Final Girls Get Medieval…an open threadPosted: October 29, 2013 Filed under: History, just because, open thread, SDB Evening News Reads | Tags: edith head, fashion, horror movies, medieval queenship 26 Comments
Hey, I have wanted to get back to writing the evening read threads…last night Dak beat me to it. Tonight here is a quick post on a the topic of women…horror flicks and medieval queenship.
First a video treat, a little tribute to some of those favorite Final Girls from horror movies past. A Video Tribute to Horror’s Best ‘Final Girls’ — Vulture
If you’re a lady and you’re in a horror flick, there’s no higher honor than being the Final Girl. It’s a title reserved for a female character who outlives her companions, takes on the big bad killer, and kicks his/her/its butt into oblivion (or at least into the next sequel). Film theorist Carol J. Clover coined the term in 1992, but Final Girls have been wielding knives, running through hallways, and delivering killing blows since at least the seventies. With Halloween around the corner, we put together this rockin’ tribute to some of Hollywood’s greatest Final Girls, from Jamie Lee Curtis to Neve Campbell and beyond. Stab on, ladies!
Go to the link and check it out…I think they are missing a few whack jobs, but it is fun to watch.
Next up, this blog post about how fashion icon Edith Head influenced the Hitchcock Heroine and later, the fashion of today. From the GlamAmor blog: Interview with ELLE CANADA on Influence of the Hitchcock Heroine + Film Noir Style | GlamAmor
To those who follow GlamAmor, it will come as no surprise that the style of film noir and the Hitchcock Heroine act as ongoing influences in fashion. Edith Head, costume designer extraordinaire best known for her work with Alfred Hitchcock, is a hero of mine and huge influence on my own style. Rear Window was an absolute vision to me (and many others) and Edith followed it with more iconic work such as To Catch a Thief, Vertigo, and The Birds. Edith and Hitchcock had a near perfect partnership for their similar visions of style–clean lines, tailored fit, and controlled pops of color. Though femininity was becoming much more overt and revealing in the 1950s, both felt that suggestions of sex should be subtle and left largely to the imagination.
That is just the first paragraph, go see the rest at the link….cool pictures too.
And finally…from Medieval.net: Queenship in Medieval Europe, by Theresa Earenfight
An excerpt from Queenship in Medieval Europe:
The hundreds of articles and books published since 1993 clearly show that far from being ancillary, queens were fundamental to the smooth running of a realm. A queen was more than just a ruler or a mother, so much so that she needed an adjective to clarify precisely who she was and what she did. A queen who governed in her own right might be called ‘female king’, ‘sole queen’, or a ‘female monarch’ who exercised ‘kingly power’ or ‘regal power’, or an ‘autonomous monarch’. She was a queen-consort when she married a king, a queen-mother when she bore his children, a queen-regent when she governed for or with her husband and possessed ‘female sovereignty’. When her husband died, she was queen-dowager. To complicate matters, a queen could be some, or all, in sequence or simultaneously.
Only a regnant queen or empress stood alone. All other queens stood beside a king. A queen-consort’s proximity to the king was central to her identity and all that she did as queen. When she was physically where the king was, his acts and decisions could be approved, mediated, or contended by the queen – because custom and tradition accepted that the queen was a partner in governing the realm, no matter what form the partnership took. As a regent or lieutenant, she stood in his place while he was physically elsewhere. A queen was a nexus between a king and his subjects, a symbol of how royal dynasty can create social cohesion and form alliances.
But, just as queens embodied the unity of realm or people, they also embodied the same forces – family, foreign birth – that might tear that unity apart. It was a precarious spot, situated both inside and outside official power, that placed queens-consort in a perilous position during a crisis. They were easy scapegoats for disgruntled enemies, or for anyone more interested in self-protection than guarding the realm or the royal family. There is no more vivid sign of the power of proximity than when a king orders the exile or imprisonment of a queen.
That is an excerpt from a book Queenship in Medieval Europe | Theresa Earenfight | Macmillan If you look on the Medieval.net link you can see a coupon code for 20% off…in case anyone is looking for something to read on these chilly fall nights.
This is an open thread.