Finding Your “Middle Ground” Self:
Formative Figures in the Makeover Paradigm and
Postfeminist Strategies in Hollywood Films
Derin Tufan
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Misha Kavka
28 June 2019
MA Thesis for Media Studies: Television and Cross-Media Culture University of Amsterdam
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Theoretical Framework 6
2.1. Makeovers in television and cinema 6
2.2. The history and criticism of postfeminism 11
2.3. Neoliberalism and choice 17
3. The Paradox of Authenticity - The Subject and The Expert 23
3.1. Surveillance, compromise & the middle ground 26
4. The Gaze - Who is the makeover for? 56
4.1. Success, sexuality and romantic relations following the makeover 60
5. Conclusion: What has changed? 72
Finding Your “Middle Ground” Self:
Formative Figures in the Makeover Paradigm and Postfeminist Strategies in Hollywood Films
1. Introduction
The modern Cinderella story in mainstream culture can be visualized by the image of a frumpy girl who shocks onlookers by taking off her glasses and letting her hair down, revealing her beauty. Her transformation from plain to attractive marks a turning point in her own storyline: she can now rise up from her place at the bottom of the social ladder and be with Prince
Charming. Her before-state is supposed to embody unattractiveness and incapacity, and the after-state is meant to reveal a newfound beauty and upward social mobility. So what happens in between?
The difference between the two versions of the same woman is that she performs different types of femininity, one of them overshadowed while the other is praised. The before and after subjects embody “bad femininity” and “good femininity” respectively. Good femininity is within the patriarchal boundaries of gender and is expected of every woman. In this sense, the ideal woman who is performing good femininity eliminates all gender ambiguity. Her physique, her fashion sense, her hair, her make-up are all in accordance with the expectations of womanhood. Contrarily, bad femininity upsets the assignment of gender attributes. A woman who is
performing bad femininity may be masculine or refuse to engage in feminine beauty practices. She may also refuse the moral and behavioral aspects that the patriarchal system attributes to womanhood, embodying an unruly, dominant, “immoral” character. The opposition between good and bad performances of femininity is the starting point for all makeover narratives dealing with female subjects.
Makeover narratives advertise good femininity not as compliance with the norm but as a means to female empowerment. This is in line with postfeminist ideology which capitalizes on the makeover paradigm, through the argument that women should embrace good femininity, working within patriarchal parameters if they want to succeed socially and economically. The combination of postfeminist theory with makeover narratives creates a powerful tool in terms of the portrayal of women in mainstream media content.
The development of postfeminism in the 1990s coincides with the popularity of the makeover paradigm in American mass media. This is why the corpus is comprised of Hollywood movies with makeover scenes, starting from older productions which have become classics and moving to more recent productions. Although there is a larger body of makeover content in reality television, Hollywood films set the conventions for the genre due to their historical precedence. They also allow for a more in-depth look into the subject’s life both before and after the makeover, something which reality television has much less room to do. Hollywood films follow the personal developments regarding both the subject and the expert in detail, before, during, and after the makeover. In fact, the films even get to show the personal life of the expert, an area which reality television in not concerned with at all. To be able to look at the
developments in the makeover paradigm over the years, the selection of Hollywood films ranges from 90s classics to 2010s romantic comedies. In chronological order, the selected films are: Pretty Woman (Garry Marshall, 1990), Clueless (Amy Heckerling, 1995), Miss Congeniality (Donald Petrie, 2000), The Princess Diaries (Garry Marshall, 2001), Mean Girls (Mark Waters, 2004), The Devil Wears Prada (David Frankel, 2006), Blended (Frank Coraci, 2014), The DUFF (Ari Sandel, 2015).
Aside from their distribution over the years, it is also worth noting that all of these films can be categorized as chick flicks and that their target audience is often aligned with the ideal makeover subject: the female young adult. On the suitability of the genre, Joel Gwynne writes, “the dominant genre of makeover cinema is the chick flick, in which self-reinvention often occurs at the expense of feminist agency” (61). This loss of feminist agency in makeover films is often a consequence of how the plot promotes a submission to patriarchal, postfeminist beauty ideals. The impact of postfeminist ideas on the makeover paradigm can be best understood in films which focus on the female body and selfhood, directed towards a female audience. This points at the necessity of a critical approach towards chick flicks, which can be overlooked in academia due to their classification as low-brow media.
Films involving comedy, such as romantic comedy and teen comedy, can be disarming due to their promise of harmless fun and a happy ending. Viewers of comedy genres often do not expect to come across serious topics that require critical thinking, as in the drama genre. In his book on the conventions of the romantic comedy genre, Leger Grindon refers to how the lighthearted nature of the films allows for “comic artists to influence their audience while the viewers take little notice of the work’s persuasive power” (Grindon 2). This also suggests that there is a deeper ideology behind these romantic comedies that are dismissed as superficial entertainment.
To unpack the underlying ideologies in the makeover paradigm, I will be conducting a textual analysis, critically interpreting the selected films in which women are transformed from an “ugly duckling” into a feminine figure in conformance with postfeminist beauty standards. Aside from the person undergoing the makeover, I will be looking at characters or plot points that have an impact on the transformation process. The most prominent of these characters is the
figure of the expert, which is present in almost every makeover narrative. Serving as a mentor for the subject, the expert leads her back into the bounds of good femininity. The second figure that influences the makeover is the owner of the gaze, a position which symbolizes the male attention directed at the subject. Especially influential in romantic plotlines, the gaze reflects the rewarding aspects of being desired by the male. The research questions that drive the textual analysis can be summed up as follows: How and to what extent do Hollywood makeover scenes embody
postfeminist ideas about the female subject and womanhood? How do the assistance of the expert and the gaze of the desired other impact the transformation of the subject?
Correspondingly, the upcoming chapters will focus on postfeminism, neoliberalism and the positions of the expert and the gaze, respectively. The theoretical framework will first introduce the conventions of the makeover paradigm in film, addressing structural and
ideological components. Breaking down these components, the chapter will then establish the themes of postfeminism and its commodification of female empowerment. Picking up from the commodification of the subject, the theory chapter will conclude by addressing the neoliberal aspects of the makeover and marking the shared themes among postfeminism, neoliberalism and the makeover paradigm.
Following the theoretical framework, the third chapter will focus on the expert, the concept of authenticity, and the creation of a middle ground between the before-self and after-self. The range of the expert’s authority will be explored, as the subject does not always accept the immediate result of the makeover. The chapter will then elaborate on how Hollywood has begun establishing a makeover middle ground, situated between a relapse into the before-self and the unconditional acceptance of the expert’s advice, to describe the balancing point at which the subject can attain authenticity.
The fourth chapter will analyze the gaze, the subject’s motivation, and how these two can be used as reward or punishment mechanisms in the makeover. The range of motivations will be specified and theories about the male gaze will be introduced. The progress of the subject in terms of reaching her goals will also be analyzed with reference to the gaze, which can range from romantic and approving (as a reward) to condemning and critical (as a punishment).
Combining the analysis of these components of the Hollywood makeover, this thesis will conclude with observations relating to the involvement of postfeminist ideas in mainstream media productions. Inspired by the realization that there has been a significant drop in the production of Hollywood makeover films, the study sets out to analyze how these films have transformed since the integration of postfeminist elements in the 90s. Through the introduction of a middle ground and increasing self-reflexivity in makeover films, the study will explore the possibility of a gradual deviation from postfeminist ideas, while determining the unchanging aspects of the convention.
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Makeovers in television and cinema
As Joel Gwynne notes, makeovers emerged in feature films before they became popular as part of reality television in the 2000s (61). The makeover narrative stretches from classical
Hollywood films, such as Now, Voyager (Irving Rapper, 1942), to later productions, such as Pretty Woman (Garry Marshall, 1990), in which women are socially rewarded for the change in their physical appearance, often gaining status and the social and financial freedom that comes with it. This proves the “longevity of the commercial construction of the makeover as a
‘liberating’ process” (Gwynne 61). Due to this history, it is important to analyze the way Hollywood has set the conventions of the genre and how these conventions have recurred and changed in makeover films from the 1990s onwards.
In their analysis of the history of the makeover in Hollywood films, Ford and Mitchell refer to the 1942 film Now, Voyager to map out the recurring physical characteristics in the before and after scenes. Before the makeover, the female protagonist is characterized by the following features: “poorly fitting, unstylish clothing, dumpy figure, glasses (not designer!), no makeup, heavy brows, heavy dark hair” (Ford and Mitchell 11). In this before scene, like many others to follow, the character is made as plain and undistinguished as possible to increase the impact of the big reveal at the end of the transformation. After the makeover, the character sports a “perfectly fitting and fashionable outfit revealing a trim figure, no glasses, discreet makeup, carefully shaped eyebrows, beautiful hat, flattering hairdo” (Ford and Mitchell 11). Despite the fact that this film preceded second-wave feminism and postfeminism, its current relevance comes from the way it imagines a version of “good femininity” which has largely remained the same throughout the years. Although “the beauty ideal is not a single model,” it nonetheless
encompasses “a (relatively narrow) range of acceptable models” (Widdows 20). The
beautification of women continues to signify that the makeover process will result in the removal of any physical aspects that are not acceptably feminine.
The structure of most romantic comedies proves suitable for makeovers, as it can be considered as a parallel to the makeover structure. In most rom-coms, the beginning depicts some sort of disappointment or unmet expectations on the side of the protagonists, followed by the development of the relationship and occasional conflicts, which are then overcome by the happy ending. Similarly, Sarah Gilligan maps out three key components in the makeover narrative: “namely the under, the makeover, and the final revelation/affirmation” (167). The make-under serves as a depiction of the before-subject’s failure, highlighting signifiers of bad femininity, such as her lack of fashion sense, her inattention to her hair and make-up, her poor posture due to her lack of confidence, etc. In this stage, the audience also learns of what the subject desires – often romantic love – that she hasn’t been able to attain so far. The
determination of what she desires and how to get it justifies the need for a key figure in the makeover paradigm: the expert, who is depicted as highly knowledgeable about good femininity.
The expert’s advice pertains to the subject’s appearance as well as how she conducts herself. The implementation of the advice makes up the second component of Gilligan’s structure, the makeover process. After the subject has been transformed into an embodiment of good femininity, there is the third stage, a big reveal, which often shocks those who witnessed the state of the subject before the makeover. The after-subject is clearly an example of good
femininity, a woman who has conformed to the ideals of female beauty and attractiveness. The affirmation can come in the form of obvious compliments or the sudden attainment of the
subject’s objectives that is inarguably due to the makeover. If this objective is romance, the affirmation is usually received from the bearer of the desiring gaze.
With the repetition of this structure, the makeover becomes quite predictable and creates certain expectations about who can succeed, how and when. It is now expected of the protagonist to succeed by choosing to change, and she is sure to attain her goal once the makeover is
complete. As Gilligan notes about the construction of femininity, “Through their formulaic structure, such texts work to establish the parameters of acceptable feminine appearance, while also offering viewers the vicarious visual pleasure of witnessing the protagonist’s transformation from frump to bombshell” (167). Due to the repetition of these parameters, makeover narratives suggest that there is a right choice to be made in order to achieve empowerment. As the audience watches the protagonist become an embodiment of good femininity, they accept that this is the path that must be taken if the protagonist wants to succeed on a social level.
While structure and genre are essential to makeover depictions, the underlying ideology cannot be fully understood without analyzing the conflicting aspects that are inherent to the makeover paradigm. In her analysis of makeover television, Brenda Weber maps out some contradictions that arise from the process, which are also observable in Hollywood makeover scenes. One of the paradoxes is that “to be empowered, one must fully surrender to experts” (Weber 3), which points at the contradiction of submitting yourself to be recreated by someone else in order to achieve a sense of selfhood and subjectivity. This paradox of gaining agency through giving up agency is present in most makeovers. Also present in the makeovers is the involvement of the gaze, which is itself paradoxically situated: “to be looked at appreciatively, one must first be critically condemned by the social gaze” (Weber 3). Some after-subjects, experiencing the promised self-empowerment, claim to have transcended the need for approval
from the social gaze that they had as before-subjects. While they had the makeover to gain this approval in the first place, attaining it seems to devalue it. Referring to a similar statement by a makeover participant, Weber writes,
Amy's failure to approximate the gendered indicators of personhood had left her feeling powerless. Post-makeover, beautiful, and able to please the gaze, Amy states that social judgments no longer matter to her. By the time of her "big reveal," we get the clear sense that by capitulating to social standards about appearance, Amy becomes empowered with the ability to transcend those very standards. (2)
This shift in the attitude of the empowered woman also signifies a shift in the role of the gaze. While the motivation behind a makeover is usually to attract and please the gaze – be it romantic, professional, etc. – the completion of the makeover results in a sense of confidence that
transcends the previous need for approval from the gaze. The opinions of others are still present, but now that the subject is fitting in, they are no longer threats of social exclusion. The subjects can maintain their confident attitude as long as they maintain their new, empowering appearance.
Weber also acknowledges the impact of self-empowerment and change in self-perception through physical alterations. She refers to other scholars who have defended the empowering effects of plastic surgery and recognizes the social advantages of conformity:
[T]hose who choose cosmetic options often do so with a sense of agency, thus contributing to their own self-making. Moreover, it is true that to live in accord with dominant ideals about the body grants a person greater social privilege and extends to him or her a greater advantage and opportunity, which, in turn, influences self-perception. (Weber 9)
The social privilege that arises from conforming to beauty standards influences how individuals perceive themselves, especially if they are aware that the newfound privilege is a result of their transformation. This might cause a shift in self-perception, where the before-subject is only relevant as part of the journey to the after-subject. This is often observed in makeover subjects referring to their “old self” and their “new self.”
Weber draws attention to the identity-related lingo of the genre whereby, after their makeovers, people refer to themselves as the “new me.” She quotes participants who make statements about their transformations, such as “I just can't wait until I see the whole complete me” and “I don't feel like that [Before] person was ever me” (Weber 1). This distancing from the “old self” is not only about the physical differences but also about a difference in behavior, usually with a focus on confidence. The “old self” is a failure and the makeover is the way to success, resulting in the creation of a confident “new self,” empowered through its conformity to beauty-based norms, which brings privilege and upward social mobility. As Weber notes,
Because of how often these scenes centered on concepts of the self are replicated across the makeover canon, we see that makeover shows … work toward similar goals: the achievement of a certain lifestyle, a particular appearance, a codified set of raced and classed signifiers, and a professional identity that merits what the makeover deems valid selfhood. This self is a priori understood as worthy, sexy, empowered, confident, gender congruent, and stable. (6)
The self that the makeover deems ‘valid’ is one that is able to adopt and internalize specific values that are approved by the makeover expert. This ‘self’ has achieved subjecthood through becoming the ‘best version’ of itself, which is dependent on systems of gender, race, and class. Yet, despite being situated in these systems and having to conform to a predetermined set of
values relating to certain lifestyles, the subject is urged to preserve an authentic self and discover who she “really” can be through the makeover. This is perhaps the most significant paradox that pulls selfhood into different directions during the makeover.
The ideas behind the makeover, the before and after, and the big reveal are all based on patriarchal definitions of good and bad femininity. On the way to empowerment, postfeminism accepts patriarchal standards of beauty, arguing that they can be used for women’s benefit, presenting uncritical conformity as self-exploration. To explore what postfeminism validates as the true self, it is important to look back at the development of postfeminist ideology, which emerged as an ambiguous concept before it was grounded in several key themes during the 2000s.
2.2. The history and criticism of postfeminism
When exploring how feminisms can be situated in a historical context, Misha Kavka states that the term postfeminism was “originally coined in 1985 by Toril Moi in Sexual/Textual Politics to advocate a feminism that would deconstruct the binary between equality-based or ‘liberal’ feminism and difference-based or radical feminism” (29). She also mentions that it wasn’t until the 1990s that the term became popularized in the academy and the media, during which time its meaning remained contested (Kavka 29). The controversy arises from how postfeminism
positions previous feminist ideologies, often implying that they have been made redundant by contemporary developments in women’s empowerment. While it is true that there has been progress in terms of gender equality since the emergence of second-wave feminism, it is extreme to argue that this progress – which has yet to reach diverse groups of women internationally – eliminates the need for feminism. This progress is also not entirely in accordance with Toril Moi’s original definition of postfeminism. In her article on postfeminist media culture, Rosalind
Gill defines postfeminism as a collection of themes, without trying to firmly position it in comparison to “a static notion of one single authentic feminism” (“Postfeminist Media Culture” 148). As a more recent approach, this allows for a more comprehensive exploration of
postfeminist influence on media culture, as it addresses the contradictory combination of feminist and anti-feminist arguments within postfeminist ideals.
Some of the themes that Gill mentions as the constituents of postfeminism resemble the ideas behind a makeover, including self-surveillance, discipline, choice and empowerment (“Postfeminist Media Culture” 149). She also includes “the notion that femininity is a bodily property,” which signifies a compliance with the patriarchal systems behind gendered concepts such as femininity and masculinity. This encouragement of embodied femininity leads to the “marked sexualization of culture,” another theme which supposedly serves to free women’s sexuality. When these are tied in with the “emphasis upon consumerism,” another crucial theme, Gill’s statement reveals the reliance of postfeminism on the commodification of women’s bodies and the consumption of beauty practices.
All of the themes that Gill mentions feed into the makeover paradigm, which is itself a postfeminist theme (“Postfeminist Media Culture” 149). Postfeminism celebrates femininity as a property of the female body that must be evoked to its full extent for the sake of empowerment. The realization of this point can be observed in the hyper-feminine after-subjects in makeovers. Once an ideal version of femininity is achieved, it must be preserved, which is now the
postfeminist woman’s responsibility. By doing so, women can become visible, empowered citizens and gain status through social validation. This empowerment narrative is essential for postfeminist ideas, and coincides with the social elevation of the after-self in most makeover plots. Of course, makeovers existed in classic Hollywood before the introduction of postfeminist
themes into the media sphere. However, the alignment of these focal points with the makeover paradigm reveals that postfeminism, since its popularization in the 1990s/2000s, has proved to be viable in the media sphere because it is profitable. Therefore, postfeminism did not cause the makeover paradigm, but it found an efficient way to capitalize on it, through the consumption of content that is concerned with the female body and appearance, under the guise of empowerment.
Makeovers are best situated in the genre of chick flicks, which is important in feminist media studies due to its largely female audience and its convention of a female protagonist. Hillary Radner refers to these films as “the girly film” when analyzing the influence of neo-feminism in popular culture: “As a rule, the girly film, ignoring neo-feminism, portrays women as seeking to achieve parity in the workplace, while maintaining ‘difference’ within intimate culture through relations with men, and by preserving the maternal bond in feminine culture” (Radner 30). This portrayal of a woman on the rise implies that her success does not rely on feminism but on her ability to embrace and use her femininity in professional and social environments. In doing so, she seems to mark a detachment between the feminine woman and the feminist woman. Writing about this detachment, Hollows refers to how “femininity was constituted as a 'problem' in second-wave feminism. For many feminists, feminine values and behaviour were seen as a major cause of women’s oppression” (2). Feminine identity is then problematized due to its entailment of passiveness and submissiveness (Hollows 10). When femininity and feminism are thus separated through oppositional identity politics, the preference of mainstream media becomes predictable. Feminine identity is easier to commodify, as it does not bring along a communal struggle against the patriarchal or capitalist systems that Hollywood is situated in. Correspondingly, mainstream media accommodates feminine identity, producing girly films with postfeminist protagonists who embrace good femininity.
Radner explains that the popularization of girly films began at the end of the twentieth century and continued at the beginning of the twenty-first century, a period which maps the integration of postfeminist ideologies1 into feature film. She states that these films are a continuation of the women’s movements of the mid-twentieth century:
As such, they are an extension of a phenomenon that began in the twentieth century, reaching its full flowering in the 1960s with the sexual revolution, during which the concerns of women come to solidify around concepts of personal fulfillment in which sexuality and consumer culture play principal roles. (Radner 30)
The stabilization of these concepts as synonymous with women’s personal fulfillment signifies the potential of empowerment through consumption, which especially caters to women’s sexual agency. Women can now consume products or practices that will not only increase their sexual attractiveness, but also give them the confidence to initiate a relationship with a potential partner. This postfeminist empowerment, especially in the physical and sexual context, is the dominant theme in makeover shows, with the before-subject usually unable to attain something that she desires, such as romantic success or confidence. Following a transformation process which is based on the society’s dominant expectations from the female body, the after-subject is then able to pursue the things she had not dared to before. She is depicted as more confident in herself and her sexuality, which is usually visualized through posture and clothing.
As a strategy for commodifying female agency, postfeminism borrows from the
celebration of “girl power” that emerged in the 1990s, which is a useful rhetoric as it promotes consumption-based empowerment without acknowledging the continuity of patriarchal
oppression based on signifiers of class, race, gender, and sexuality. “Girl power” allowed women
1 Although Radner focuses on neo-feminism, which she defines as separate from postfeminism, she agrees that the
to consume feminism, in the form of music, clothing etc., without actually requiring “an investment in social change” (Zaslow 6). With the promise of easily achieved agency through consumption, “girl power” became a commodity that postfeminism continues to use to address a restricted target group who are able to consume. In the introduction to the book Interrogating Postfeminism, Tasker and Negra note that through its assumption of women’s economic freedom and equality, postfeminism is “a strategy by which other kinds of social difference are glossed over” (2). By universalizing the experience of white women with middle- or upper-class income, postfeminist theory becomes exclusive, disregarding social, economic, racial differences. It assumes that postfeminist values and lifestyles are “universally shared” and “universally accessible” (Tasker and Negra 2), which allows for the theme of self-making based on consumerism. The assumed universality of women’s struggles and possible solutions for empowerment surface in the media content that is produced and circulated. Going back to the adaptation of girl power, we can refer to Zaslow’s succinct statement that “[t]he girl represented in girl power media attempts to shrink-wrap feminist sensibilities with feminine styling” (4). This feminine styling often replicates the criteria of the male gaze, presenting a woman who is
confident with her sexuality and feels free to display it, regardless of the fact that she is
complying with patriarchal norms of sex appeal. Postfeminist media content presents women as free agents, whose choice to be sexy is entirely dependent on their own pleasure. The most obvious example of voluntary sexualization appears in advertisements with women who claim they owe their sex appeal – and consequently their social visibility – to a consumerist choice.
When analyzing the discourse of feminine sexual attractiveness through consumption in the media, Gill turns to advertisements that sexualize women. Using the postfeminist strategy of empowerment through an embrace of feminine sexuality, advertisements promote a prototype of
sexiness which can be attained through continuously consuming certain products or following certain programs. If you are not able to reach and remain within the narrow confines of sexual femininity, you are denied the promised empowerment that a sexy appearance brings. Aside from those who are not able or willing to consume, postfeminist empowerment in media
representations excludes:
older women, disabled women, fat women and any woman who is unable to live up to the increasingly narrow standards of female beauty and sex appeal that are normatively required. These women are never accorded sexual subjecthood. The figure of the ‘unattractive’ woman who seeks a sexual partner remains one of the most vilified in popular culture. (Gill, “Supersexualize me!” 104)
The makeover narrative uses unattractiveness as the sign of a bad performance of femininity, which postfeminism condemns. The unattractive before-subject is not sexy, is not deserving of the desiring gaze, and is not a strong female figure, both due to and resulting in her lack of confidence. If the unattractiveness cannot be changed through consumerist strategies of a makeover, then the subject is not made visible on popular media content. Unless consumerism can offer a solution, the problem is made invisible.
Addressing the relationship between consumerism and women’s bodies, Lazar writes about the advertising sphere, but her analysis and criticism also apply to women’s
self-beautification in the makeover scenes in Hollywood films. She notes that “[ads] that deal with self-beautification have become a productive space for the appropriation of feminist signifiers, interwoven with patriarchal codes of femininity, without apparent contradiction” (Lazar 374). In this discourse of self-beautification, Lazar notes how postfeminism appropriates certain feminist ideas to fit into the commercial sphere, separating feminism from its communal and political
meanings and connecting it to an individualistic approach instead. The feminist emphasis on women’s empowerment through independence and gaining control over their own lives and bodies now becomes a postfeminist strategy to advocate which beauty regimens can grant control over one’s body and which products one can purchase to prove her independence.
This emphasis on the empowered consumer is heavily influenced by neoliberal ideologies. In fact, most postfeminist strategies are shared with neoliberalism, due to their common objective to shift responsibility onto the individual, who must make the right choices to deserve
empowerment, as well as their ostracization of those who cannot consume their way to improved selfhood.
2.3. Neoliberalism and choice
The consumption habits of the self-regulating citizen are open to neoliberal influence. The availability of consumable products which signify self-expression and self-improvement drives the neoliberal subject to adopt some of these commodities as integral to her self-importance. In an article about how neoliberal thought developed, Nicholas Gane defines neoliberalism as “a form of governance that seeks to inject marketized principles of competition into all aspects of society and culture” (1092). This integration of marketized principles into everyday life signifies a shift in how consumption becomes relevant on an individual level and how it constructs new social values. The marketization of society and culture leads to the commodification of identity through forms of expression based on consumption. In this new order based on free market principles, the individual has many choices that are available to her, only some of which promise to grant her greater agency.
Placing the individual in charge of her own empowerment, neoliberalism demands self-surveillance and self-monitoring from the citizen. This emphasis on self-sufficiency is one of the
key points of neoliberalism, as activists Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia note in a statement in 1997:
The main points of neo-liberalism include: (...) Eliminating the concept of “the public good” or “community” and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
The social status of the individual, according to neoliberalism, is due to her own choices, and she accepts the responsibility for it, which takes the blame off the Western-dominated, patriarchal and capitalist power structures which work against women, the underclass and other minorities. This sense of self-responsibility and individualism also means the dismantling of communal ideologies, which tends to lead people towards an “every woman for herself” mentality. Christina Scharff notes that young women, who now have more opportunities for upward mobility in their work or social lives, want to lead independent, self-responsible lives and are likely to reject feminism because the “neoliberal, individualist imperative does not sit well with perceptions of feminism as involving collective struggle” (1). This does not mean that they are wholly
unaffected by the structural gender inequalities, but that they choose to work through it
themselves, as they feel responsible for their own success and status. When analyzing how the neoliberal mentality resembles postfeminist themes, Gill and Scharff write, “the autonomous, calculating, self-regulating subject of neo-liberalism bears a strong resemblance to the active, freely choosing, self-reinventing subject of postfeminism” (7). Both subjects are praised for their independence and their ability to reinvent themselves to reach a better position in society, as is their responsibility. Of course, this sense of the autonomy of the individual once again overlooks the systems of power that are beyond the individual’s control, such as class-based oppression.
Tasker and Negra argue that postfeminist culture’s attempt to promote individualism through centralizing an ‘affluent elite’ tends to “confuse self-interest with individuality,” which results in the elevation of consumption “as a strategy for healing those dissatisfactions that might alternatively be understood in terms of social ills and discontents” (Tasker and Negra 2). This means that the postfeminist subject resorts to consumption as a superficial and often temporary solution to problems that are rooted in deeper social structures and inequalities. This is also the idea behind the makeover paradigm, in which there is a protagonist whose initial dissatisfaction arises from her non-conformity to gendered signifiers constructed by a patriarchal society. However, instead of resorting to the communal politics of feminism, the protagonists in the makeover resort to change on an individual scale, which engages with patriarchal oppression in many ways, none of which are explicitly critical of the existing hegemony. This strategy of empowerment does not upset any patriarchal or capitalist systems, as postfeminism itself feeds off of these systems.
Based on these ideas, the makeover experience becomes “emblematic of the ‘profoundly toxic character of neoliberalism’s recuperation of feminism’” (Tincknell qtd. in Gwynne 61). The empowerment of women is redefined as women’s choice to transform into the strong female figure advertised on the media. Women who are not displaying characteristics of the feminized, sexual postfeminist woman are often portrayed as unable to attain something they desire, a failure which can be fixed if they choose to consume the right products and lifestyles. Although choice is not the single defining characteristic of postfeminism or neoliberalism, it is an important tool to validate the consumption-based discourse surrounding womanhood. On women’s consumerist agency in neoliberal systems, Evans and Riley write,
Within the Western uptake of neoliberalism, women are understood as exceptional subjects of such entrepreneurial neoliberal subjectivity, empowered in new ways by engaging in consumer practices that enable them to transform their bodies into the image of their desire, with a flash of sassiness or attitude to show that the practice is choiceful and agentic. (136)
The “entrepreneurial subjectivity” signifies the initiative that women must take to use neoliberal strategies for their own benefit. The necessity to show choicefulness arises from the presentation of women as free agents who engage in these practices voluntarily, for their own benefit. These beautifying consumer practices are also often depicted as a pampering routine which is
pleasurable in itself. However, these processes not only cost significant amounts of money, but they can also be tiring, time-consuming and difficult – sometimes even painful. In makeovers, the difficulty of the process is obscured, and the aesthetic labor of embodying the ideal neoliberal, postfeminist woman is often not portrayed realistically. Elias, Gill and Scharff assert that “[neoliberalism] makes us all ‘aesthetic entrepreneurs’—not simply those who are models or working in fashion or design” (Elias et al.). Their designation of women as entrepreneurs suggests the laborious yet innovative nature of self-expression in a postfeminist world.
Elias, Gill and Scharff further note that the individuals are not only urged to focus on their appearance but also to keep up with the ‘psychic life’ of neoliberalism and postfeminism. This means that ideal neoliberal, postfeminist womanhood requires “not only physical labours and transformations but also the makeover of psychic life to embrace qualities such as confidence, happiness and authenticity” (Elias et al. 5). Embracing these qualities while undergoing a
physical makeover signifies a link between the inner and outer selves. Makeovers exemplify how a feminized and beautified outer appearance often leads to a joyful and confident after-subject.
The inclusion of authenticity as part of postfeminist psychic life means that this is something that can be attained through the theme of self-making/self-discovery that is prominent in makeover narratives.
Previously mentioned as part of the makeover paradigm, authenticity comes up again as a quality of the good neoliberal subject. Evans and Riley state that, for the Western viewer,
authenticity is “bound up in notions of neoliberal subjectivity that all performances of identity should be about being ‘your true self’” (Evans and Riley 143). For a transformation to preserve the subject’s authenticity, it has to strive towards more accurate representations of the ‘true self’, which had previously been clouded by inattentiveness to modes of consumption that might make appropriate self-expression possible. Zygmunt Bauman refers to the ability to build and rebuild identities within consumer culture: “Whether genuine or putative to the eye of the analyst, the loose, 'associative' status of identity, the opportunity to 'shop around', to pick and shed one's 'true self', to 'be on the move', has come in present-day consumer society to signify freedom” (87). The plentitude of choice and the malleable nature of the self create a discourse of motivation towards authenticity and self-discovery. In this sense, neoliberalism promotes consumable authenticity and purchasable selfhood.
With this choice of change available to them, women who have failed to embody a valid expression of their ‘true selves’ do not fit into postfeminist discourse. If they are willing to do so, they must now temporarily let go of their agency, feeding into the paradox of submission and empowerment that arises in the makeover process. It is important to question to what extent the individual preserves her autonomy in expressing her ‘true self’ when postfeminist narratives are constantly prescribing ideal presentations of womanhood and femininity as imperative for individual success. In the makeover paradigm, where neoliberal and postfeminist strategies are
aligned and where the subject is under the guidance of an all-knowing expert and motivated by a desiring gaze, can the after-subject ever be authentic?
3. The Paradox of Authenticity - The Subject and The Expert
According to Weber, one of the paradoxes of the makeover paradigm is that “to be empowered, one must fully surrender to experts” (4). Despite the postfeminist emphasis on self-surveillance and self-making, the success of the makeover is usually dependent on outside intervention. The before-subject, who is unhappy about her current situation (regarding her physical appearance (lifestyle, status at the workplace, etc.), needs to employ an expert to provide guidance during the transformation period. As the subject’s previous attempts at self-improvement have resulted in failure, her inability to succeed on her own provides grounds for the necessity of the expert, and the makeover process reveals the standards by which the expert judges female beauty and sex appeal. When the subject surrenders to the control of the expert, however, the authenticity of the process becomes questionable.
The dictionary definition of “authentic,” which means genuine, not copied, real, assumes a different meaning in the makeover process. In the makeover narrative, the authentic self is “stable, coherent, and locatable, where gender unambiguously correlates to sexed identity” (Weber 15). Therefore, what the makeover deems authentic strays from the actual meaning of the word, it becomes less about being genuine and more about being true to an ideal. In reality television, the authentic self is reached immediately at the end of a makeover, which is not the case in all Hollywood films. The authentic self in Hollywood is not equated with the after-self, but with a middle ground identity positioned between the before-self and the after-self. The before-self is the “natural self,” which can be defined as the pre-intervention state of the subject. Although the natural self itself is constructed to serve the Hollywood narrative, it is still natural because it is free from the involvement of the expert. The natural self is what subject made of
herself until the makeover, on her own. Correspondingly, its embodiment is the natural body. While the natural self may be authentic in the dictionary sense, it differs from the authentic selfhood in the makeover context. The natural self is a narrative construct, but the authentic self is a social construct. In Hollywood, the authentic self is the one who emerges out of the
makeover, but successfully negotiates between the idealized after-self and the natural before-self until she finds a satisfactory middle ground.
The growing Hollywood trend of ending at a middle ground as the site of authentic selfhood shows a significant divergence from reality television makeovers. Differing from reality television, the Hollywood film often includes a character arc for the protagonist which requires development throughout the narrative. When the character reaches the middle ground, the film not only delivers a journey which extends beyond the duration of the makeover, but also invites one-on-one identification of the audience with the protagonist. To facilitate this identification, the middle ground shows that the character developed not into an ideal state but simply an improved state, positioning itself closer to the audience. As a fictional construct, Hollywood has the ability to shape this middle ground to better accommodate its target audience, creating a pleasurable ending for its protagonist.
The middle ground as the site of authentic selfhood is specific to Hollywood narratives. The televisual narratives do not follow through with the after-subject, accepting it as the better self immediately after the makeover. This signifies that authenticity is presumed to be found in the direct result of the televisual makeovers which reveal the “true self.” Commenting on the perception of self and authenticity, Martin Roberts writes, “[The] imaginary self must not only be ‘discovered’ but experienced, paradoxically, as more authentic than the previous one, which henceforth comes to be regarded as inauthentic (‘I feel like I’ve discovered the real me!’)” (237).
Roberts notes that the result of the televisual makeover is clearly depicted as more authentic than the original self, with participants’ reactions advertising the makeover as a journey of self-discovery. The self-discovery journey is also present in Hollywood, but it is prolonged after the result of the makeover. In reality television, after their transformations, the subjects are always pleasantly surprised and they are ready to claim this new self as their “true self,” since it is depicted as a better version. In Hollywood, the makeover is only a part of the protagonist’s journey towards the middle ground between the before-subject and the after-subject, both of which are more difficult for the audience to identify with.
The middle ground is often reached after the subject has experienced two ends of the femininity spectrum. The before-state is an exaggeration of bad femininity, with the character styled to be as conventionally unattractive as possible. The reaction of the expert upon seeing the subject is clearly one of disapproval and mockery. The film makes clear that the before-self is not a viable before-self, conveying to the audience that the subject can, and therefore should, do much better. On the other side of the spectrum, there is the ideal postfeminist woman. She is physically attractive, and therefore socially empowered. This drastic change in the character’s attractiveness reveals the postfeminist stance on how to use female physicality. In Roberts’ words:
[The new self] is, above all, a sexier self in which sexual attractiveness has been
magically transformed from an oppressive imperative of patriarchy into a source of power over it, a brave new postfeminist self requiring continual self-monitoring and investment in salons and spas, fashion stores, and regular visits to the gym. (237)
This description of the postfeminist after-self shows an emphasis on sex appeal gained through predetermined modes of consumption. The predetermination of these requirements, as well as the
measurement of one’s agency through her impression on others reveals a loss of independence, simultaneous with the advertised empowerment. The idea that women should embrace their sexuality for themselves fails to explain why the ideal style of sexuality almost always coincides with the expectations of the male gaze. The after-self is tangled in the persistent patriarchal standards that a makeover is constructed on. While the reality television makeover accepts this postfeminist stylization as a satisfactory end result, the Hollywood middle ground takes the narrative further than reality television, which allows for the character to explore her options instead of accepting what the makeover dictates. Having experienced both states, she can now integrate her learnings with the habits or ideals of her before-self in order to reach a homogenous identity. This is how Hollywood situates the true self in the middle of two extremes, constructing the middle ground.
Although the middle ground is also constructed by the film, it is as close to authentic as the subject gets. The attainment of authentic selfhood transforms from the immediate after-self to a more intermediary middle ground self. The next section will present an analysis of the expert’s role in makeover films and how this influences the subject’s journey towards authentic selfhood, which is situated in between two versions of herself.
3.1. Surveillance, compromise & the middle ground
One of the prominent themes of postfeminism is self-surveillance, which can be defined as the responsibility of the individual to monitor his/her own actions and make the right choices. In her analysis of postfeminist themes in popular culture, Angela McRobbie refers to the works of sociologists Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck, who claim that our “second modernity” allows for greater agency and independence. McRobbie sums up some of their arguments, which include how women can now be “‘disembedded’ from communities where gender roles were fixed” and
that individuals can practice self-monitoring on an internal level, replacing set ways and structures (McRobbie 35). The idea behind neoliberalism is that individuals can make or break themselves through their own choices, which not only overlooks the existing imbalance in power structures but also tries to place all responsibility on the individual. McRobbie also criticizes Beck and Giddens and mentions that self-responsibility and self-surveillance are only able to operate within existing structures:
Beck and Giddens are quite inattentive to the regulative dimensions of the popular discourses of personal choice and self-improvement. Choice is surely, within lifestyle culture, a modality of constraint. The individual is compelled to be the kind of subject who can make the right choices. By these means, new lines and demarcations are drawn between those subjects who are judged responsive to the regime of personal responsibility and those who fail miserably. (36)
By characterizing choice as a “modality of constraint,” McRobbie sums up the restrictive nature of discourses surrounding the makeover narrative. Although there is emphasis on the freedom and ability to choose in postfeminist discourse, the right and wrong choices are clearly defined. The ideal postfeminist woman has the right to choose what to do with her body, but her choice is only approved if it is in line with the feminine ideals surrounding the body. Simply put, the choice is only relevant as long as you choose correctly. The subjects who fail at this regime of personal responsibility are those who are in need of an expert. Their nonconformity with the dominant lifestyle culture has placed them in the position of an outcast. In cases where this nonconformity has to do with physical appearance, the postfeminist response is a makeover, usually involving an expert who constricts the subject’s power of choice with the intention of ensuring they make the “right choices” in the future.
The presence of the expert means that the subject, in her natural (unaided) state, was inept at self-surveillance and misused her power of choice. The expert must now help the subject fix the gap between the natural and the “authentic,” determining the shortcomings of the subject’s natural self and maximizing her potential for self-expression. To do so, the expert must
“overwrite and replace the ‘false’ signifiers enunciated by the natural body” to “communicate an ‘authentic self’” (Weber 4), another paradox of the makeover paradigm. Positioned by the Hollywood narrative to inevitably fail at attaining the desired object (romantic, career-related, status-related etc.), the natural body is no longer sufficient to satisfy the individual. This means that the before-subject’s ability to reflect the authentic self is not good enough for attaining certain goals and might even be punished (ridiculed, overlooked, ignored) for its detachment from socially valid forms of feminine self-expression such as fashion. By using fashion and beauty trends, the expert bridges the aforementioned gap between the natural and the “authentic,” which is where the televisual makeover ends. The process is the same in Hollywood, except for the attainment of authenticity, which is prolonged until the character herself reaches the middle ground, using the expert’s advice.
Since the expert is in charge of the subject’s self-betterment, the film must establish trust in the expert. This trust is easier to achieve in reality television, where the makeover expert gets his/her title from being a professional in the field of fashion, cosmetics or the female physique. In her analysis of the construction of the expert host, Angela Smith mentions that the experts on television are always proven right and she notes that many scholars have observed that “lifestyle and makeover programmes nearly always end with the expert’s advice emerging as prescient” (Smith 192). The expert is recurring in reality television; the audience knows that they have done this before and their success is a given. However, in film, the plot usually allows for only one
makeover scene and an unfamiliar expert, and the audience is watching the expert work for the first time. To convince the audience that the expert knows what they are doing, the film can employ two different types of characters: the professional expert, who is similar to the reality television expert, and the “amateur expert,” an oxymoron I will use to refer to characters who are not professionals in the makeover industry but have gained the status of the expert based on their own social success.
Although the plot-related necessities of Hollywood movies do not always allow for the involvement of a professional expert, there are some cases in which the character who is supervising the makeover is also a professional in a makeover-related field, such as Stanley Tucci’s character in The Devil Wears Prada (2006), who is an editor at a fashion magazine. The plot of The Devil Wears Prada follows the career-based changes in the life of Andy Sachs, an aspiring journalist who gets a job as the junior personal assistant to Miranda Priestly, a borderline abusive boss and the editor-in-chief of the leading fashion magazine Runway. Previously
inattentive to her appearance and clothing, Andy realizes she needs to start following the fashion trends to be able to fit into her workplace and gain the respect of her boss and colleagues.
The opening scene of the film features a montage of several women, as well as Andy, who are going through their morning routines. As the other women put on lacy underwear and high heels, Andy wears white classic briefs and comfortable shoes. She inattentively puts on some lip balm, while other women are shown using eyelash curlers and applying mascara. The other women measure out granola and count almonds for their healthy breakfast, and Andy gets an onion bagel on her way. This introduction positions Andy as an outsider to a certain group of women by contrasting their lifestyle choices. From the beginning, even when the audience
doesn’t know where the story is headed, they are presented with a profile for Andy that will be useful in the future to convince the audience of the necessity of the makeover.
For her job interview at Runway, Andy wears a white shirt, a sweater and a beige jacket, none of which is considered fashionable. During the interview, her style is explicitly criticized by both Miranda and Nigel:
MIRANDA: You have no style or fashion sense. ANDY: I think that depends on-
MIRANDA: No, no, that wasn't a question.
Nigel walks in shortly afterwards and, foreshadowing the upcoming makeover, he asks, “Who is that sad little person? Are we doing a before and after piece I don’t know about?” Having compared her to other women in the opening scene, the film once again emphasizes the frumpy nature of Andy’s style, this time through the explicit judgment of others.
Figure 1: Nigel's first encounter with Andy in The Devil Wears Prada
After she is hired, despite her appearance, Nigel and Andy get along well and Nigel inspires her to take an interest in fashion. He reminds Andy that she is working in the world of fashion and
thus should take an interest in it. Following Andy’s decision to agree to a makeover, he then becomes the expert figure.
The topic of surrendering to the expert comes up when Nigel begins putting together outfits for Andy. When she tries to object to some of the items, he is quick to respond with “You’ll take what I give you and you’ll like it,” asserting his authority when it comes to fashion. He also sends Andy to the beauty department, commenting, “God knows how long that’s going to take,” reminding the viewer that, although he is nice to Andy, he will criticize her appearance when it breaks with the standards of good femininity that are treasured at Runway. Under Nigel’s supervision, Andy begins dressing fashionably and gets used to it, transforming her style
willingly and taking pleasure from the confidence and approval she gets from others. At first, the looks are not hers; they are picked for her until she can learn from them. This stage is when the expert’s influence is most intense, and Nigel’s influence on Andy results in her interest in fashion and further dedication to her work, which disrupts her relationship with her boyfriend. Nigel helps her improve upon aspects of herself that have been holding her back at her job but are also a part of her relationship with her boyfriend, such as their shared criticism of the fashion industry. Despite this negative romantic development in Andy’s life, Nigel’s fashion advice pans out and his influence leads to Andy’s internalization of his teachings about the expression of good femininity; after a while, the assisted surveillance is no longer necessary.
Figure 2: Andy before and after her makeover
After seeing her put together a fashionable outfit on her own, Nigel compliments her and says, “My work here is done,” which means Andy no longer needs an expert because she has learned how to make the right choices. He is further impressed when he learns that Andy has dropped from a size 6 to a size 4. Not only has Andy heeded all of his advice, but she has internalized the ideals regarding feminine physique in the fashion world and has monitored herself to conform to those standards. If the film ended at this point, it would have been a true postfeminist and neoliberal statement about a self-made woman who manages to look “perfect” while keeping up with all the hard work. However, the significance of this film is that at the very end, Andy rejects some of the changes that come with the makeover and quits her job.
In one of the key scenes in the film, Andy tells Miranda that she would never be able to do what Miranda did when she took an important job opportunity from the deserving Nigel and gave it to someone else just to secure her own position in the magazine. Miranda tells her that
Andy already did this when she decided to come to Paris Fashion Week, replacing Emily who was in an accident. According to her, selfish choices are necessary to ensure the lifestyle that she lives. At this point, Andy realizes that she doesn’t want the same life as Miranda and refuses to follow her into the venue when they arrive, walking away by herself instead. When Miranda notices and calls her, she tosses the phone into a fountain and smiles with relief. Radner explains that the ending of the film indicates Andy’s achievements are not only professional but also moral:
The film, in typical girly manner, stresses both a work ethic that is almost Protestant in its fervor, and also the need to be true to one’s self. (...) She does not suffer in vain, and emerges with a sense of identity and purpose, one that highlights career (in keeping with the neo-feminist paradigm) rather than romance. (145)
While Andy is extremely dedicated to her work and she is always goes the extra mile to ensure that everything is done as Miranda wants it, she realizes when she must draw the line. She also realizes that she has sacrificed her authenticity and is becoming increasingly involved in a lifestyle that is not based on her own values. Her realization that she has not been true to herself is an awakening, but it is definitely not the rejection of the makeover. She does not go back to her original style from the beginning of the film, nor does she maintain the lavish style that she adopted at Runway. She finds a middle ground that is fashionable enough to demonstrate that she has changed for the better without losing her sense of self. Radner proposes that although Andy decides to get back together with her ex-boyfriend and work on their relationship, the viewer’s satisfaction comes from Andy’s career-related success and “perhaps from the fact that though no fashion victim, she is no longer the awkward frumpy recent college graduate of the film’s
postfeminist after-self, removing herself from the fashion world and forgoing the extreme self-surveillance that it entails. However, she does not forgo of the sense of style that she gained through the makeover. She also gets the journalism job that she had wanted even before working at Runway, thanks to the makeover which has given her workplace success. Her successful middle ground symbolizes that she has found her authentic self and is content with it.
Following the pattern of self-discovery through makeover, the film The Princess Diaries (2001) also introduces professional experts to assist the subject. The film revolves around Mia Thermopolis, an unpopular high schooler living in San Francisco. She is often mocked by the popular students at her school and her only friend is Lilly Moscovitz, who is also an outcast. However, her lifestyle undergoes a dramatic change after her paternal grandmother, the Queen of Genovia, visits her to reveal that she is the princess and sole heir of the kingdom of Genovia. Following this revelation, Mia not only has to learn the duties of a princess, but she must also look the part. The queen employs Paolo, a hairdresser and stylist, to recreate Mia’s image, while she teaches her how a princess must behave. This means that there are actually two layers to the makeover in this film; Paolo is responsible for the physical appearance and the queen is
responsible for the etiquette and behavior.
Paolo’s makeover is easier to follow, as it resembles many other makeover scenes with a big reveal at the end. He and his assistants style Mia’s hair, and do her make-up, manicure and pedicure. Paolo remarks that her hair is thick “like a wolf,” nicknames her eyebrows Frida and Kahlo, and then jokes, “If Brooke Shields married Groucho Marx, their child would have your eyebrows.” While she is under his care, Paolo also breaks her glasses, forcing her to wear her less preferred contacts instead. This is an example of the expert’s power over the subject, who has to watch as someone else demonstrates the right choices for her. At the end of the makeover, Paolo
and the Queen are both very satisfied, and Mia smiles with them, but after they leave, she has a brief moment when she looks at herself in the mirror, and it is difficult to read her face.
Figure 3: Mia Thermopolis in The Princess Diaries
Figure 4: Mia's neutral expression when she is alone after the makeover
Not aware of the circumstances, Lilly accuses her of being an A-Crowd wannabe and tells her that she doesn’t know who she is these days. This signifies a loss of individuality and
she is under the monitoring of the experts. The concept of authenticity once again surfaces in the makeover narrative, with different approaches to the “new self.” Lilly thinks that the new self is inauthentic because she assumes that the before-self was authentic. However, Mia doesn’t feel the same way as Lilly. In fact, she seems excited to show off her new style and is disappointed in Lilly’s reaction. This means that Mia disagrees that the before-subject was an accurate reflection of the “true self,” which Lilly claims she has lost. The before-self and the after-self might be at different ends of the spectrum, but this does not signify that one of them is accurately
representative of the authentic self. In fact, as in The Devil Wears Prada, the authentic self is portrayed as being a middle ground, not going back to the non-consumerist practices of the before-self but not being dedicated to all the processes it took to create her after-self. This scene in The Princess Diaries reveals that Mia is not against the transformation, which shows that she is not upset about leaving her old image behind. This hints at the fact that the loss of the before-self can make the character more authentic, not so much so that the before-before-self is completely abandoned as in reality television, but enough to help her move towards the middle ground that is praised in Hollywood.
To “reveal” the princess in Mia, the Queen gives her lessons in how she must conduct herself. When Mia is going to see the Queen for these lessons, she replaces her tights or socks with stockings, and changes from her sensible but clunky shoes into more elegant ones with heels. The fact that she has two different looks, one for school and one for “princess school,” reveals her attempt to balance her new life with her old habits, her new-self and her old-self. Already this hints at the fact that Mia needs to find a middle ground to feel comfortable. In their “princess lessons,” the queen tries to share her expertise on manners and royal etiquette, but is halted by the utter failure of Mia. As a makeover subject, Mia has a hard time replicating the
expert’s teachings and often makes jokes or funny imitations, revealing her untamed personality in an uptight environment. Mia’s behavior at these lessons is also a construct of the clueless American teenager, but is presented as a natural state to highlight the difference between the before and after, as Mia undergoes training to be more refined. Her “natural” behavior is not suitable for a princess, which is why she needs the experts to take the raw material and sculpt it into an ideal princess. However, this sculpted, ideal princess threatens to go too far, as Paolo’s stylistic expertise and the Queen’s lessons seem to take over her life for a while, overwhelming Mia.
There are several mentions of how Mia was “born to be” a princess, which hints at a fantasy of princesshood as a natural state. Although her claims to the title come by blood, Mia’s identity as a princess is constructed by others, which causes her to doubt whether she can manage the same on her own. This reveals a break between the natural and the authentic self. If
princesshood were a natural state, the makeover would be redundant, as Mia would be able to settle into her new duties unaided. Since this is not the case, she questions whether the makeover will break down her natural state entirely, forcing her to fall back on the experts. In this time of doubt, what convinces her to accept the title is a letter from her deceased father, in which he advises her to travel “the road between who you think you are and who you can be.” This can be read as the comparison of the natural self and the authentic self. The natural self is how Mia has lived until now, with a certain idea of who she is that did not allow for much progress. The authentic self is her potential as a princess, because it will provide her the most satisfaction in terms of fulfilling her goals about helping others, making a change in the world, and feeling confident in herself. The bloodline is only relevant in terms of her eligibility. The natural self is eligible for the makeover, but the authentic self is deserving of princesshood.
The fact that Mia is genealogically eligible to take the throne but she needs to be polished before she is presented to the public reveals the classed system in which this makeover operates Aside from the looks, the queen’s teachings show that upward class mobility is possible through education and performance, if one’s natural self is already qualified through blood. To exemplify the education Mia will receive, the queen says, “I can give you books. You'll study languages, history, art, political science. I can teach you to walk, talk, sit, stand, eat, dress like a princess.” This not only hints at the performative nature of princesshood, but also indicates that these are the expectations that upper-class royalty must meet. The middle-class is not required to be
knowledgeable about these topics, as they are not required to sit or stand in a royal manner. The upper class, however, frowns upon ignorance and lack of courtliness. In this context, Mia’s makeover serves as an express course for a middle-class teenager who must bound over several layers of social class in a short period of time.
Class is not always portrayed as clearly as royalty vs. commoner; it can also be replicated in a microcosmic environment. Films that take place in school settings are ideal examples of this. In the class-based makeover, social validation plays an important role, which in high schools usually means popularity. In terms of the social “food chain,” the popular girls/guys are at the top and this means they must be doing something right. This is why this popular class is eligible for the role of the expert, despite not being professionals. This is the case in several films such as Clueless (1995) and The DUFF (2015), proving a trend stretching over 20 years.
In Clueless, the amateur expert is in the lead role. Cher Horowitz is a rich, pretty and popular teenage girl who lives in a Beverly Hills mansion. Her character is based on Jane Austen’s novel Emma and she is always trying to play matchmaker. In a do-good attempt, she befriends Tai, a new girl at school whom Cher thinks is "tragically unhip," and offers her a
makeover. Upon seeing Tai, a fellow student remarks that “she could be a farmer in those clothes” to mock her casual and grungy look. Immediately following this, Cher decides to help her.
CHER: Dee, my mission is clear. Would you look at that girl? She is so adorably clueless. We have got to adopt her.
DIONNE: Cher, she is toe-up. Our stock would plummet.
CHER: Dee, don't you want to use your popularity for a good cause?
The popularity of Cher compared to Tai allows her social guidance to be accepted by both Tai and the audience. Once they become friends with Tai, Cher begins to work on her, teaching her how the social order at the school operates and what she should or should not do. It is Cher who comes up with the makeover plan and Tai rejects it at first, only to succumb to Cher and Dionne’s pleas. Therefore, it is not Tai but Cher who believes that Tai’s appearance needs to change in order to be popular, a goal that Cher set for Tai before even speaking to her. This is important as it reveals that the subject had no complaints about her appearance beforehand nor any intention of becoming a part of the popular crowd. Other than revealing the expert’s influence over the
subject, it also shows how Cher simply assumes that everyone wants to be popular, which is in line with the postfeminist idea of social acceptance as a reward.
The makeover is offered by Cher voluntarily and the transformation scene begins with the following dialogue:
CHER: I've got an idea. Let's do a makeover! TAI: No, no.
DIONNE: Oh, c'mon! Let us! Cher's main thrill in life is a makeover. Okay, it gives her a sense of control in a world full of chaos.
