what resonated in Garbo’s fluid sexuality and mystery and hardened it, made it a commodity.Take Garbo’s heavy, deep-set eyelids: these have become the mark of the diva, passing down through Marlene, to Marilyn and, more recently, to Madonna, in whom they have become ironic.Hers is the ultimate modern Garbo face, attached to a worked-out body, and also to the idea of female ambition, will and talent.The idea of Garbo is somehow more elevated than that—it doesn’t even condescend itself to the pursuit and fulfillment of talent.It merely is.Garbo was not an actress in the way Bette Davis was an actress.Garbo was a presence.In fact, is it okay to say, a hundred years on, that Garbo was not a very good actress? That some of her best work was still and silent? It could be said that her best director was, in fact, a still photographer, MGM’s famous Clarence Bull.He did not try to know her or “uncover” her, as her movie directors sometimes did, giving her those awkward, wordy speeches that revealed less than one raised eyebrow could manage.Bull understood the attraction of her self-containment.Years later he recalled that where other photographers had tried to penetrate the mystery, “I accepted it for what it was—nature’s work of art.She was the face and I was the camera.We each tried to get the best out of our equipment.”Garbo’s equipment was not always so sublime.She grew up Greta Gustafs son, a lanky, overweight, big-footed girl from Sweden
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]