Little Bobby Hose

When the camera first starts moving in toward a figure lying behind a curtain in Joseph Cornell’s Rose Hobart (1936) it looks as though the subject of the shot is a mildly effeminate male with a moustache. As the camera crawls ever forward, the figure moves and the shadow that once looked like a moustache disappears. It isn’t until the shot changes to a close-up on a candle burning then cuts back to the figure on the bed that we realise we are watching a woman. This is the titular Rose Hobart, object of Cornell’s obsessions. Interestingly, Cornell introduces her to the spectator dressed in a man’s jacket and tie followed by a jump-cut to her in a dress whose thin shoulder straps and gossamer fabric serve to highlight the unusually wide shoulders and hipless body of the actress. Louis Althusser uses the word ‘interpellation’ to define the ‘process whereby individuals respond to ideologies by recognizing themselves as the subjects of ideology.’ Perhaps this is why so many students in the history of this ‘Cinematic Modernism’ course have found it so hard to sit through or appreciate Joseph Cornell’s film.

Cornell made this film as almost a love letter to this woman by whom he was enamoured and I personally find it hard to be able to subjectify myself into this gaze. I’m sure that many other viewers are the same. Watching this woman who has the body of a small boy through such a predatory lens as Cornell forms with his violent cuts as soon as other men appear on screen and the constant overlapping of the image of a rock falling into a pool of water - which in the slowed down style that it is played makes one think of male ejaculate – over images of Hobart’s face is confronting to say the least.

Reading up more on Cornell one can find many other reasons to distrust his intentions. In an article from the New Yorker, February 17 2003 called Sparkings one can read all about his ephebophilic tendencies towards young boys and girls including sending a young girl a tracing of a piece of string he used to measure the size of his penis. I don’t have the space to go into detail on this subject here but the article is very insightful.

After reading the article I wonder how it is that viewers can make themselves subjects of the ideology of a film where predation upon children is veiled in the form of a ‘surreal’ art piece.

Times have changed and my question is this: Could a man such as this be accepted as an Artist in our current moral climate where a school-teacher cannot hug a crying student without the risk of being fired for improper touching? If we look at Michael Jackson we can see a similar situation but the difference is that Jackson never made any of his Fées the topics of his work so it could be seen as easier to appreciate his artistry and separate it from his curious behaviour. I do not wish to know if you would let Cornell look after your children. I’m asking if you think it is right that his work be considered seriously as Art when its topic is an honest exploration of ephebophilic predation? Bring on the ‘Freedom of expression’ debates!

Bibliography Here