Montgomery Clift, Queer Star

1. Montgomery Clift and Queer Theory

one Montgomery Clift and Queer Theory The Need for a New Critical Approach The existing scholarship on Montgomery Clift presents many valid and enlightening arguments; at the same time, it appears limited in scope, and often shortsighted in its analysis. Clift’s subversive function was vastly more complex and spanned a much longer period of his career than is usually acknowledged. Critical analyses of his star persona and performances have been inadequate on three major points. Firstly, their general indifference to Clift’s films made after 1956, films that are replete with oppositional meanings. This indifference effectively equates sexual and gender subversion to youth, beauty, and overt erotic display. Secondly, Clift’s disruptive screen presence has been narrowly explained, in terms of fixed notions of homosexuality and bisexuality . Thirdly, the qualities and articulation of Clift’s sexuality have been acknowledged only in terms of passive self-offering and overt sexual drive. There are far-reaching implications in this critical stance. To identify social subversion in Clift only when young and sexy means, ultimately, to endorse an extremely conservative view of dissent: any deviant identity linked to age, to a less-than-perfect face and body, and to ill health and pain, has been cast out or censored, because of its chapter 1 12 uncomfortable connotations. This process of elimination points to an alarming hierarchy of subversion, and to such a limited appreciation of social and human possibilities—not to mention cinematic material— as to amount to critical bigotry. Montgomery Clift’s career continued into the 1960s, and these films amply reward the scrutiny for textual and subtextual disruptions of dominant cultural codes; despite being and looking older, and having lost much of his beauty, Clift radically challenges normative notions of masculinity and heterosexuality. His entire career, therefore, can be seen as the continuous, though varied, articulation of the same disruptive function. The only academic monograph on Clift to date is Amy Lawrence’s The Passion of Montgomery Clift, an impressively researched work that explores the cultish appeal of Clift’s life and star persona.1 Lawrence’s project is concerned with the making of the Clift legend, which is significantly based on notions of tragedy and undeserved suffering; she interestingly compares it to religious discourse, and to the narrative and visual iconography of sainthood and martyrdom. Lawrence’s book is remarkably informative and originally argued; it offers insightful, close analyses of Clift’s performances, which are brought to inform her general thesis. While she necessarily considers the often-made claim that Clift was a subversive figure, her approach is rather aimed at debunking this notion: she strives to expose the fan discourse grown around him, and its ramifications, as semimythological constructs. Indeed, her critical take on Clift strips him of significations that may appear exceptional , apart from the recognition of his superb skills as an actor; the book uses this solid approach fruitfully, although it does not foster a full exploration of the meanings inherent in Clift’s work. Overall, Lawrence’s book marks an important acknowledgment of Montgomery Clift’s place in film and cultural history; as a critical text, it locates itself firmly on the side of deconstruction, concerned with revealing the structure of Clift fandom. The majority of the other scholars working on Clift have, on the whole, focused on his subversive impact and function; while there is a consensus on the essential factors that make up the star’s disruptive image, the scope of these analyses has been strikingly limited. Most of these critical accounts focus, almost overwhelmingly , on Clift’s preaccident career, covering his films up to and including From Here to Eternity. Clift’s ambiguity is always read as ex- Montgomery Clift and Queer Theory 13 pressing a homosexual or bisexual meaning; however, even when the term “bisexual” is used, Clift’s engagement with female characters is rarely discussed or deemed relevant. Steven Cohan has provided a notable contribution, devoting to Clift a significant section of his book Masked Men: Masculinity and the Movies in the Fifties.2 Cohan’s perceptive assessment, largely based on textual analysis and contextual references, can be seen as the prototype of accounts of Montgomery Clift as “the beautiful boy.”3 Indeed, the concept of the “boy” is absolutely central to Cohan’s examination of Clift as a performer and signifier. Beginning his discussion by quoting an article by the columnist Sidney Skolsky in 1957, Cohan highlights...