pulp fiction (1994)
pulp /’pəlp/ n. 1. A soft, moist, shapeless mass of matter.
2. A magazine or book containing lurid subject matter and being characteristically printed on rough, unfinished paper.
Don’t be a….
My piece for the Gallery1988 Crazy4Cult show in NYC at 355A Bowery. This Friday from 7-10pm!
While both men and women can do femininity in the workplace (or on daytime TV), Adkins provides evidence that there are two crucial differences between their performances. First, men and women differ in their gender mobility for ‘men workers may “take on” (and be rewarded for) performances of femininity, yet women cannot unproblematically “take on” (and be rewarded for) performance of masculinity’; women’s gender mobility is restricted ‘within the genre of femininity’. Second, men and women differ in how their deployment of femininity is read. While men’s performances are read as exactly that, women’s are not. To develop this point Adkins uses Manthia Diawara’s distinction between the position occupied by the white actor, John Travolta, in Pulp Fiction and the one occupied by the black actor Samuel L. Jackson:
Travolta has literal masculinity, in term of coolness and language and dress code; no door can be closed to him. But Samuel Jackson has the coolness of his own-immanent-blackness. To me, Jackson, who’s a great actor, appears to not be acting; he just appears to be ‘a black guy.’…
…So, Travolta as a white can appropriate the cultural resources that attatch to blackness, while it is much more difficult for Jackson as black to take on those that attach to whiteness. Further, while Travolta’s taking on of blackness is clearly a performance, Jackson’s is viewed as natural. … Similarly, as Adkins shows, women are not eligible for the rewards that accrue to men for successful performances of femininity because femininity is immanent to them and cannot be seen as a performance."
I love you Honey Bunny