Comunicazioni sociali, 2012, n.

1, 136-151
2012 Vita e Pensiero / Pubblicazioni dell`Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
GIULIA PALLADINI
MARIO MONTEZ: AN ARCHIVE OF FEMININITY FOR THE PAST,
AND THE FUTURE
The example oI Iemininity we shall consider in this essay, took shape in an interval oI
desire between a perIorming subject and an audience. Since early 1960s, this peculiar
womanhood inhabited the space oI this reciprocal gaze as an imaginary theatre stage,
continuously Iraming the individual instances oI appearance in which it was enacted. To
this day, the gaze oI new lookers the aIIective space renewed by new spectators is
still the stage upon which one can observe the real` drag Iemininity oI Mario Montez.
Montez was a boy baptized with the name oI Rene Rivera, who moved to Manhat-
tan Irom Puerto Rico in the 1950s with his Iamily. Throughout the 1960s, he became
a star in the theatre and flm circuit oI the New York underground scene, perIorming
in many shows by Jack Smith, John Vaccaro`s Play-House oI the Ridiculous, Charles
Ludlam`s Ridiculous Theatrical Company and in a series oI movies by Jack Smith,
Andy Warhol, Ron Rice and Rodrigo Soltero. Rivera perIormed always in Iemale drag,
bringing Iorth a persona which attracted some interest also beyond the small circuit oI
the underground
1
.
To be precise, the name Mario Montez` appeared only aIter a Iew years Irom the
start oI Rivera`s career: during the series oI tableaux-vivants in which he took part in
1962 in Jack Smith`s Hyperbole Photography Studio (later collected in a series oI pictu-
res in The Beautiful Book)
2
and in his frst flm perIormance (in 1963 Smith`s Flaming
Creatures) the artist made his debut with the moniker oI Dolores Flores. This frst stage
name already evokes a universe oI associations with the an exotic world, and more
precisely with the Iantasy realm oI 1940s Hollywood movies in Technicolor, where
actresses in luxury costumes, oIten wearing exuberant make-up, starred in extravagant
oriental settings. Flaming Creatures, in a sense, was the maniIesto oI a sensibility re-
cuperating this imagery and translating it in an aIIective phantasmagoria, directed by
Smith and perIormed by his closest Iriends, among whom Ieatured other prominent
artists oI the New York scene, such as Judith Malina. Flaming Creatures, Jack Smith`s
frst flm work, became a cause celebre in the history oI the censorship oI 1960s New
York art: the flm was confscated by the police and brought to court aIter its frst scre-
ening, due to the presence oI what were considered outrageously erotic scenes scenes
1
In mid-Sixties some articles devoted to Mario Montez started to appear in New York mainstream
press, see Ior instance A. Weinsten`s review oI Andy Warhol`s movie More Milk Yvette, where Mario Montez
is defned Manhattan`s best known transvestite, A. WEINSTEN, Rages and Outrages, New York Post, 28
February 1966; other prominent articles devoted to the artist are also J. GRUEN, The Underground M.M- Mario
Monte:, Worlds Journal Tribune, 22 January 1967; R. REGENSON, Where Are The Chelsea Girls Taking Us?,
New York Times, 24 September 1967.
2
J. SMITH, The Beautiful Book, The Dead Press, New York 1962.
08_Palladini.indd 136 09/10/12 12:41
MARIO MONTEZ 137
that were in Iact perceived by the majority oI the flm`s spectators as joyIul perIorman-
ces oI tender and sexual gestures between men and women, staged in a dynamic oI
explicit gender-bending, highly charged with a sensibility which, only two years later,
Susan Sontag would defne in a Iamous essay by the name oI camp
3
.
In Flaming Creatures Rivera starrred in the role oI The Spanish Dancer`, and
appeared in a Iemale costume which emphasized his androgynous presence, combining
a highly Ieminine appearance with the masculine traits oI his Iace. The drag outft was
clearly put on Ior the shooting, and throughout his career Rivera as opposed to many
other drag queens active in the 1960s/1970s underground scene, such as Candy Darling,
Jackie Curtis and Holly Woodlawn has always insisted that his drag should be called a
costume, rather than transvestitsm or cross-dressing
4
. In Iact, Rivera didn`t live in drag
in his everyday liIe and wore his Iemale persona purposeIully Ior artistic reasons.
His choice oI acting in drag, thereIore, shall be considered frst oI all an artistic
choice: the setting up oI a stage persona, which exceeded the single character and allo-
wed Rivera to express his perIormative skills in a continuing relation with his audience.
Beyond his gender-bending practice, the quality oI Rivera`s acting was recognized by
the artists who worked with him: according to Jack Smith, Rivera was a unique actor
because he was capable oI catching immediately the sympathy oI the audience and the
same opinion was expressed by Warhol, who aIter 1964 made Montez one oI the major
stars oI his flm production
5
.
However, it would be an error to consider Rivera`s use oI drag in the lineage oI
female impersonators, a tradition with ancient roots in the history oI American show-
business
6
. In that context, male actors would perIorm in Iemale costumes which openly
pointed to their disguise as a stage artifce, aimed at amusing a heterosexual audience
and playing with gender conIusion, oIten in order to emphasize its intrinsic comedy. In-
deed, rather than putting in question a normative representation oI gender and sexuality,
most perIormances by Iemale impersonators worked to reconfrm the stability oI gender
roles: signifcantly, while receiving applause Irom the audience at the end oI the show,
Iemale impersonators used to take oII their wigs, aIfrming with this gesture a ritual re-
establishment oI gender normativity.
On the contrary, Rivera`s drag, although confned to the space oI art and not invol-
ving his every-day perIormativity, stemmed Irom the actor`s sexuality and was deeply
embedded in his tastes and desires. Likewise, Iemininity was never kept at distance
Irom the person who embodied it, neither was it meant to be presented merely as an arti-
fce Ior the audience`s amusement. His drag image was truly believed in` both by Mon-
tez and his audience, but as we shall see it was believed and believable in a system
oI recognition that went beyond plausibility, and involved instead an aIIective drive.
Rivera`s drag persona developed out oI a collaboration with Jack Smith, and it
appears frst oI all as an homage to the actress that both artists worshipped as a sort oI
3
S. SONTAG, Notes on Camp, The Partisan Review, 31, Fall 1964; later republished in S. SONTAG,
Against Interpretation and Other Essavs, Farras, Straus & Giroux, New York 1966.
4
This is reported, Ior instance, by Andy Warhol in A. WARHOL - P. HACKETT, Popism. The Warhol 60s,
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Chicago-New York 1980.
5
Montez starred in Andy Warhol`s Harlot, Mario Monte: Dances, Mario Banana I and Mario Banana II
(1964), Camp, Screen Test II and More Milk Yvette (1965), Hedv, or The Fourteen Years Old Girl and Chelsea
Girls (1966).
6
For an overview on the history oI Iemale impersonation on the American stages, and a detailed analysis
oI the diIIerence between Iemale impersonators and drag queens, see L. SENELICK, The Changing Room. Sex,
Drag and Theatre, Routledge, London-New York 2000.
08_Palladini.indd 137 09/10/12 12:41
138 GIULIA PALLADINI
Iemale goddess: the movie star Maria Montez, by whom the choice oI Rivera`s name is
inspired. Jack Smith, who wrote extensively on his aIIective and aesthetic appreciation
oI the actress protagonist oI The Cobra Woman
7
, was in a sense a maieutic fgure Ior
Rivera, since in his movies the actor Iound shelter Ior the expression oI his desired Ie-
minity, in a shared vision cultivated by both artists since their adolescence and rooted in
their common participation in the 1950s American gay subculture
8
.
Maria Montez, a Dominican actress whose perIormances were generally consi-
dered by flm critics as example oI corny and bad acting, was a central icon in the
pantheon oI Iemale stars celebrated in this social context, and she was appreciated by
her Ians precisely Ior the Ieatures disavowed and ridiculed by the mainstream press: her
capacity to believe` and act out her emotional identifcation with the most unrealistic
Iantasy roles, to became one with the shining and escapistic Technicolor phantasma-
gorias in which her characters the Cobra Woman, Sheherazade, the Siren oI Atlantis
etc. were moving. As Smith put it, Maria Montez believed and thereIore made the
people who went to her movies believe. Those who could believe, did. Those who saw
the Wold`s Worst Actress just couldn`t and they missed the magic. Too bad their loss
9
.
This belieI` was considered by Smith the key to a secret aIIective relation which the
actress just as Rivera would in his perIormances was capable oI establishing with
the audience without the mediation oI a careIully constructed plot and without realistic
oIIers oI identifcation: she was capable oI being appreciated as frst and Ioremost a
visual phenomenon
10
, whose existence on the screen went beyond plausibility and
thereIore challenged representation itselI. In a sense, the Iantasy world inhabited by Ma-
ria Montez was a kaleidoscope oI potentiality Ior the imagination, in which spectators
could enter and suspend, a least Ior the time oI the picture, the supposed reality` oI their
everyday liIe, which especially Ior those spectators who were Iorced to deny their
sexuality in the public sphere oI American society was in Iact much more artifcial
than the exotic Technicolor world inhabited by the star.
Maria Montez participated in a flm culture which started to Iade out aIter the 1950s,
an enchanting world in which according to Smith magic was kept alive and a movie
was not the classically inclined conception oI a strip oI stuII |...| but a place where it
is possible to clown, to pose, to act out Iantasies
11
. In the 1960s this flm culture, along
with its stars, had entered a complete decline, having Iallen out oI Iashion and not yet
having entered a new circuit oI appreciation as an antiquarian cinematic expression. The
flms oI the Technicolor era which in the 1960s were broadcasted on television were
disavowed by Hollywood itselI, since its Studios were clearly proposing new models,
plots and situations in which the magic oI phantasmagoria was substituted with a much
more realistic setting, as well as with another typology oI actors. As oppposed to the
amateurish interpretations oI Maria Montez, many 1960s Hollywood stars were now
trained with a proIessional method, in particular the one elaborated by Lee Strasberg in
7
J. SMITH, The Perfect Film Appositeness of Maria Monte:, Film Culture, 27, Winter/Fall 1962; The
Memoirs of Maria Monte:, or Wait for Me at the Bottom of the Pool, Film Culture, 31, Winter 1963-64.
Further quotations Irom these texts will be taken Irom the later edition oI Smith`s collected writing, J. SMITH -
J. HOBERMAN - E. LEFFINGWELL (eds.), Wait for me at the Bottom of the Pool. The Writings of Jack Smith, High
Risk Books, New York-London 1997.
8
For an analysis oI the 1950s American gay subculture and oI the role oI movie-going in the homosexual
sensibility and identifcation see at least M. BRONSKI, Culture Clash. The Making of Gav Sensibilitv, South End
Press, Boston 1984; R. DYER, Heavenlv Bodies. Film Stars and Societv, Routledge, New York 2004.
9
SMITH The Perfect Appositeness of Maria Monte:, p. 25.
10
Ibi, p. 29.
11
Ibi, p. 30.
08_Palladini.indd 138 09/10/12 12:41
MARIO MONTEZ 139
the context oI the Group Theatre (on the base oI the acting theories developed by Kon-
stantin Stanislavski) and later developed with the Ioundation oI the the Actors Studio
12
.
To better understand the specifcity oI Mario Montez`s use oI drag, it is essential to
take into account the many resonances oI his chosen persona, including on the one hand
the context so Iar outlined the lost wonders oI Hollywood`s Technicolor movies, em-
bodied by the fgure oI Maria Montez and, on the other, the context in which Mario`s
perIormances took place in the 1960s a circuit oI amateur artists: amateurs insoIar
as their artistic work was neither their means oI livelihood nor a craIt Ior which they
were trained according to a proIessional method and amateurs insoIar as they shared
a common Ieeling oI love Ior certain Iorms oI cultural production otherwise considered
debased, passe, and excluded by the public sphere oI aesthetic or cultural appreciation.
These two contexts, as we shall see, constitute what we might call the time and space oI
Mario Montez`s Iemininity.
As Elizabeth Freeman points out, the term drag` has a specifc relation with tem-
porality, which nests in its very etymology: the word drag, in Iact, brings Iorth associa-
tions with retrogression, delay and the pull oI the past upon the present
13
. That is, the
representation oI gender enacted in drag is never in the present tense: it always retains a
backwards-looking Iorce, it presents a hologram oI a gendered image which is no longer
prominent in the public sphere oI visibility, which is out oI Iashion in relation to current
canons oI representation. This has two important consequences: frst oI all, the tempo-
ral lag which drag conveys distantiates the embodied representation Irom the present
oI its enactment, putting in question the very status oI the supposed original` image
which drag would imitate. As Judith Butler Iamously remarked, in Iact, drag proposes
a gendered image put in quotation marks presented almost as a quotation without an
original and in so doing exposes the very artifciality oI gender as a cultural construct.
In Butler`s words:
When a man is perIorming drag as a woman, the imitation` that drag is said to be is taken as
an imitation` oI Iemininity, but the Iemininity` that he imitates is not understood as being it-
selI an imitation. Yet iI one considers that gender is acquired, that it is assumed in relation to
ideals which are never quite inhabited by anyone, then Iemininity is an ideal which everyone
always and only imitates`. Thus, drag imitates the imitative structure oI gender, revealing
gender itselI to be an imitation |.|
14
.
Second, and more important in relation to our case, iI we hold as Elisabeth Freeman
proposes that drag can also drag in` an actual past (in Freeman`s words: the genuine
past-ness oI the past)
15
, the out-oI-Iashion gendered image will be re-produced as a
memory image an image, that is, which is not obliged to conIorm to an original, but
which nevertheless carrys an aIIective attachment to historical instances oI appearance,
that might be conjured up and projected onto one`s body Ior specifc reasons.
Mario Montez`s drag image did not re-produce Maria Montez`s appearance, inso-
Iar as it didn`t imitate her costumes or moves with archaeological fdelity, but rather in-
corporated her Iemininity as an act oI love. Her Iemininity, on the other hand, was alrea-
12
The Actors Studio was Iounded in New York in 1947 by Elia Kazan, Cheryl CrawIord, Robert Lewis
and Anna Sokolow.
13
E. FREEMAN, Packing Historv, Count(er)ing Generations, New Literary History, 3 (2000), p. 728.
14
J. BUTLER, The Psvchic Life of Power. Theories in Subfection, StanIord University Press, StanIord
1997, p. 145.
15
FREEMAN, Packing Historv, Count(er)ing Generations, quot. p. 728.
08_Palladini.indd 139 09/10/12 12:41
140 GIULIA PALLADINI
dy constructed` as a Iantasy image back in the moment oI its frst appereance: Montez`s
public persona the star coincided in Iact with her exotic characters, overlapping in
a continuum oI Iairy-tale representations oI womanliness, which in themselves denied
any resemblance to the idea oI an actual woman`. Incorporating Maria Montez`s wo-
manhood, thereIore, meant frst and Ioremost incorporating a Iemininity which, in a
sense, was always already in drag`. Maria Montez`s Iemale image says nothing oI the
images (not to mention the conditions) oI women in 1940s America, and seems rather
to belong to an a-temporal other world, a domain oI Iantasy Ieaturing no actual re-
Ierence to any historical time or space (the imprecisions in the reconstruction oI exotic
environments in Montez`s movies is itselI signifcant in this respect) and inhabiting a
Iantastical landscape. This Iantasy world, in a way, could be compared to the realm oI
Oz, in which Judy Garland (another prominent gay icon oI 1960s subculture) perIormed
in the role oI Dorothy in the 1939 flm version oI The Wi:ard of O:.
Employing the word incorporation, with reIerence to Rivera`s relation to Maria
Montez`s Iemininity, I am interested in conjuring a specifc set oI resonances Ior the
term, namely those explored by Judith Butler in her discussion oI Freud`s notion oI me-
lancholia in relation to gender Iormation
16
. According to Butler, in melancholia (under-
stood as a Iailure in the process oI grieving a lost object oI desire) incorporation works
as a way oI preserving the attachment to the lost object in the Iorm oI an identifcation,
which is literally taken on` by the subject as something physical, something which
survives in and on the body. Butler reads this mechanism as proIundly relevant to the
process oI gender Iormation, suggesting that in everyone the desire Ior same sex love
perceived by the child as something prohibited and thereIore mandatorily excluded as a
choice is an aIIect remaining in the unconscious as something never grieved Ior, and
is thereIore transIormed into a melancholic identifcation. In other words, according to
Butler, both masculine and Ieminine genders are Iormed also Irom the reIusal to grieve
a same sex partner as a possibility oI love, a possibility that in cases oI heightened Iorms
oI heterosexual masculinity or Iemininity is preserved` through a perIormance oI one`s
own supposedly biological gender, which is in Iact an incorporation oI a disavowed at-
tachment
17
. In her analysis, Butler identifes drag as a key fgure Ior this process, insoIar
as, while disclosing the distinctly imitative structure oI gender itselI, it also allegori:es
the melancholia instrinsic in heterosexual identifcation.
I am interested in calling upon Butler`s refection on melancholic incorporation not
(or not primarily) to suggest that Maria Montez`s highly Ieminized image discloses an
unresolved grieI Ior same-sex love on the actress` part: Iurthermore, such an assumption
would unjustifed, since her star image was oI course careIully constructed by Hollywo-
od Studios. However, the same process might be considered to have been at stake in the
case oI Mario Montez, Ior whom the system oI production oI his drag persona largely
contributed to his personal identifcation. ThereIore, I draw upon Butler`s thought here
to suggest a reading oI Mario Montez`s incorporation as a creative perIormance oI a
collective melancholia a melancholia preserving not Rivera`s individual attachment to
a lost object (Montez), but rather that oI the scene in which the artist participated in - and
which, moreover, enabled his perIormances to take place: the 1960s New York under-
ground. A scene (whose members belonged Ior the most part to the generation which
came oI age in the 1950s) which regarded Hollywood movies oI the 1930s and 40s as a
16
BULER, The Psvchic Life of Power. Theories in Subfection.
17
Ibi, p. 164.
08_Palladini.indd 140 09/10/12 12:41
MARIO MONTEZ 141
key reIerence point Ior its process oI Iormation and not only in relation to gender. In-
deed, the melancholic relation that the 1960s underground developed towards the Iaded
glory oI a specifc trajectory in Hollywood cinema also contributed to the development
oI an artistic sensibility, which is largely recognizable in its flm and theatre practice.
I wish to suggest that the melancholia oI this scene Iound in Montez`s drag one
oI its allegories but only insoIar as we welcome this latter term in its potentiality oI
culture-making work. As Freeman suggests, in Iact:
Allegory is the Iorm oI collective melancholia. Melancholia is inward, and involves the
preservation oI the lost object as an aspect oI one grieving person`s subjectivity. But allego-
ry traIfcs in collectively held meanings and experiences, pushing the melancholic`s rather
solipsistic introjection back outwards in order to remake the world in a mock-imperialist
gesture: its narrative 'cure can never be merely personal
18
.
As I shall articulate in the next session, considering Mario`s drag as an allegorical fgure
Ior the 1960s underground scene may disclose the subtle mechanism by means oI which
in that context both gender and genres underwent a melancholic process oI incorpora-
tion. In Iact, in the 1960s underground scene, drag` Iunctioned frst oI all as the tactical,
aIIective appropriation oI Iorms, through their physical embodiment or production as
modes oI perIormance. It was a tactical procedure which had nothing to do with archae-
ological fdelity, nor with the attempt to recover a supposed original matrix` Ior those
Iorms. Rather, Irom the standpoint oI this appropriation, drag Iunctioned as a possibility
Ior articulating both new horizons oI meanings Ior these Iorms, and a critique oI the
ways in which these Iorms had been historically produced.
Although Mario Montez`s drag persona developed primarily in association with
Jack Smith`s work, this Ieature can be observed most clearly in a couple oI perIorman-
ces in which Rivera took part in 1965 outside oI the collaboration with Smith. These
works a flm by Andy Warhol (Screen Test II) and a show by the Play-House oI the
Ridiculous (Screen Test) both based on a script by the playwright Ronald Tavel bear
almost the same title, and are signiIcantly interconnected. Likewise, they are not only
interconnected with Montez/Smith previous collaboration, but indeed they seem to
drag in` this collaboration, as an already nostalgic echo. In a sense, Montez`s collabora-
tion with Smith (initiated only a Iew years beIore) already resurIaces in these two works
as a melancholic incorporation.
1. SCREEN TEST II
Between 1964 and 1966 in the space oI his studio the Factory Andy Warhol shot
a series oI 472 flm portraits, later called and currently known as Screen Tests. The
screen test was built on simple rules: a still camera, a three-minute long flm, a plain
background and a centered subject in the Irame, asked to sit as still as possible. Con-
Iounding the expectation the term screen test` might usually produce its Iunction as
an audition Ior a movie to come Warhol`s screen tests are, in Iact, selI-accomplishing:
they do not evaluate any oI the abilities which a screen test would normally measure,
and are not subordinate to a fnal work.
The series oI screen tests was on the one hand an experiment in portraiture, a
genre which Warhol had explored since the 1950s by means oI diverse media such as
18
FREEMAN, Packing Historv, Count(er)ing Generations, pp. 733-734.
08_Palladini.indd 141 09/10/12 12:41
142 GIULIA PALLADINI
painting, silk screening and photography; on the other, it was closely connected with the
cinematic practice initiated by the artist a Iew years earlier, Ieaturing a number oI silent
flms Sleep (1963), Eat (1963), Kiss (1963), Haircut (1963), Blow Job (1964) all
Iocusing on a single action perIormed by one or two actors in a long take. The hybrid
Iorm oI the screen test was an attempt to capture more than a picture: it matched the
stillness oI a close-up image with duration, as iI the temporal presence oI the portrayed
subject could spread precisely in this space in between, in the interval where the genre
oI portraiture is dilated and contracted at the same time and thereIore seems to open a
space Ior perIormance.
Warhol`s screen tests project was well known in the context oI the 1960s down-
town art scene: many artists and perIormers had been invited by Warhol to pose Ior a
flm portrait, and others had happened to fnd themselves involved in one, accidentally,
during a visit to Warhol`s Factory
19
. It is in this context that in 1965 Warhol conceived
the idea oI a flm entitled Screen Test I, in collaboration with Ronald Tavel. This was the
period in which Tavel a young playwright who had taken part in Jack Smith`s Flaming
Creatures and would later briefy become one oI the core members oI the Play-House
oI the Ridiculous started writing screen plays Ior Warhol`s cinema, contributing to
a substantial development in the artist`s flm practice with the introduction oI loosely
structured plots and dialogues
20
.
The set-up oI Screen Test I was the same oI the other flm portraits, but the duration
oI three minutes this time was expanded to one hour, and the subject oI the flm Philip
Norman Fagan was asked to respond to the gaze oI the camera not only with his image,
but also with words. The whole project was based on a loose scenario written by Tavel,
and conceived so as to leave open great space Ior improvisation: the movie restored the
original Iunction oI the screen test` as a narrative device, and it was presented as an au-
dition oI Fagan (Warhol`s boyIriend at the time), interviewed by the voice-oII oI Tavel,
pretending to be the director oI an imaginary movie testing a potential candidate Ior the
main role. From an initial Iriendly attitude, in the course oI the movie Tavel solicited
Fagan to talk about embarrassing episodes oI his liIe, a provocation that the latter was
clearly not willing to take up. Due to Fagan`s reluctance to expose himselI and contri-
bute to this improvised play, the flm was considered by Warhol and Tavel a complete
Iailure, and it was never projected publicly until many years aIter Warhol`s death
21
.
The two artists decided to repeat the same experiment with another subject and
only fIteen days aIter Fagan`s Screen Test I, they invited Mario Montez to be the pro-
tagonist oI another audition`, later presented as the movie Screen Test II. The whole
movie is Iounded on a substantial ambiguity, which is never completely clarifed in
the course oI the flm, nor in later accounts by the three artists involved, who seem to
have chosen to keep this ambiguity alive: was Mario conscious oI participating in a
staged audition, or did he think he was undertaking an actual screen test Ior a Warhol
movie?
22
Although Warhol`s flms were not mainstream and none oI the actors was paid
19
On Andy Warhol`s screen tests collection and the social dynamic oI its production and Iruition, see
Callie Angell, Andv Warhol Screen Tests, The Film of Andv Warhol Catalogue Raisonne, 1, Whitney Museum
oI American Art, New York 2006.
20
Warhol`s flms based on Tavel`s screenplays are: Harlot, Screen Test I, Suicide, Screen Test II, Horse,
Jinvl, Kitchenette, Hedv (all shot in 1965), Hanoi Hannah and Their Town, episodes oI Chelsea Girls (1966).
21
Screen Test I is now available in the flm collection oI the Museum oI Modern Art in New York and
in the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh.
22
In the introductory note to Screen Test II screenplay, published on Ronal Tavel`s website (www.
ronaldtavel.com), Tavel himselI points to this ambiguity, conIessing that he Ielt uncomIortable Ior a long time
watching the movie, since he acknowledges that the experiment was an ordeal Ior Montez. However, reIerring
08_Palladini.indd 142 09/10/12 12:41
MARIO MONTEZ 143
Ior perIorming, participating in a movie by Warhol was surely an opportunity Ior Mario
Montez to make himselI known in a bigger circuit than beIore, and the confdence with
which the actor undertakes the screen test` and replies to Tavel`s questions certainly
points to this interpretation.
In Screen Test II Montez appears with a gypsy costume, a black wig and a bandana
on her head. As mentioned during the movie, this is the costume oI Esmeralda, the
protagonist oI Notre Dame de Paris, the movie Ior which Montez was supposedly au-
ditioning. However, the costume also recalls Rivera`s previous appearances, in Smith`s
and Rice`s movies, with which Warhol and Tavel were very Iamiliar and which are in
Iact immediately evoked at the beginning oI the movie. Tavel asks: Now, Miss Montez,
I`d like you to tell me a little about your flm career. What movies have you appeared
in? |.| What kind oI roles did you play? How do you Ieel about these kinds oI roles?
Were you satisfed with the perIormances you gave?
23
. Montez is thereIore solicited to
speak about her actual career, precisely as would a star presenting her curriculum vitae
to show that she is suitable Ior a role. During the movie, the star is tested precisely as
iI` she was undertaking an audition, although in many oI the requests articulated by
the voice-oII one can clearly perceive an ironic agency: Montez is asked to pronounce
some lines (mostly Irom Hollywood 1940s movies)
24
, to act out emotions through Ia-
cial espressions, to perIorm small scenes, most oI which are quite peculiar (dancing a
gypsy dance with her head, imagining herselI to be a Iemale geek and biting the head
oI a live chicken, seducing several types oI men, pretending to be sitting on a bottle and
spinning etc.). Montez happily accepts all these tests, and she is encouraged by Tavel`s
oII-screen voice, which keeps congratulating her on her perIormances and confrming
the studio`s intention to cast her in the role oI Esmeralda. The star`s genuine enthusiasm
Ior perIorming the numbers requested by the Tester, is literally exposed by the camera
and contrasts strikingly with the detached irony oI the voice-oII. Finally, the process oI
exposure heads to a dramatic climax, when Tavel asks Montez to Iace the last test:
TAVEL: Now, Miss Montez, will you liIt up your skirt and unzip your fy?
MONTEZ: What?
TAVEL: Go ahead, I said, unzip your fy...
MONTEZ: That`s impossible!
TAVEL: Miss Montez, you have been in this business long enough to know the Iurthering oI
your career oIten depends on just such a gesture...taking it out and putting it in: that sums (up)
the movie business. There`s nothing to worry about, the camera won`t catch a thing. I just
want to get the gesture with your hands. This is very important. Your contract depends on it.
And now look down, look at it, boy, look at it...
Zipper your fy halI way up and leave it sticking out. That`s good, that`s good, good boy,
good boy. Take a look at it, take a look at it please. I want to see how it looks like to you.
MONTEZ: How does it look like to you?
TAVEL: It looks Iairly inviting, as good as any. Will you Iorget about your hair Ior a mo-
ment? Miss Montez, you`re not concentrating.
MONTEZ: It`s really senseless what you are asking me. I must brush my hair.
25

to this Iundamental doubt haunting the movie, Tavel himselI declares we shall never have a satisIactory
answer to this question (Screen Tests, p. 1).
23
From Screen Test II script, available on www.ronaldtavel.com, p. 1.
24
In Tavel`s introduction to the script oI Screen Test II, the author specifes the movies Irom which the
flm reIerences come Irom: Nightmare Allev (1947), Gipsv Wildcat (1944) e Sudan (1945).
25
I have reported this passage Irom my own transcription oI the sequence, since in Tavel`s script
Montez`s replies are missing, being them improvised.
08_Palladini.indd 143 09/10/12 12:41
144 GIULIA PALLADINI
The unmasking` oI the star appears on the screen as being as eIIective and disturbing, as
it is unexpected: a real coup de theatre. Indeed, the camera doesn`t catch a thing, but
it immortalizes Montez`s reaction, which is that oI a puzzled disappointment. As iI the
shared play in which both parties had been engaged throughout the whole duration oI
the movie, had been suddenly interrupted by an outside power, capable oI reestablishing
a principle oI reality` over the Iantastical identifcation oI the star over the belieI`
which, in a sense, connected Mario`s persona to that oI Maria Montez, a belieI com-
ments Tavel in his notes that 'he was in a scene that it was not a movie-shoot at all,
but the real thing``
26
.
In a Iamous essay signifcantly entitled Mario Monte:, For Shame, Douglas Crimp
devotes a detailed critical analysis to Screen Tests II, reading Tavel`s fnal coup de
theatre in the light oI a strategy oI queer identifcation, which the scholar identifes as
a core Ieature oI all Warhol`s 1960s flm work
27
. Crimp draws on the epistemological
Irame proposed by Eve KosoIsky Sedgwick, and especially on her ground-breaking
analysis oI shame` as a distinctively social aIIect, which, while projecting abjection on
a subject, perIormatively produces her identity
28
. According to Crimp, Mario Montez in
Screen Test II can be considered a key fgure oI this aIIect: in many oI Warhol`s writ-
ings, he points out, the artist reIers to Montez as poor Mario, stressing the Catholic
origins oI Rivera and his embarrassment in practising cross-dressing, even iI only Ior
artistic purposes. Furthermore, Crimp continues, the humiliation oI Montez in Screen
Test II is careIully constructed by Warhol and Tavel: two homosexual men who perIorm
here a normative male power, capable oI casting shame on the transvestite actor by
breaking the illusion oI his believed Iemininity`, an illusion which the movie itselI had
contributed to enhance; or more precisely, as Tavel himselI suggests, the ordeal might be
read as a gay man`s real-liIe projecting |...| his selI-hatred onto a blatantly deIenceless
transvestite
29
.
In reacting to Tavel`s unexpected unmasking, Mario is clearly aIIected, and the
very uneasiness experienced by the star on the screen is directly transmitted to the spec-
tator. It is precisely in this contact, according to Crimp, that the aIIect oI shame is not
only produced but also mobilized, and ends up turning the situation upside down. That
is: the shame projected onto Mario Iunctions not to cast him as an abject fgure, but,
instead to move` the spectator towards him, to involve the spectator as someone poten-
tially subject to the same condemnation, and thereIore capable oI identiIying with the
protagonist even in the absence oI any perceived resemblance. In Crimps` words:
Warhol Iound the means to make the people oI his world visible to us without making them
objects oI our knowledge. The knowledge oI a world that his flms gave us is not knowledge
oI the other Ior the selI. Rather what I see, when say, I see Mario Montez in Screen Test =2, is
a perIormer in the moment oI being exposed such that he becomes, as Warhol said so real.
|...| We remain there with our disquiet which is, aIter all, what? It is our encounter, on the
one hand, with the absolute diIIerence oI another, his or her so-Ior-realness, and, on the
other hand, with the other`s shame, both the shame that extracts his or her so-Ior-realness
Irom the already Ior-real perIormativity oI Warhol`s perIormers, and the shame that we
26
TAVEL, Screen Test II, p. 3.
27
D. CRIMP, Mario Monte:, for Shame, in S. BARBER - D.L. CLARK (eds.), Regarding Sedgwick. Essavs
on Queer Culture and Critical Theorv, Routledge, New York-London 2001.
28
E. KOSOFSKY SEDGWICK, Epistemologv of the Closet, University oI CaliIornia Press, Berkeley1990; ID.,
Touching Feeling. Affect, Pedagogv, Performativitv, Duke University Press, Durham, 2003.
29
TAVEL, Screen Test II, p. 1.
08_Palladini.indd 144 09/10/12 12:41
MARIO MONTEZ 145
accept as also ours, but curiously also ours alone. I am, thus not like Mario, but the dis-
tinctiveness that is revealed in Mario invades me foods me to use Sedgwick`s word
and my own distinctiveness is revealed simultaneously. I, too, Ieel exposed
30
.
Crimp`s essay is surely a pivotal reIerence Ior unIolding the complexity oI Screen Test II
beyond its appearance as a mere exercise in cruelty, and it is true that this complexity
can be Iully grasped only by considering the enacted audition` not as an event in itselI,
but in a specifc relation with a potential spectator. From the beginning oI Screen Test
II, the spectator (especially the one already Iamiliar with Montez`s and Warhol`s pre-
vious work) is conIronted with several levels oI theatricality. The movie`s title seems to
suggest that this project stems out oI another, longer artistic practice the flm portraits
called screen tests` which, as we have seen, already perIormed a detournement on the
traditional structure oI a flm audition, detaching it Irom a horizon oI evaluation. Screen
Test II, however, conIounds the idea that it might be a Iurther phase oI that project, and
unexpectedly reinstates the standard meaning oI the expression screen test`, claiming
thereby to perIorm a diIIerent Iunction Irom that oI the flm portraits; claiming that it is
actually testing a perIormer Ior a Iorthcoming movie project. However, this expectation
is also Irustrated, and the testing process in Screen Test II turns out to be nothing but a
narrative decive, or more precisely a cunning plan Ior achieving an even more radical
Iorm oI exposure`. ThereIore, the movie takes to its logical extreme the operation pro-
posed in the flm portraits. Screen Test II is in Iact a long take (the flm lasts 70 minutes,
and as usual with Warhol`s work has no editing) on a subject, who is during this time
exposed` as the very image oI herselI that she aspires to record Ior posterity. Isn`t this,
in Iact, the attitude present in all other flm portraits? Isn`t it the desire oI everybody
posing in Iront oI a camera? Isn`t this perIormance oI appearance a way oI aIfrming
one`s reality` beyond any Iear oI Iailing to resemble our Iuture or past appereances, our
Iuture or past selves? Isn`t a recorded pose a personal theatre in which to quote again
Jack Smith`s description oI a crucial quality oI 1940s movies it is possible to clown,
to pose, to act out Iantasies
31
?
Overall, then, Screen Test II is itselI a Iorm oI drag`: it is a flm disguised as an
audition, itselI disguised as the Iorm oI a Warhol flm portrait a Iorm which was in
its turn disguised as an audition. At every level oI this drag perIormance`, not only
there is no original re-produced, but in the process oI deconstructing the adopted Iorm,
the social history oI this Iorm is put under a critical revision. In this operation, while
dragging in` reIerences to a lost Hollywood (that oI 1940s movies, evoked through
Montez`s own image mediated by Smith`s and Rice`s previous movies as well as
by the lines borrowed Irom the movies), Screen Tests II exposes both the standard me-
thod oI proIessional recruitment in cinema (with the Tester as someone holding a male
power, which can be turned into a sadistic ordeal) and opens space Ior an amateurish
perIormance which seems to recuperate the Iantastic belieI associated with Hollywood
actors oI the 1940s. Or more precisely: the way this belieI` appeared to a generation oI
spectators who took pleasure in identiIying themselves in these phantasmagoric worlds.
A world whose implausibility could and would never be put in question by the irruption
oI an outside assertion oI reality`, but which in Iact were cast into oblivion precisely
by the irruption oI reality` inside cinema itselI (in the Iorm oI new modes oI acting and
mise-en-scene). Secondly, the movie seems to suggest the possibility oI reading the
entire screen tests collection as an experiment in exposure`, where Warhol challenges
30
CRIMP, Mario Monte:, for Shame, p. 67.
31
SMITH, The Perfect Film Appositeness of Maria Monte:, p. 30.
08_Palladini.indd 145 09/10/12 12:41
146 GIULIA PALLADINI
the genre oI portraiture in an explicit theatrical direction: having erased the authorship`
oI the portraitist (reduced to the mechanical eye oI a camera) every sceen test becomes
a stage in which Ior a certain time lag a dielectic tension is put into play between appe-
arance one believes in` and the possibility that this image might Iail to be asserted Ior
posterity. This perIormance, however, knows no technique, and stands outside oI any
possibility that it might be evaluated in proIessional terms.
Mario`s Iailure` to protect his Iabulous womanliness at the end oI the picture,
might be nothing but the Iailure to which any oI the subjects portrayed in Warhol`s Scre-
en Test was subfect. Finally, Screen Test II seems also to suggest a quite explicit critique
oI the position oI woman not only in Hollywood imagery, but also in the mode oI pro-
duction oI the flm industry itselI. Not by chance, Tavel`s request to have Mario Montez
show him his genitals is proposed as a quotation oI a supposed standard` audition pro-
cedure, staging the relation between an actress and a director, a relation which as the
oII-screen voice suggests any starlet who has been in the flm business long enough
should know very well. Tavel`s line summarizes and reiterates a stigma perpetrated Ior
centuries on the fgure oI the actress in the history oI perIorming arts, a prejudice un-
dermining not only her social respectability, but also her proIessional commitment and
skills. Along with Mario`s supposed real gender`, what is unmasked in the fnal coup de
theatre is thereIore also a long-lasting cliche in the history oI perIorming arts, which in
the 1960s was enduring well beyond the seemingly liberated representation oI women
on the screen, not to mention their conditions in American society.
II Montez`s drag can be considered an allegory oI a melancholic relation to a cer-
tain Hollywood on the part oI the 60s underground, then Mario Montez`s unmasked`
drag, in a sense, Iunctions as an allegory oI Hollywood itselI, in its constituent Ieatures -
and the word allegory here seems to correspond to the Iunction attributed to it by Walter
Benjamin, who frst articulated a detailed account oI the meaning and use oI this fgure
in his study oI German tragic drama. Allegory, he writes, obliges the observer to
conIront the facies hippocratica oI history as petrifed, primordial landscape. Everything
about history that, Irom the very beginning, has been untimely, sorrowIul, unsuccessIul,
is expressed in a Iace or rather, in a death`s head. And although such a thing lacks all
symbolic` Ireedom oI expression, all classical proportions, all humanity nevertheless, this
is the Iorm in which man subjection to nature is most obvious and it signifcantly gives rise
not only to the enigmatic question oI the nature oI human existence as such, but also oI the
biographical historicity oI the individual
32
.
The image oI Mario`s Iace in Iront oI the unmasking oI his drag persona, in his screen
test`, might be said to retain and allegorize a complex set oI Iailures in the history oI
perIorming arts, including not only gender and womanhood, but also labor, modes oI
production and, ultimately, ways oI asserting reality`.
2. SCREEN TEST
Whether or not Mario Montez was aware oI the ordeal prepared Ior him in Screen Test II,
there is evidence that the actor not only did not interrupt his collaboration with Warhol
and Tavel, but also welcomed a Iurther articulation oI the screen test` project, agreeing
32
W. BENJAMIN, The Origin of German Tragic Drama, Verso, London 1998, p. 166.
08_Palladini.indd 146 09/10/12 12:41
MARIO MONTEZ 147
to participate in a stage version oI the same script a Iew months later, in September
1966. The show was presented in a double-bill combination with another play by Tavel,
Indira Gandhis Daring Device, and it was staged in the frst venue oI the Play-House
oI the Ridiculous, a loIt on East 17
th
Street in New York. The dialogue which in the mo-
vie emerged Irom the improvisation between Tavel and Montez, in the play becomes a
standard script, and it is proposed as the basic text Ior the play, which was nevertheless
subject to Iurther improvisations on the stage. This time, Montez was not alone on the
scene, but the Tester was now visible to the audience, and his role was played by the
actual director oI the show, John Vaccaro. ThereIore, in the stage version oI Screen Test
II, presented with the title oI Screen Test, the original roles had been somehow reorgani-
sed: Tavel, originally the author and the agent oI Montez`s humiliation, now perIormed
the sole role oI playwritght, entrusting Vaccaro the task to perIorm the cruel Tester.
John Vaccaro, on the other hand, was especially suitable Ior this role, not only because
he was in Iact the director oI the Play-House oI the Ridiculous, but also because oI his
cantankerous temperament: he was Iamous Ior outbursts oI rage and Ior conficts with
his actors. In a sense, then, in Screen Test not only Mario but also Vaccaro perIormed
more or less the public persona Ior which he had come to be known in the 1960s under-
ground scene, and this element added a new level oI cruelty to the show. The original
unmasking` sequence in the stage version oI Screen Test had clearly only very minor
eIIects in terms oI the reality` oI Montez`s reaction, since it was now incorporated into
the script; however, the perIormance oI Vaccaro was here much more theatrical than the
cold, detached tone oI Tavel`s voice-oII, hence the cruelty oI the audition was expanded
and present Irom the beginning oI the show in the staged confict between the starlet
and the tester. In a sense, the relation between the two characters was here much more
theatrical, instead oI relying on the theatrical device oI an unexpected surprise.
It is remarkable, in this respect, that the duration oI Screen Test was in Iact varia-
ble: sometimes Vaccaro would react with anger in Iront oI Montez Iailing, according to
his judgement, to propertly perIorm a scene, and the show was suddenly brought to en
end aIter only halI an hour; other times, the show would go on on until the end oI the
play, sustained by lively exchanges between the two actors. A Iurther element was also
introduced to the play: beyond Vaccaro and Montez, a third actress was present on sta-
ge: a woman positioned behind Montez and who, throughout the duration oI the show,
would silently reproduce the postures that Vaccaro asked Montez to perIorm. None oI
the reviewers reports the name oI this actress, and her presence is not always mentioned,
a Iact which suggests that she was not always present in the show
33
. Her presence, as
much as Vaccaro`s, seems to introduce a Iurther element oI theatricality into the perIor-
mance, as iI Montez`s exploited Iemininity was made explicit by means oI the shadow
oI a real` woman, whose Iunction was to double the identity-play captured by the show,
as well as to highlight the masculinist dynamic driving the audition.
In addition to these new elements introduced into the stage version oI Screen Tests
II, during the run oI the play a Iurther, unexpected circumstance occurred contributing
to add a new level oI improvisation to the whole show. Again, it was a coup de theatre,
which caught both Montez and Vaccaro unawares: Charles Ludlam, a young actor who
had recently joined the Play-House oI the Ridiculous and played minor roles in its pre-
vious productions, unexpectedly broke into the scene dressed up as Sunset Boulevard`s
33
See Ior instance J. LE SUER, Theatre. Two Plavs bv Tavel, The Village Voice, October 13
th
1966;
D. ISAAC, Ronald Tavel. Ridiculous Plavwright, The Drama Review, 13 (1968), 1.
08_Palladini.indd 147 09/10/12 12:41
148 GIULIA PALLADINI
protagonist Norma Desmond. The episode is reported by Ludlam`s biographer David
KauIman:
Oh John, what are you doing? Don`t let me interrupt you Ludlam coyly purred, as iI he
were Swanson and Vaccaro were Cecil B. DeMille in the Billy Wilder flm. Remember the
times we used to have down on Second Avenue, John? ...Oh, please don`t let me interrupt
you. Continue with your screen test. ReIerring to Montez and still in character as Norma
Desmond, Ludlam said, Oh, she isn`t getting it, let me help her John as he proceeded to
execute Vaccaro`s directions. In true Ridiculous Iashion, Vaccaro and Montez instantly got
into the spirit and played along to winning eIIect
34
.
The irruption oI Ludlam/Desmond was right away incorporated into the show, and im-
mediately became a regular unexpected` interruption. Throughout the run oI the play
Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard a star oI the silent movie era, who had Iallen into
decline with the advent oI sound pictures and lived as a ghost oI her own glory kept
pretending to be the wise actress instructing Montez on how to accomplish the acting
tasks requested oI him: all tasks, oI course, not entailing vocal expressions, since she
was IaithIul to the silent movie era. Sunset Boulevard was oI course another beloved
reIerence point Ior the 1960s underground scene, and it was thereIore part oI a shared
vocabulary not only Ior the artists involved in the show, but also Ior most oI its specta-
tors. Ludlam reports to have Iound in Norma Desmond not only a fgure, but the access
to a specifc way oI acting:
I went on as Norma Desmond with absolutely no preparation. BeIore that, I`d needed weeks
oI rehearsal Ior any part. It changed my liIe. The disguise, the costume, Ireed me, made me
do things I could never have done myselI. For me acting was always a chore-research etc.
but with Norma I Ielt I could walk on with Hedda Gabler tomorrow. It would just come
through. |...| It`s that teetering edge oI being a man and a woman that throws the audience.
I believe that I am Norma. And they recognize her. She`s an archetype. Everyone thinks it`s
a diIIerent actress
35
.
The expression archetype` is here employed by Ludlam to claim the indisputable re-
cognizability oI Norma Desmond; and indeed, according to the etymology oI the term,
the archetypical quality oI images rely on the possibility to assert an origin` (arche) on
which a model (tvpos) is not only Iormed, but may in Iact be reproduced. As opposed
to Mario Montez`s drag persona whose origin` was lost in a stratifed complexity,
entailing a collective attachment to an actress who encompassed in her appearance all
oI her characters and a stratifed memory oI Mario`s own perIormances Ludlam`s drag
Iunctioned as a virtuoso reproduction oI a character whose reality` was not in question:
it was itselI a parody oI a immeasurable belieI` in the possibility oI an image in time`
to stand still. Indeed, it is remarkable that while embodying a powerIul image oI the si-
lent movie Hollywood, Norma Desmond was in Iact a product oI a 1950s movie, which
itselI thematized Hollywood`s melancholy and as it were its own inability to drag
itselI` over time.
In a way, this passage could be considered as a programmatic declaration in re-
34
D. KAUFMAN, Ridiculous' The Theatrical Life and Time of Charles Ludlam, Applause, New York
2002, p. 57.
35
C. LUDLAM (S. SAMUELS ed.), Ridiculous Theatre. Scourge of Human Follv. The Essavs and Opinions
of Charles Ludlam, Theatre Communication Group, New York 1992, p. 13.
08_Palladini.indd 148 09/10/12 12:41
MARIO MONTEZ 149
lation to Ludlam`s career, which Irom that appearance on developed Iully not only as
an actor, but also as a playwright and a director. A Iew years aIter Screen Test Ludlam
Iounded his own company, the Ridiculous Theatrical Company, separating Irom Vac-
caro`s Play-House and bringing with him some oI its actors, including Mario Montez.
In his subsequent work, Ludlam explored Iully the potentiality oI this approach to the
construction oI character, experimenting dramaturgically and perIormatively with what
he defnes as an archetypical` quality oI stage images.
Montez, Ior his part, continued to play in theatre and flm until the end oI the Se-
venties, and then abandoned his artistic career. In 1977 he leIt Manhattan and moved to
Florida, leaving behind the Mario Montez persona as well as the scene that had constitu-
ted her shelter. Furthermore, by that time the 1960s underground scene understood as
the social and artistic Ierment which gave rise to the collaborations observed in Flaming
Creatures, Screen Test II and Screen Test was slowly Iading out, frst oI all because
oI the many ruptures among its participants: to mention only the most Iamous, besides
the break-up between Vaccaro and Ludlam, also Tavel abandoned the Play-House oI the
Ridiculous, and soon took his distance Irom Warhol, accusing him oI having stolen his
ideas and credited them as his own; something similar happened with Jack Smith, who
developed a very protective relation towards his work and abandoned his collaboration
with the other artists discussed here. Secondly, during the Seventies the amateurish arti-
stic experiments developed in the underground had slowly started to become valuable in
mainstream show business, and in some cases supported by institutional Iunding, which
led to a Iragmentation oI the individual experiences and a condensation oI the time and
space in which Iantasies could be played out` at the margins oI a system oI evaluation.
Overall, what seems to have dissolved in the 1970s was the sense oI participation in a
generation`, understood not only as a common belonging in terms oI birth date and
common imagery, but also as a social group that conscious and willing to be generating`
Ior itselI a common imagery. In this new context, Montez who throughout these years
had kept having a day job, and was increasingly tired oI struggling to make a living in
New York, sneaking in his artistic work in the night hours didn`t fnd his place anymo-
re, and leIt, leaving behind only the memory oI its allegorical fgure.
3. THE COMEBACK OF MARIO MONTEZ
Over the last thirty years, many legends circulated about the destiny oI Mario Montez
aIter his departure Irom New York. Some suggested that Rivera had moved to a comple-
tely new liIe, married and raised children, reIusing to acknowledge a star named Mario
Montez
36
. Many oI the members oI the 1960s underground and Montez`s collaborators
(including Smith and Ludlam) passed away during the Eighties, mostly due to the AIDS
virus that especially in New York largely aIIected the gay community and the down-
town art scene. Other Iormer Iriends had completely lost contact with him, and some
even maybe thought he had died in the meantime. One day, the flmmaker Mary Jordan,
during her research Ior the documentary Jack Smith and The Destruction of Atlantis
(2009), posted an ad on the Internet, looking Ior Rene Rivera aka Mario Montez. And,
almost out oI blue, Rivera in person replied, saying he was alive and in good spirits, and
curious to fnd out that there was an interest Ior him and his 1960s work.
36
This is, Ior instance, the version proposed by Tavel in the introduction to Screen Test II, p. 5.
08_Palladini.indd 149 09/10/12 12:41
150 GIULIA PALLADINI
Indeed, what the 76 year-old Rivera Iound out, to his great surprise, was that in the
last twenty years the movies he had starred in had circulated, widely and acquired a cult
status and large Iollowing oI Ians. Even more surprising Ior Rivera was to learn that his
perIormances had become an object oI interest in academic scholarship: his comeback`,
Ior instance, was welcomed with a large conIerence held at Columbia University, invol-
ving scholars Irom diverse backgrounds (such as Gender and Ethnicity Studies, PerIor-
mance Studies, Queer Studies etc.) in a conversation about Montez`s artistic work
37
.
Interviewed by the New York Daily, Montez declares himselI to be overwhelmed
by this sudden attention in the academic world: maybe in a dream I was expecting
something like this to happen
38
. He talks with simplicity about his collaboration with
Smith, Warhol, Rodrigo Soltero, Ludlam and Tavel, explaining the supposed mystery
oI his disappearance with a straightIorward proIessional` reason: in late 1970s in New
York it had become harder to fnd jobs, and since he had never been able to support
himselI through his artistic practice, nor was able to continue pursuing his amateur acti-
vity without economic stability, he had decided to move to a warmer place, where rents
were lower and it was easier to get employment.
Rivera`s comeback`, however, did not constitute simply an acknowledgment oI
his undervalued 1960s perIormances, but also the possibility oI a new beginning Ior the
Mario Montez persona, who suddenly started to receive proposals oI artistic collabora-
tions: among them, a series oI re-enactments oI the 1960s Warhol`s movies in collabora-
tion with the artist Conrad Ventur, among them a screen test`, that is: the three-minute
long flm portrait Warhol shot in the Iall oI 1965, a Iew months aIter the movie Screen
Test II. According to Ventur, Mario is the utmost proIessional
39
: he undertakes the
labor oI getting into costume`, oI re-staging the images oI the past, oI putting on the
Mario Montez image with the same belieI` which moved his labor oI love thirty years
ago. Paradoxically enough, then, the amateur activity which never granted him a salary
and which he fnally had to give up, now guarantees Rivera a place and a proIessional
status` in a world which with no doubts went through many changes over time. A world
in which the trajectory in which he participated the 1960s underground scene has
entered a process oI re-evaluation, which could be either read as a melancholic incorpo-
ration, or a belated incorporation in the realm oI show-business.
Either way, in this world Mario not only lingers on his youth Iantasy, but has in Iact
the possibility to reIormulate his persona in the light oI a diIIerent mode oI attachment.
Interestingly, when asked what other golden-era flm stars inhabit his personal pantheon,
Montez promptly places side by side with Maria Montez, the actress Gloria Swanson,
protagonist oI Sunset Boulevard: In a way, I`m going through a similar period myselI
at the moment
40
. AIter a glorious career as a silent movie actress, Swanson had in Iact
almost disappeared Irom the Hollywood realm Ior almost twenty years, until in 1950 the
director Billy Wilder selected her Ior the role oI Norma Desmond, which constituted the
37
The conIerence, held in March 2010 at the Center Ior the Study oI Ethnicity and Race at Columbia
University, was entitled Superstar' A Tribute to Mario Monte:.
38
C. RODRIGUEZ MARTORELL, Columbia U. Holds Tribute to Mario Monte:, a Boricua Drag Performer
from Warhols Era, New York Daily News, March 30
th
, 2010, http:/nydailynews.com (article accessed on
March 16, 2012).
39
The project oI this re-enactments is realized by Montez in collaboration with the video artist Conrad
Ventur, see: Video Artist Conrad Ventur on Mario Montez, The L Magazine, http:/www.thelmagazine.com,
June 28th, 2011 (article accessed on March 16
th
, 2012).
40
M. ANDERSON, The Return of Mario Monte:, The Village Voice, November 9
th
, 2011, http://www.
villagevoice.com/ (article accessed on March 16
th
, 2012).
08_Palladini.indd 150 09/10/12 12:41
MARIO MONTEZ 151
vehicle Ior a memorable comeback`. Not by chance, the comeback` was the obsession
oI the character oI Norma Desmond, whose tragic destiny in the movie seems to lay
precisely in her inability to let go` her own beloved image, to be Irozen in a past who
could not be dragged in` an actual proIessional employment, but was in Iact haunting
her existence and consuming her to death. In a sense, we could suggest that the character
oI Norma Desmond was haunted by her own origin, by the arche which constituted the
core oI her archetypical image.
In Mario Montez`s comeback`, today, we see the signs oI time interIering with
the perIection oI her original` image, which is not archetypical, but exists as a memory
image Ior many oI his spectators; we see the Iatigue and the enthusiasm Ior re-enacting
a Iemininity which drags in` two distant, interlocking and phantasmagorical moments:
the 1940s age oI Technicolor, and the 1960s underground scene. We see a body at work,
a body which today can no longer be considered an allegory, but rather an archive oI
aIIects and visions which modelled a desired and labored image oI Iemininity, which
exceeds the time and space oI its representation, and projects its belieI` into the Iuture.
We see the biographical historicity oI an individual who in his gesture oI love continues
to deny the very idea oI Iemininity as a mere possibility oI representation, and opens the
space Ior a Iuture phantasmagoria, where desire might invent gender anew and color it
with Iabulous shades, beyond any power or principle oI reality`.
RIASSUNTO
Il saggio si concentra sull`attore drag Mario Montez, una stella nella New York underground degli anni Ses-
santa. Attraverso una ricerca storiografca e un`analisi dettagliata di due opere del `65 aventi Montez come
protagonista il flm dal titolo Screen Test II di Andy Warhol e lo spettacolo teatrale Screen Test della Play-
House oI the Ridiculous il testo discute del particolare essere donna dell`artista, che va oltre la rappresen-
tazione della Iemminilita come mera categoria astratta, e che anzi coinvolge il desiderio e l`immaginario della
sua intera Iormazione artistica. Il drag di Montez e raIIorzato da una rete di riIerimenti iconografci stratifcati
e condivisi, riadattati sulla base di spinte aIIettive personali. In generale il testo rifette sulla momentaneita del
travestimento, inteso come pratica perIormativa ed aIIettiva, come modo per re-inventare sulla scena Iorme
appartenenti all`immaginario collettivo.
SUMMARY
The essay Iocuses on the drag perIormer Mario Montez, a star oI the 1960s New York underground scene. By
means oI a historiographical survey and a detailed analysis oI two 1965 works Ieaturing Montez as protago-
nist Andy Warhol`s movie Screen Test II and the show Screen Test by the Play-House oI the Ridiculous the
essay discusses the specifc womanhood embodied by the artist, going beyond not only the mere representa-
tion oI Iemininity` as an abstract category, but also encompassing the desire and imagery oI an entire artistic
Iormation. Montez`s drag persona is nourished by a stratifed network oI shared iconographical reIerences and
recombines them in the light oI a personal aIIectionate attachment, as well as oI a critical elaboration. Overall,
the essay refects on the specifc temporality oI drag, understood as an aIIective and perIormative practice, as
a tactical procedure Ior reinventing Iorms oI the scene and oI the collective imagery.
08_Palladini.indd 151 09/10/12 12:42