The endeavor is to explore how cinema, and more specifically, entertainment films influence cultural values, moral judgments and behavior based on the normative content and iconographic level of influence on a character in a specific set of films. These films are well known and popular whereas their influence on the development of values has not been typically recognizable.

First, specific gender established icons will be evaluated based on how these figures have influenced morality by their own private persona, and the character that they played in the specific film of inquiry. Secondly, an evaluation will be performed to determine whether there are gender differences based on character values and if these values can be attributed to the spectator.

Furthermore, an attempt to systematically pursue an answer to the questions: Does iconography specifically influence individual ideology? And does someone’s individual set of values reflect social-cultural values?

Consider Breakfast at Tiffany’s a 1961 American film starring Audrey Hepburn. Audrey Hepburn’s portrayal of Holly Golightly as the naïve, eccentric socialite is generally considered to be the actress’s most memorable and identifiable role.

Hepburn as Holly, carrying a cigarette holder, is considered one of the (most) iconic images of the 20th century American cinema. Teenage girls and even most women admire and envy Hepburn’s character. An industry devoted to Breakfast at Tiffany’s memorabilia exists in an effort to sustain that image. What is it about that image that has captured the attention of audiences for over four decades?

Holly was not a morally pristine character. The nature of Holly’s livelihood in New York is never explicitly stated, rather it is implied that she makes a living by providing well-off men with platonic company. Essentially, she was an elite call girl who frequently was portrayed in a state of inebriation, engaged in late night squabbles or returning home in the morning from more late night social engagements.

A part of her character appeal is her distinctive carefree lifestyle that exudes a senses my mystery, which tends to be seen as exhilarating, exciting, and very different from the everyday life of most anyone.

In a frank and blunt analysis, Holly exploits most everyone, either for money or simply as her playthings. However, in her defense, she did not use these people out of sheer hatefulness nor greed, but instead out of necessity. She survived childhood as a runaway, without an obvious formal education that would provide a career to take care of herself.

She is not a good person, but she most definitely is an image of the type of woman not prominent in the 1950s era. Is this an image of appeal? Why is Holly liked so much despite her lack of conventional morals? Subsequently, does like-ability govern moral character?

There are those who justify her alcoholic and amoral tendencies as glamorous and the appearance of holding up appearances. This is psychologically dysfunctional behavior. This dysfunction is prominent in the lives of many current celebrities who “live” a Holly Golightly life style at the cost of their moral integrity. 

While young girls perceive that Holly leads a glamorous life and they seek to emulate her behavior; they lose their integrity. Instead I have come to understand that integrity is a characteristic that is possessed by few young adults because it is difficult to maintain. Integrity is a conscious and consistent decision that needs to be made on a minute-to-minute base. Integrity is a conditioned reflex to do the right thing each and every time a challenge presents itself. Integrity is not achieved, not handed out, not bought, not stolen, and not borrowed.

What is ironic about the iconography of Hepburn’s image in Breakfast at Tiffany’s is that Truman Capote, who sold the film rights of his novella to Paramount Studios, wanted Marilyn Monroe to play the role of Holly Golightly in the film. Marilyn was always his first choice to play the girl, Holly Golightly. When Hepburn was cast instead of Marilyn, Capote remarked: ‘Paramount double-crossed me in every way and cast Audrey.’”

It is hard to imagine the iconic image of Marilyn Monroe in The Seven Year Itch (1955) or Some Like it Hot (1959) playing the role of Holly and having as much of a lasting impression that Hepburn gave the role.

These two actors cannot be more different in the physical way that they look and the image that they sought to convey in their films. Marilyn was a blond and Audrey was a brunette. Marilyn was known for her sultry curves, whereas Audrey was impeccably tall, slender and sleek. Metaphorically, Marilyn was diamonds and Audrey was pearls. And yet at the same time, I do not think that the film would have had the same impact on the culture if Marilyn played Holly. How or would this have changed the iconography of the film? That is a thought experiment that would imply changing cultural history. However, it is worth mentioning my own personal views, Monroe’s iconic status probably would not have been impacted if she played the role because she was already an established icon from her previous roles, also based on the fact that her career was already in full swing and her status was already becoming a recognizable image. Rather Breakfast at Tiffany’s was more of an iconic achievement of Audrey Hepburn and this film owes its iconography to the memorable images of Hepburn as a classic lady.

If we shift gears with this in mind: How does the iconography of a film influence the moral character of the individual that does the idolizing of the film characters? If we consider the conceptualization of opposite iconic figures, Marilyn Monroe in Gentleman Prefer Blondes (1953) and Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, again these women and these images could not be different and they yet they are equally iconic.

I am not trying to decipher what it is that made these images iconic rather recognizing that they are I seek to understand the type of person that would idolize one figure over the other. The virtues that they seek to cultivate are apart of the characters that they have learned to value. Both of these characters have both good and bad traits about them, is it possible for somebody that uses them as a role model to systematically pick and choose which traits they wish to develop for their self?

A moral value judgment regarding a differentiation between virtue and vices is a dialectical process of self ascription of values. Does this happen without known force behind our actions and behavior? Are we so unaware about our own personal psychology that media relieves that tension of a vacillating mind in an effort for the spectator to circumvent the self and adopt a filmic persona?

Granted it is conventionally believed that one should not hold any sort of figure up as a false idol to be worshipped, but that does not mean to say that it is unacceptable to look up to something or someone and esteem it with value. Rather, this is how value is created in your life, by having a good role model.

A role model serves as a character placement whose virtues are admirable and good that would like to be esteemed and valued as virtues of ones own. First, a conception of the particular virtues that are valued needs to be assessed and secondly, assimilation and alignment of the particular virtues that are valued by the host begins with behavioral manipulation. How do role models function in character/moral development?

To a certain degree, Holly is a role model for a reason, she is honest with the audience about her flaws and does not claim moral perfection. The audience sees her as she is and the lifestyle that she chooses to lead at the beginning of the film. A judgment is placed on her and her lifestyle when things come into question, and ultimately the character breakdown comes when not only the audience realizes her faults but when Paul verbally confront Holly about her psychologically dysfunctional motives and behavior.

In a sense, she creates her own reality, a pseudo-reality that seeks to defy convention, but is not utterly unconventional or a part of a higher convention. She is the way that she is because she avoids asking why it is the way that she is? This is idolize because acting or being like this type of character is easy. It is easy and comfortable to avoid things that are difficult to confront. Adopting this mindset comes with a price; the virtue of film is that there is an ending. The audience is left to interpret and construct what was left open ended, making it difficult to create a completely round character to follow. Similarly, Lorelei Lee, Marilyn Monroe’s character in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes can also be interpreted a model worthy of good behavior. Lorelei is a beautiful show girl that knows the power of her sensuality. She uses her charm to manipulate men to get what she wants. When material goods fail to satisfy her wants she seeks marriage, not necessarily a bad thing, but becomes a matter of question when the man that she pursues is phenomenally wealthy. What makes both of these characters potential role models is level of reality depicted in their human characteristics. Neither of them can be considered entirely good and impossible to emulate, rather the good outweighs the bad in their characters. It is easy to overlook their character flaws because the beauty that they exude masks the impurity of their intentions. It is on the value system of the beholder to evaluate the precise reasons why that image, person, lifestyle, etc is valuable. And if those reasons or justifications fail to be satisfactory, or adequate, or worthy of value then that is to say what is valuable and what is not? And again this leads back to a reevaluation of values. However, it has already been brought up that reasons are relative and unreliable. Such a process is self-reflexive and not readily undertaken. Having a role model, allows the host to circumvent their self on the basis of any sort of evaluation of values that would be an assessment of the values that their role model holds. Are girls more susceptible to having cinematic role models than boys?

This question leads to presuppose that a woman can only follow the example of a woman and equally a man can only have a man as a role model. Granted, there is some level of truth to this assumption but it fails to consider the man that might idolize a woman like Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany’s or Marilyn Monroe in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes either for the same level of self-emulation or self-reference that a woman might have towards these characters. And this conception of a man includes both hetero and homo sexual men and yet it does not matter the sexual orientation because that would mean to include hetero and homo sexual woman in the aforementioned analysis, but sexual orientation does not signify or express a virtuous or amoral character type. Ultimately, the strife of a sense of self is universal. We are in a day and age where gender identification is superficial and yet readily apparent. It is almost as if gender differences cease to make a difference because of the universality of human emotions. Gender equality has brought on the notions of various human commonalities as a commodity of life that is shared. We could consider a character like James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause to a symbol of male stoicism, but that would be pigeon holing the amount of character identification for that idolized figure.

The self is stuck in itself. The question that begs to be answered is: how do you get to know yourself? You are with yourself all the time; there is no escaping yourself, except through an outlet like dreams and/or film. I wonder if it’s possible to introduce yourself to yourself in your dreams. I wonder what I would be like. I wonder how my two selves would differ? Not just as separate temporal conceptions of you, like yourself as a child that meets yourself now but rather, one self now and another separate self now. It is interesting to think about what I might think about myself, in a first impression sort way?

To avoid a regression, let me more clearly state the self-reflexive predicament: where do we derive value? It can come from an internal capacity, which we have already eliminated as being unreliable out of an unclear conception of the self that can be superceded by a character figure. So, can value come from beliefs and/or desires? Are beliefs and desires separable? They almost seem reciprocal to me. For example, consider the following simplistic outline of an argument:  I believe I like Joe. Therefore I desire Joe. If I desire Joe then I believe I like Joe. However, to believe I desire is a desired belief. Can you aspire to have certain beliefs? And if you do, then when do you attain them? It appears to be an act of subverting your own reality in an effort to alter your own belief system, which can be both a good or bad thing depending on the circumstances. In my particular case, when I went about to reevaluate my code of ethics, I was subsequently placing a value judgment on my behavior and esteeming it to be deriving negative value in my life. To subvert my behavior I had to evaluate why it was I was behaving the way that I was. In so doing, I forced myself to separate my beliefs from my desires. I sought to understand what my current belief system was, understand why it changed, and understand what I wanted it to be—I formed add desired belief. By doing so I separated my desire to drink with my desire not to drink or drink more responsibly, which creates a new belief system. This is a daunting task for anybody because it takes the virtue of strength of will.

Let me intentionally circumvent this dilemma that I have created and go back to the example that I began this analysis with—Breakfast at Tiffany’s. At a pivotal moment in the film, Holly breaks-down before the audience, the veneer of glamour that was constructed throughout the film becomes apparent that it is an illusion that was constructed by herself for the audience. Her real psychology reveals that she is really just a broken soul for she has distanciated/distantiated herself from herself, an effect of distancing or estranging. Consider the following exchange:

Living in fear can be a fearful thought. How do you cope with bottomless fear? Fear of a fear of life—is a self-reflexive fear of life. The repercussion of not living your life to the fullest is a dire thought. If you know that you know that you fear the fear of not achieving your potential, where do you begin to counteract such a belief? And when does the need arise or when does it become apparent that the power to change is not just an internal reification rather an external manifestation of change. And what does this manifestation look like? Well it is probably different for everybody. And anybody that would have such a difficulty with life is only in the position to judge whether a change has taken place because the change is internal. If we internalize our burden or our life in general, what are gaining from such reflection? So we sit in silence and think. Silence is a mark or void in space that acts like a temporal roadmap of your thoughts. You can derive knowledge from reflection, but can you derive self-knowledge from self-reflection?

The medium of film, allows for an escape from reality, so does television, computer or video games, and to some degree art. We strive for moral character but not as an end, rather as a means to an end, which is the wrong way of acting. Our actions should be consciously governed by the value system that is inherently constructed by our beliefs, desires and virtues. However, these constituents usually remain subconscious for most at best. It is daunting the thought of being able to tap into your subconscious. I think we did there would be a lot more self-satisfaction in the world. But instead, as Shakespeare’s Othello states, “self-isolation as an act of self-preservation leads ultimately to self-destruction.” The act of reflection does not have to be an act of isolation. Society should be more aware about how media influences their ethics. It is a fact that it does. It does not mean that violence of television produces violent people; rather time should be taken to get to know yourself, because otherwise you are going to look in the mirror ten years down the road and not know your own reflection. Self-reflection yields self-knowledge when adequately performed.