customers.)nExcept for their human and female credibility, nothingnabout the movie women I loved in my adolescence — notnthe way they talked, looked, dressed, or lived — remindednme much of the women in my own life. That is, it was notnnecessary to identify with them in order to understand them.nThose women, and their movies, were for me the oppositenof current film fare: they reflected reality without realism.nBut I was yanked out of the black-and-white past by thenpopularity of Marilyn Monroe, a phenomenon that was asndifficult to miss as it was to understand. Monroe was notnabout reality, or realism either. She was a fantasy figure whonwas not worth the eflbrt it took to suspend disbelief Thenpleasure of her cinematic beauty was always spoiled by hernfilm persona. She was insulted on screen by people BarbaranStanwyck would have had for breakfast. Rotten men tooknadvantage of her, and good men had to find charity in theirnhearts in order not to. By her own choosing, she was laughednat, not with.nToday, of course, Monroe is a feminist icon, an actressnwhose private life is supposed to add poignancy to hernscreen persona, a woman whose image as a “dumb blonde”nrouses feminist ire. Why this is the case is a mystery to me.nMarilyn Monroe was a dumb blonde, and made everynpublic effort, in movies and out of them, to project herself asnsuch. For taking her at her word, “society” is now implicatednin her death, just as “society” is implicated in her death fornnot taking her at her word. For Monroe, we are now told,nalso wanted privacy and wished to be taken seriously for hernmind, two needs the public would not honor. Unless you arena feminist desperate to fill your victim list, it hardly needsnpointing out that a woman who desires privacy and intellectualnrespect places “society” in a real bind when she puts onna flesh-colored dress and publicly coos “Happy Birthday” tonthe President of the United States.nFeminists now exploit Marilyn Monroe’s vulnerablenessnas shamelessly in death as sexist men exploited it in life,nrevealing in the process what modern feminism has nevernunderstood: most women consider the experience of womanhoodntoo important to be politicized and the subject ofnfemale abuse too serious to be romanticized. MarilynnMonroe had gone from sex object to political tool, and thenlatter makes her seem no less pathetic, no less “used,” thannthe former.nOnce a phenomenon, an image, a symbol has beennexplored and reexplored ad nauseam, there is nothingnleft but to find the current “logical extension” of thatnphenomenon, image, or symbol. Many would argue that thenlogical extension of Marilyn Monroe is Madonna, anothernoverfly sexual performer, but one for a liberated age, anwoman in “control” (the word used endlessly) of her life,nher career, and her “art.” The first flaw in the Monroe-to-nMadonna theory is, of course, that Madonna is not a movienstar — she has no film identity. The big screen is stillnunmatched as a vehicle for creating or revealing anpersona — a vehicle for capturing charisma — and Madonna’snacting ambitions prove she knows it. (And sorry, butnself-starring documentaries do not count.) The secondnproblem is that Marilyn Monroe was not intellectualizednuntil after her death. As a living actress and a movie star, shenbelonged first to her audience. Madonna is a rock starturned-socialnevent, and her initial audience, which wasnmade up of adolescents, has been replaced, for her image ifnnot her recordings, by professional feminists, who lovendisplays of female sexuality without “vulnerability” (it evensnthe score for Marilyn); by the media, who are easy marks fornany performer who lacks the nerve (or the creative imagination,nor simply the talent) not to shock; and by a collection ofnlightweight social observers who require nothing more thannthe trigger of a celebrity’s “contradictions” to becomenintellectually engaged. This audience shift is importantnbecause it is doubtful that the discretionary income ofnprofessional feminists, journalists, or intellectuals is spent onnMadonna records.nTo realize how irrelevant Madonna is becoming tonadolescents, one need look no further than The HollywoodnReporter’s description of her documentary Truth or Dare asna box-office “disappointment.” If the movie was a commercialndisappointment, it was because kids did not flock to seenit; and if kids did not flock to see it, it is probably becausenthey do not care anymore, if they ever did, whether it isn”truth” or not. Adolescents want their rebels to exist withoutnconditions, and Madonna’s professional pose becomes morenconditional all the time: while she will permit an audience tonbe pleased by her, it is beneath her to want to please. Thosenconditions may inspire feminists and fascinate intellectualsn(and explain, by the way, why Madonna is so bad atncomedy), but sooner or later most kids just want to dance.n• It is now for America’s mature thinkers, from those at thenNational Review to the ones at the New Republic, tonexplore the “meaning” of simulated masturbation onstage,nand a breathless nation can only await the further dispensationnof their insights. (The Middle East, the recession, racenrelations. Madonna. Makes sense to me.) In the meantime,nthe problem for living legends is that they can dissipate theirnown mystique; they have the capacity to disappoint, tonalienate, and, most dangerous of all, to bore. When itnhappens to Madonna, she — and the mature thinkers — willnbe the last to know.nAfter twenty-five years of feminist culturalninfluence, this is Hollywood’s first BignStatement for and about women; death isnnot so bad when you share it.nIf Madonna is not the logical extension of MarilynnMonroe, who is? If you saw the movie Thelma and Louisenyou have the answer. Thelma and Louise is about two dumbnwomen — redheads this time, not blondes. Yes, they areninsulted by people Barbara Stanwyck (and Madonna too)nwould have had for breakfast. Yes, rotten men take advantagenof them; and if good men do not have to find charity inntheir hearts in order not to, it is only because there are nongood men. (Screenwriter Gallic Khouri has stated that hernmovie “isn’t hostile toward men. It’s hostile toward idiots.”nSince most “serious” movies, including this one, arennnMARCH 1992/19n