![\"\"](\"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/gendersexualityandmedia\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2018\/11\/u-g-MMA0-240x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Carmen Miranda: A Subject of Dissection<\/p>\n
In Week 1, we read James Mandrell\u2019s \u201cCarmen Miranda Betwixt and Between, Or, Neither Here Nor There\u201d followed by a screening of The Gang\u2019s All Here. <\/em>In his article, Mandrell argues that Miranda\u2019s character is part of a \u201cgeneral queerness in US culture during the decades following World War II, when this persona achieves a camp apotheosis with the diffusion of television in the 1950\u2019s\u201d. Additionally, he suggests that Miranda eventually becomes a political object used to bridge cultures and identity. This is the point I would like to emphasize and analyze about Miranda.<\/p>\n Carmen Miranda is interesting because she became so welcomed in US households given her reputation in movies and television. She became a household name and bridged entry into a world exclusively white and predominantly male. She became part of a system whose very essence excludes her culture and identity. How did she do it? Rather, why did audiences receive her so well?<\/p>\n I have trouble answering this question because I find a very peculiar hypocrisy in viewership relating to latin characters like Miranda. As a Brazilian and a latina, Miranda\u2019s character is accepted and applauded. Her accent is marveled and she is fetishized in a way white women are not as well as being a product of a male-oriented viewership. This is contrasted by a growing resentment of latinx people in the US during the same time period. While Miranda\u2019s character is laughed at and entertaining viewership inside, the Zoot Suit riots are occurring outside.<\/p>\n Rather than a straight hypocrisy in perception of latinxs, it is more of a selectivity. Viewers are selecting the parts of latin identity that they want to accept as well as the parts of Miranda\u2019s femininity. It takes on notes like these: \u201c I like Miranda\u2019s accent because she is a character I see on TV and I have a semi-ownership of her I don\u2019t like the accents of Mexican Americans living in this country because they are \u201cotherly\u201d and foreign.\u201d<\/p>\n It becomes a dissection. Viewers are dissecting characters and real-life versions of those identities and genders to cater to their view. It is rooted in a power dynamic of oppressed and oppressor. On the side of oppressor is white male (and partly female) viewership who taken upon a pseudo-ownership of characters through their allowance and existence in their screens. Carmen Miranda is given a pass despite her identity to be on screen, so long as she can amuse and remind viewers of their dominance over other countries (in this case, Brasil). Miranda\u2019s representation of the Good Neighbor Policy and her humorous nature allows for U.S viewers to feel some form of safety regarding U.S. \u2013 \u00a0Brazil relations. Though there was never a conflicting nature to these two countries, Miranda alleviates the \u201cotherly\u201d view of Brazil that U.S. viewership exhibits. However, in doing so, caricatures of latinx people and latin women\/women in general are created.<\/p>\n This viewership takes the parts they like and chastise the parts they don\u2019t. Usually these parts are related to similarity. If the character for some reason assimilates to US culture they get a thumbs up but the opposite is true when they character is strongly another culture. We see this in characters like Sofia Vergara welcomed in Modern Family for her very Miranda-like character. The opposite can be seen by just turning on the news.<\/p>\n In terms of gender, viewers are selecting the part of Miranda\u2019s femininity that they like and making fun of the ones that they don\u2019t, or is socially acceptable. Miranda\u2019s promiscuous flirtation is emphasized and gawked at both on screen and on stage in the film. \u00a0This can be seen by the contrast with Mrs. Peyton, who has a show-biz past but is now a loving wife. It is as if the film is suggesting that sexuality does not align with traditional family values and ideals.<\/p>\n What strikes me too is that everything I\u2019m typing right now is not exclusively related to Miranda. She is followed by decades of latin stereotypes and tropes perpetuated in media. Miranda\u2019s character extends beyond itself and reveals a still present selectivity in identities, cultures, and genders that we see on screen. They too now are also used in some grander political context. The society we live in is reflected on screen. Our perceptions and ideas of other cultures, both the good and the bad, are reflected on screen. It is a world primarily aligned with male viewership and comes at the expense of accurate representation. It is a world both reflected and contrasted by the real world. There is power in portrayal and an equal power in viewership.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Carmen Miranda: A Subject of Dissection In Week 1, we read James Mandrell\u2019s \u201cCarmen Miranda Betwixt and Between, Or, Neither Here Nor There\u201d followed by a screening of The Gang\u2019s All Here. In his article, Mandrell argues that Miranda\u2019s character is part of a \u201cgeneral queerness in US culture during the decades following World War … <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/gendersexualityandmedia\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/87\/2018\/11\/MV5BMTM3NjMwOTkxMF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzc3OTMzMQ@@._V1_UY317_CR40214317_AL_-203x300.jpg\")
<\/a>