Women's Fashion Through the Years and Through the Movies

Marlene Dietrich in her iconic tux.

Once we lost the bone corset and the hoop skirt made out of wire (basically sounds like articles that belong in a torture chamber rather than on a woman's body) fashion changed quite drastically. After the suffrage movement, there was a big need for women to behave, look, and mimic men. The 20's era of women's fashion wasn't the most feminine, but it was quite unique. It was a time where a dress that goes above the ankle was still scandalous. The dresses were ones that hung like oversized burlap sacks over the feminine physique because they also lost the need to wear girdles or bras. They decorated them with fringe, rhinestones, and feathers, cut their hair short like men so it would be less to handle. It was a way of becoming more masculine while still showing off the beauty of womanhood. The make up of the times also changed drastically, considering at the turn of the century, there was barely any make up being worn by women, except for in high society circles. To touch on the opposite side of the spectrum, dark lipstick and eye-liner took over, where women started to look like burlesque performers and/or clowns. One woman in particular took that sentiment to a very literal level; Marlene Dietrich wore a tuxedo in Morocco and subsequently many times in real life. She later said that she never dressed for a man's attention, but for 'the look'.

Joan Crawford in a gown by Adrian who was the foremost designer for celebrity dresses in the 1930's, making all of his women more feminine, beautiful, and chic.

By the thirties, things had settled, the right to vote was ours and we as a species had calmed down. The dresses became flowy and long with empty backs and were made out of silk and satin. They were curve hugging and striking, very much accentuating the female anatomy. Now that most women had started to work; mostly as shop girls and stenographers, while in the office they would don pencil skirts and fitted suits adorned with fur. Katherine Hepburn was one of the few brave souls of that era to always wear pants. It was a risky move that eventually became her trademark. Later in life, she was asked if she even owned a skirt by Barbara Walters and she quipped 'I have one, I'll wear it to your funeral'. 

Grace Kelly encapsulated demure but still eye-catching fashion of the 1950's, of course barely anyone looked like her or had a body that carried clothes better.

Let's skip on over to the 50's and early 60's. Tiny wastes were in, as were shoulder pads, and demure button-downed dresses. The woman had moved back to the kitchen, was prescribed dexedrine and spent her day doing laundry and vacuuming. Just think of Betty Draper in the first two seasons of Mad Men. This is why vamps like Marilyn Monroe with her low cut dresses that she was basically sewn into was such a scandal. With a body built for sin, she had no reservations about hiding it, especially because in the start, it was her bread and butter. 

Marilyn Monroe in her infamous 'Happy Birthday Mr. President' dress made of nude-colored fabric and beads that barely hid anything and definitely made a statement. It was the pinnacle of her penchant for shocking fashion statements.

By the late 60's, with the second wave of feminism being a prominent force in American dissent, pants were now just as common on women as they were on men. It was a questionable time for fashion. Low-riders (I don't care how flat your stomach is) are not flattering, neither are elephant flares and knits. But by the Summer of Love, we were lucky people were wearing ANYTHING. The hair got long and unkempt, and basically it was a free-for-all, I suppose the biggest fashion icons of that time were Ali McGraw and Barbara Streisand, who each in their own way, made the questionable fashion choices of that era chic. 

Dustin Hoffman pulled off the horrible fashion statements of the 80's much better than any woman on celluloid that I can remember. 

The 80's...why don't we skip that. We can sum it up in very few words; shoulder pads, flacid bows, and Laura Ashley. It was perhaps the most unflattering time for women's fashion. Someone once said that the shoulder pad problem was so bad that women clearly wanted to look like a bunch of line backers. Perhaps the female fashion icon of the 80's is Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie. 

Believe it or not, my mother dressed me like this for the majority of my adolescence still when I started dressing myself in Birkenstocks, electric blue eye-shadow, and micro-mini's, I have to say she had the right idea. 

Now, on to the era that I really love...and also hate to a degree, the icons of which were Courtney Love in her baby doll dress and lace up pleather boots, Kate Moss and her androgynous skinny jeans and oversized t-shirts, and of course Jennifer Aniston as Rachel Green with that hair cut we all remember, and down-to-earth casual 90's style. It was a time to get back to basics. But for some reason I was always dressed in embellished Blossom-esque hats, velvet overalls, and fake suspenders (I'm serious). The 90's were definitely two eras of fashion. The early ones were all about women dressing very earthy like they are standing in line for Lilith Fair tickets, and the second part was filled with body glitter, cargo pants, and plum lipstick. Thanks for that Gwen Stefani. 

Walking art. Nicole Kidman was the only one in my opinion that could pull off a designer gown better than the model on the runway.

And what are we up to now? Thank god the first decade of the 00's is over and we no longer wear Juicy Couture, trucker hats, and midriff tops (it was such a dark time). One fashion icon that has held her own for close to two decades now and still doesn't miss a beat and always ends up on everyone's Best Dressed list is Nicole Kidman. With the body of a porcelain doll that eats a rice cake a year, she can wear sweat pants from Walgreens or Valentino couture and make it look gorgeous. Not that she'd ever be caught dead in sweat pants. Taylor Swift also has her whole renewed image going. Starting from a country bumpkin look with her long blonde curly hair, and cowboy boots to a closet full of Louboutins and sailor shorts (also, since when did the cat become an accessory, much better than Paris Hilton's ferret, am I right?). My current favorite has to be a cross between Emma Watson and Tilda Swinton who both got back on the androgyny train and still manage to make it look sexy, feminine and incredibly chic. Whether on the red carpet wearing Balenciaga couture or grocery shopping, they are on fleek (can't believe I just said that). It's important to mix the feminine sensuality with sophistication and they've both done so brilliantly while being about 20 years apart in age. Oh and by the way, wearing a lot of designer high-end clothing does NOT make you chic. Every red carpet Kristen Stewart attends she's draped in Zuhair Murad (one of the most innovative designers right now) and she can't even stand up straight? It's a crime to fashion...and to women. Now if we could just lose the skinny jeans, the ironic vintage T's, and the raccoon eye-make up we'd actually have a good era going on right now. Let's get at it. 

Below, clips to illustrate my point. 

Ode to Joan Crawford

As some of you know, I'm writing a play about Joan Crawford, not particularly to dislodge all of the 'wire hangers' rumors or discredit her daughter Christina's novel 'Mommie Dearest' which for all of it's sincerity was highly and almost comically sensationalized. 

I want (for some reason) to help people know and appreciate Crawford for who she was, and that was the 'ultimate movie star'. I'm sure that when the term was being coined, she was whom they thought of first. Not only was she a consummate professional studying constantly, taking allocation lessons, losing and gaining weight for roles before it was a thing, and even know which eye to cry out of when she needed to for a scene, but as an iconic figure head of old Hollywood, she's one of the most recognizable. She only won one Oscar, but had always stuck to her guns. She played the game until she could play it by her own rules and that's what makes her unique. 

Joan Crawford the flapper under contract at MGM

Aside from the alcoholism, obsessive behavior, abusiveness, chronic infidelities and other personal bullshit, Joan was a true professional, and completely focused, which is exactly how she became what she became. All that other stuff lead to her eventual downfall, but if anyone had a good run and fought the good fight it was her. 

Although she was married four times, she said that the love of her life was ultimately someone she never exchanged vows with; the very Catholic-bound to his marriage Clark Gable. They were too much alike, both from poor obscure families who came to Hollywood when no one would take them seriously and people had to fish their headshots out of the extras pile. They never gave up and before they knew it they were Hollywood gods, having quickies in dressing rooms between takes. They did 5 films together, but the relationship unfortunately dissolved. Gable's wife wouldn't give him a divorce and Joan was too obsessed with herself to care. 

Joan and Gable always had great chemistry on film. Wasn't hard when the two were in love behind the cameras as well.

Here's another thing you might not have known, Joan was bisexual. One of her most famous conquests was Marilyn Monroe, 22 years her junior, whom she incessantly hit on usually in a drunken stupor when Marilyn would spend the night at her Brentwood mansion, and for some reason Marilyn eventually decided to reject her advances, perhaps because she was not her type, or perhaps because Joan was kind of scary at that point, who knows. Anyway, can you only imagine how hot that would be? 

I love Joan because she adapted to every single thing asked of her. She started in Hollywood as a contracted dancer, not an actress, and appeared as a chorus extra in mid-level films where she was nearly unrecognizable. But with limitless drive and determination she learned everything about the business and made friends with the right people until she was number one on her studio boss' L.B. Mayer's list for his next projects. By the time she had achieved that, she had come into what people like to refer to as her 'face' that very recognizable look of the giant eyes, exaggerated eye-brows, and those crazy lips which Max Factor invented calling it 'the smear'. By the time she was declared box-office poison from playing too many shop girls who make good but still manage to wear designer gowns, she decided to keep fighting and told her boss L.B. 'no more goddamn shopgirls'. After that they fought over parts and she was one of the first to move out of her studio and fly solo. Back then, a hugely risky move, but it payed off because rival to MGM (where she got her start), Warner Bros. was inclined to hire her for a little project sitting on the shelf for two years called Mildred Pierce (1945) which one her her first and only Academy Award. 

Joan Crawford still gorgeous in her 40's in Mildred Pierce (1945)

At that point, she was close to mid-40's herself, a battle year for any actress, but she decided to reinvent herself again; had her teeth recapped, cut her hair short, and wore mannish clothing, making herself into some kind of warrior identity which worked perfectly for Nicholas Ray's Johnny Guitar (1954).

Basically after that, it was a slow decline, but the legacy was cemented. That is of course until her adopted daughter Christina wrote a scathing tell-all called 'Mommie Dearest' and tarnished Joan's reputation forever. No one would give you an argument if you said that Joan was not mother of the year, but the book is not exactly fully accurate. Books need to make money too, and I'm not saying I'm agreeing with it one way or the other. As Joan historian William Schoell said 'it's a great tragedy that when people hear the name Joan Crawford the first thing they think is 'no more wire hangers', because there is another Joan Crawford that people should remember.' Which is just exactly what I'm trying to do. Wish me luck!

Here are some clips. 

Since It's My Birthday Tomorrow, I Present To You - Hot Stars Eating Cake

Steve McQueen eating badass cake. Shirtless.

Liz and Dick split birthday cake, in all fairness, Dick could have told her to start laying off the cake at this point. Probably did.

Debbie Reynolds very much posing with cake rather than eating it.

Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor having British cake.

Marlon Brando having a little too much fun with cake. Also, Karl Malden being a total perv.

Paul Newman having an ice cream sandwich. He's too cool for cake.

Cary Grant and Jean Arthur in cake publicity still.

Marilyn Monroe eating cake emphatically to the delight of fat soldiers.

Joan Crawford in ridiculous outfit about to eat kitchy cake.

Here are those NSFW naked photographs of (mostly) dead actors you didn't ask for.

Yul Brynner. You'd have to have known he'd end up on this list. 

Joan Crawford. 

Pearl Bailey. 

Douglas Fairbanks Jr...you know...who cares...this photo was probably taken by his wife at the time Joan Crawford. 

Lucille Ball. I've ruined Saturday morning TV for you...or perhaps made it better?

Tab Hunter. 

Pixelated Errol Flyn peen. 

A very very young Mae West. 

Sophie Loren makes us all hate our boobs. 

Burt Lancaster. Teeth and testicles. 

The Real Tragedy of Mildred Pierce. All Merkin, No Camp.

My obvious Joan Crawford bias is inapplicable here because I am also a huge huge huge fan of Todd Haynes and think him to be one of the greatest living filmmakers. Hyperbole aside, I was duly disappointed by this remake of the classic pulp novel of James M. Cain written in 1941. The original version was a fail-safe for Warner Bros. when it was made in 1945. At the height of film-noir's popularity, esteemed director of the genre Michael Curtiz cast Joan Crawford who's contract with MGM had just been terminated. The role was a hot property in Hollywood and was turned down by the likes of pain in Warner's ass Bette Davis, Rosalind Russell, and Claudette Colbert. A blessing in disguise considering Crawford was more or less born for Mildred Pierce but had she been directed by Todd Haynes in it currently, I think it would be only a matter of time before she threw something heavy and sharp at his head, or walked off the set for good. Conversely, Kate Winslet is perfect for the new interpretation of this stunning titular character considering this version required alot of sulking, crying, hysterics, and full frontal nudity. 

Really quickly here. Mildred Pierce is the story of a mother of two who's husband walks out on the family after she confronts him about an affair he's been having and now is forced to support her two young girls (teenage Veda, and prepubescent Kay {Ray is the name given in the novel and in the Haynes' mini-series}). In the novel, it is during the depression, and Mildred is reluctant to take a job that slides her down the social class ladder. Out of desperation she finally takes a waitressing job but hides it from superficial Veda who is obsessed with materialism and generally bitchitude. After Kay dies, Mildred and Veda's relationship becomes the central conflict of the story. The 1945 version resets the story in post-war America so they can use the film-noir visual aesthetic without it seeming awkward. The Haynes version goes back to the original setting of 1931 until 1938 or so. The costumes, production design, cinematography and everything aesthetic is beautiful. It harkens back to the Sirk melodrama aesthetic of the 50's which Haynes reinterpreted once earlier for Far From Heaven (2002). The beautiful contrast of colors works in keeping an ironically bleak atmosphere that articulates the meniality and hopelessness of prohibition and depression era women. While the 1945 version's stark black and white photography, campy make-up, and ominous tone recreate the tragedy of Mildred Pierce as a murder caper. But even considering this, the original conveys the central tragedy of Mildred and Veda much more intellectually and not to mention more entertaining. 

A screen test Crawford
gave to the studio reluctantly. Considering her star status,
she felt it beneath her to submit to an
audition. Even when clothed head to toe, Crawford is sublimely sensual and incomparably attractive.

The character of Mildred is portrayed by Crawford as well...Crawford. A strong yet sensitive woman who's obsession to please her family leads to her demise. Through her intensely painful and increasingly torturous conflict with her daugher Veda, she  plays Mildred as a woman who though self-less is not a push over. You may want to fuck her, but you definitely don't want to fuck with her, because she will destroy your life and completely decimate your existence. 

Conversely, (wrongly academy award winning) Kate Winslet is doing her best Medea, via Gloria Swanson through the Ophelia filter, playing with her head down, and her shoulders slugged just to bring the tragic hero point nauseatingly home. In my opinion, it is not a tragedy if the protagonist never experiences success, solace, or happiness. To be fair, there are moments of those aspects transpiring in this new version of Mildred's life, but Kate is playing it as though she is somehow suddenly aware of an impending apocalypse and is upset about the meaninglessness of all existence. It would do better as a character in an Albert Camus novel.

same can't be said for Winslet. With or without clothes.

For all of its aesthetic realism, any version of the novel comes down to the performance of Mildred Pierce. There are many interesting characters, but it must be HER story, and the audience must be endeared to her. If we don't empathize with Mildred the whole film is irrelevant, and it's just hard to empathize with someone who is always manically hysterical and whining. 

Sexually speaking, we must also be enticed by Mildred. The character is said to be attractive for her age (late 30's), statuesque, and classical. Even though Veda is supposed to be a great beauty, and a staunch seductress, Mildred is supposed to surpass her even though she is not as 'socially attractive' considering she is not in her prime. 

Kate Winslet expectantly has numerous scenes of nudity which just become to me, self-indulgent, aggrandizing, and totally unnecessary. I've always thought (ironically enough considering what I write about) that the language of the implied is much more arousing than the language of the explicit. And one scene where the character of Wally Fay (Jack Carson) flirts with Mildred (Joan Crawford) saying something to the effect of he's always wondered what's underneath that robe she's wearing carries more sexual weight than the painfully awkward sex scene in Haynes' version with James Le Gros as Wally Fay, animalistically grabbing Winslet's breasts from behind as if he wants to stuff them back into her body, with Kate breathing heavily as if she's anticipating being shot by him. 

What I think makes the original unique in its representation of sexuality and the sexual conflict between her, Monty Baragon her suitor and later husband, and Veda is the Camp element Crawford, Ann Blyth (who plays Veda) and director Michael Curtiz bring to the film. The insane lipstick, the gold lamé gowns, the insane line-backer shoulder pads, they all work so well aesthetically to accentuate that underneath this tragic crime caper, is a tale of profoundly deviant sexual paradigms. 

Ironically, Haynes (who never shies away from a gratuitous sex scene, and thankfully because up until now this method has been effecting) now peppers the story with cliché and trite visuals that are i guess are supposed to articulate that which was so beautifully aesthetically done in the 1945 version. 

I remember reading an interview with Evan Rachel Wood who plays Veda in the Haynes film about her merkin. For those playing the home game a merkin is kind of like a fake beard for your vagina. She said ever so redundantly that 'the film is set in the 30's and therefore, everything had to have the appearance of the 30's'. She also said that Kate Winslet was the one that talked her into doing her big nude scene in the film, which I swear is dragged out for like 10 minutes. We don't need to see Veda Pierce in front of a vanity staring at her naked self to realize that Veda is a shameless, selfish, super bitch-whore. But thanks I guess, for spelling it out. 

Mildred Pierce is a piece of material that is in its nature unavoidably campy, even in the source material. It is a story ripe for cynicism, gaudy imagery, and debauchery. In my opinion, reinterpreting it as a dragging 5 hour melodrama just doesn't work. And as much as I love Todd Haynes, I think  he dropped the proverbial adaptation ball with this one. For argument's sake, of course we can equate each version to what is popular in cinematic times to both, but I believe Haynes' Mildred Pierce even fails there, as it resembles not much more than an extended Lifeime movie with A-list Academy Award winning actors to carry the mediocre material. 
To conculde, Camp is just not seen as much in the cinema as it once was, which is a great great tragedy. Camp could be one of the most inventive, original, and for lack of a better word fun anomalies in pop-culture, and to see it wither is just such a shame.  The big irony of this whole Haynes' tragedy is that he as a director is so skilled in reinterpreting Camp for contemporary audiences. From his first film (his thesis for Brown University) 'Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story' to loose Bowie bio-pic 'Velvet Goldmine', to his relentlessly emphatic and outlandish remake of Douglas Sirk's 'All That Heaven Allows' as a camp-thriller, he has been brilliant in how he articulates that ideology from film to film, it's just so strange that he completely neglected what he does best and tried to make an 'Oscar' film. Disclaimer, i know it's a mini-series, therefore not eligible for the Oscars, but resembles all of the trite characteristics that Best Picture nominiees tend to have. Could we see this as Haynes' big sell out? I really hope not. Had Todd Haynes directed this mini-series with someone like Penélope Cruz, it would have still resonated with Mildred Pierce's original spirit. 

Here's an article on the apparent death of camp articulated with Todd Haynes' reinterpretation of the James Cain classic. 

Kate Winslet Killed Camp

Joan Crawford; Camp, Androgyny, and Teeth.

Nicholas Ray should be noted for being just as iconic of old hollywood as Cecil B. Demille, Billy Wilder, and King Vidor. He was in my opinion, the most significant in his bridging of genres as well as cinematic bylines of production. One such film that I believe is the best example of Ray's uncanny disdain and disregard and simultaneous satirization of the material is in the Western "Johnny Guitar" (1954), starring Sterling Hayden, Joan Crawford, and Mercedes McCambridge.

Crawford, at 49 was cast as the protagonist Vienna, a hardened, mannish, volatile sort of woman with too much common sense, and contempt for those without it.

Since she did take a long break after her 'come back' with Warner Bros in "Mildred Pierce" in 1945 (for which she won an Oscar), there were certain changes not only physically but mentally that could not be denied. Joan had somehow made herself into this hardened character, and thus, made herself even more camp than she already had been. It would appear that most of camp culture that takes influence from this particular era of hollywood focuses primarily on Joan Crawford as a beacon of style, rhetoric, and mode. 

One such example would be Crawford's infamous lips, which had been an inside joke in Hollywood since her Letty Lynton incarnation back in the mid 1930's. 

When we look at the 'Crawford Face', it is one that has changed the most significantly in film history. When she started out as a chorus dancer back in 1921 when she was 19, she as little more than a floosy, whom you wouldn't be able to pick out of a line up. 

In her silent film days, she acted opposite many cinema greats, and yet, she really wasn't too recognizable. 

Crawford is in the middle. 

In the 1930's Louis B. Mayer was grooming stars to fit a certain image, and what was in fashion was McDonald's type eye-brow arches, thick bright lips, and petite, boy-ish frames. Joan adapted quickly. 

The reason that she is one of the most significant gay icons is because of her many collaborations with gay men in her early years that shaped the look that later paved the way for camp culture, the most significant of which was with MGM costume designer; Adrien (no last name required). Picture a younger, more arrogant Tim Gunn. He not only designed most of her gowns in almost every film she did in the 1930's, but also designed the make-up that would later become her trademark. Before Edith Head's designs made Grace Kelly an icon of fashion, there was the marriage between Adrien and Crawford. 

Crawford in her Letty Lynton dress, designed by Adrien. One of the most significant outfits that influenced that era

As she aged, and was fired from MGM for being 'box office poison', worked for Warner Bros. for a while, and eventually became a free agent, her look became more and more severe. 

This is most evident in 'Johnny Guitar' (1954). 

She had her teeth recapped, cropped her hair very short, and started wearing pants (gasp!). It was as if she was building a 'warrior' concept. It was quite frightening. 

It was not attractive at all, but perhaps that was the purpose. Her character in the film is a woman who owns a saloon, wields a gun, and certainly takes no bullshit. 

In this film, she is the ultimate Mulvey wet dream. A woman who not just by looks, but by attitude threatens everyone else's masculinity. 

'Down here, you get whiskey and cards...up here, all you'll get is two bullets from my gun' she quips to an ornery crowd of angry men that try to invade her territory. 

In the tradition of Katherine Hepburn, Crawford strives to maintain control not just by smart dialogue, but by physical attributes. 

At this point, she is not really someone you'd want to fuck, but you definitely don't want to fuck with her. 

Nicholas Ray was an aesthetic genius. He understood iconography in ways that were instantly noticeable. He took all of the emotional strength of Crawford circa 1935 as a headstrong shopgirl, and coupled it with Crawford as Mildred Pierce, adding a masculinity, arrogance, and intimidation to the equation; all of them being characteristics that Crawford already had in spades. 

In a way, he just gave her a platform to expose all of the contradictions of gentile feminism that she possessed, but didn't articulate in her film roles. 

This ain't your mother's independent woman, and it ain't Elinor Dashwood. This is Lady Macbeth on crack. 

This is Crawford finally expressing herself without Thalberg, Mayer, or Warner breathing down her neck. 

Yes, it is a bit too obvious in the Mulveyian 'threatening woman' complex, but it is profoundly significant. Crawford's greatest antagonist is not Johnny Guitar (Sterling Hayden), to whom she can't help but yield. It is macho, closet lesbian, androgynous (but not in a sexy way) Emma, played by Mercedes McCambridge. 

The best exchange between the two, which is also the simplest goes: 

Emma: I'm going to kill you. 

Vienna: Maybe...not if I kill you first. 

Awesome. 

Crawford in 'Johnny Guitar' How the times had changed.

It's like John Wayne vs. James Cagney in a dick measuring contest but with chicks. 

At a time where the Western genre was in limbo between John Ford and Sergio Leone (The classic vs. the 'spaghetti western'), there was a very awkward atmosphere of unknowing and becoming. 

The John Wayne era had passed, and the genre was slowly becoming a novelty, devoid of significance. Nicholas Ray decided to transform the genre from being all about the men, to being all about the women...who acted like men. 

It is really one of those pivotal and overlooked films, which exists within that lost period in which a genre is either disappearing or transforming. And yet, it manages to be loyal to every aesthetic; theme, structure, and ideology. 

What is so unique about 'Johnny Guitar', is that it is not actually about Johnny Guitar. It's very much Vienna's movie; her needs, her plots, and her actions. I would say it is the precursor to 'Bonnie and Clyde' (1967). There are two main characters, but as is tradition since the latter, it is the woman's picture. 'Bonnie and Clyde' is a no brainer. It is of course Bonnie's film, and should be re-titled, 'Bonnie and Some Other Guy'. 

What is so significant in the casting of Joan Crawford to represent this shift in the genre's essence, is that she formats herself into the quintessential male role of the Western while maintaining her presence as a woman.  

This is why, one could say that Vienna in 'Johnny Guitar' is a huge deviant. She doesn't wash dishes, try on dresses, or comb her hair. She's an angry broad with ideas. And she'll put a bullet in your head if you dare to disagree with her. She is one to be genuinely frightened of. Usually in the Western, that was personified by a giant mass of flesh, with thick chaps, a big horse, and a ridiculous hat. 

The only thing Vienna sports is a funny looking turquoise ribbon that ties tightly around her neck. 

Before Adrien Brody lost 40 pounds for 'The Pianist' (2002), or Tom Cruise went gray in 'Collateral' (2004), our Joan was willing to take her appearance to the utmost of androgynous and displeasing extremes. 

Perhaps I'm wrong about this, and she actually thought this was a good look for her, but that's irrelevant. She embodies not so much a feminine power that threatens not only the masculinity within the film, but also the masculine sensibility of the audience, but a complete transformation of acceptable feminine culture. I think that in 'Johnny Guitar', she is both man and woman; a hybrid, unrecognizable, and completely unique. 

She managed to make the 6'3 butch Sterling Hayden look like a carnival monkey. Clad in high fastening pants, leather boots, and a tight jehovah's witness-type button up, she made everyone feel simultaneously aroused and frightened. It is a performance as well as a statement. It doesn't seem to make sense, and yet it does. 

Swanson vs. Crawford; The Battle of the Sadie Thompsons for Cinematic Sluthood.

Now, I know what you're thinking, if Bette Davis had ever played this classic W. Somerset Maugham character, this would be a no brainer. Alas, Bette did her own version of a Maugham wanton woman in "Of Human Bondage"(1934). What is interesting about this comparison is that one giant aesthetic different. Gloria Swanson made "Sadie Thompson" in 1928 as a silent version, while Joan Crawford followed with "Rain" in 1932 with sound. 4 years seems hardly enough time between an original and a re-make, but the advent of sound made it imperative to give poor Sadie Thompson more of a seductive edge, incorporating verbal innuendo with suggestive gesture.

It's the age old argument, sound vs. silent.

This is one that is particularly interesting because it is from the same source material. If we look at both films from a strictly visual perspective, both are pretty much identical, both Swanson and Crawford don ridiculously comical hats, wear make-up that would make Divine jealous, and accent their face with an ever-present dangling cigarette, as if to suggest that they are women who do the wrong things. They are both suggestive in their gestures, not afraid to stroke an arm or push hair out of the face. They love to dance and drink, and enjoy life; their movement suggestive of a women who are definitely sexually aware, as I'm sure that pelvic thrusting was pushing it too far at the time, their movement suggest a disposition of a harebrained party girl with loose morals and a penchant for drinking.

Though this does not spell out in plain english that Sadie Thompson was a whore, it is enough to convince the main antagonist of the film, Mr. Davidson that she has a seedy past.

The irony of both of these portrayals, is that Sadie Thompson could easily fit the "hooker-with-the-heart-of-gold" label which that era of American cinema loved to exploit, Sadie is not aesthetically reformed. She may not be charging for sex anymore, but she doesn't shy away from a shot of Scotch or a suggestive dance with whoever is ready to party as to forget about the thunderstorm conditions of the tropical island of Pago Pago.

Sadie doesn't take every drunken sailor at the hotel into her bedroom, but instead falls in love with an oafish awkward boy who is definitely not up to her sexual par. And when Mr. Davidson tries to bring the law on her, articulating that she must be truly punished for what she did (i.e. it's not enough to stop being charging for it, she must dress and act like a nun, and to do so must go back to where she came from), she does not try to seduce him, which judging by the circumstance, would be her best bet.

So to answer this question, we cannot look at Sadie considering her motivation and disposition, we have to approach the character in both films as an icon. She is a symbol of rebellious womanhood, and can be perceived as a paragon of feminism. Rather than compromise herself, she chooses to stand up for the right to smoke, drink, and wear copious amounts of lipstick, and who does this better? Sound aside? I would have to check the box for Joan Crawford. Her performance is both intensely sexual and profoundly disparaging. Gloria, bless her heart, goes for the point by point recreation of the story of "the downfall of Sadie Thompson" without really breaching the essence of her womanhood. But judge for yourself, unfortunately both films are in horrible condition and very rare on DVD. Ridiculously enough no one has bothered to restore either. It seems even the likes of Crawford and Swanson can't resurect interest in W. Somerset Maugham, but it is one of those rare cases where the cinematic interpretations of the original source material is actually more telling. Who is the bigger slut? Definitely Crawford, and I say that in the best way possible. I think within the confines of Sadie Thompson, it is a form of dissent and rebellion, and a admiral way to appear. Amidst a veritable who's who of future church elders, the contrast of sexual openness and ambivalence is more prevalent in "Rain".