Being a passionate lover of film, it pains me to admit that mainstream cinema predominately showcases genders and their individual traits poorly. There are many different portrayals of men, but I shall discuss three: The hyper-masculine approach (ie. Rambo); the suave ladies’ man (ie. James Bond); and the goofball (ie. 90% of males in comedy...I’ll choose Kevin James for now).
NOTE: There are good films out there that portray men in a realistic light, and I want to make it clear that I believe stereotypes can be used for good, but for the purposes of this entry I would like to focus on what film is doing to perpetuate what Byron Hurt calls “the box.” I will be opening Hurt’s “box” up to a wider inclusion of more than hyper-masculine hip-hop culture, but to the other ways in which we trap men into a socially acceptable presentation of masculinity.
Over the years we have seen an evolution of masculinity, but the underlying issues are the same, they’ve just progressed. Within the realm of hyper-masculinity, let us take Rambo as an example -- I know, I know, easy target, right? Well, deal with it. The first Rambo film, First Blood (1982), was a semi-legitimate film. It confronted the struggles that soldiers experience when they've encountered the horrors of war first hand and then are forced back into "normalcy." John Rambo is certainly a man's man. In the first image (to the right, top) we see a man with an attainable physique. He's not too big, or "ripped" as the kid's say these days, but he's just a slim, muscly individual -- maybe a step above what an average, "ripped" muscle-head would look like. In First Blood he is threatened by the local law enforcement. When someone is dealing with one who suffers from PTSD (which is arguably the case with John Rambo) threatening this person is a bad idea. The film is a result of the vietnam war...so despite popular belief there is a message, and although Rambo is indeed an example of hyper-masculinity in First Blood, only one person dies in the entire film, and not at the hands of Rambo, but he falls out of a helicopter.
Cut to three years later when First Blood: Part II (1985) was released. We not only see a spike in death count (see chart below), but we see a much bigger, more "ripped" John Rambo (poorly displayed to the right, second from top). 69 people died in First-Blood: Part II; 132 people dies in First Blood: Part III (1988); and twenty years later, 236 people made up the body count in Rambo 4 (2008). On top of those facts, looking at the images to the right we see that John Rambo gets bigger (aka "more ripped"), meaner, and retains the same blood-lust from the second installment in the series. The plots become more and more paper thin, the films get more graphically violent (Rambo 4 is just hilariously gory), and he never ends up learning anything from his experiences, which is how they continue making them.
What does this say about men? Rambo is inarguably an action icon. And furthermore, he is the definition of masculinity to a generation who are currently raising the next. My father would say Rambo is a "real man." My brothers have adopted that mentality. What does this say about where this evolution will take us with the next generation? Why do men have to have big muscles, tote heavy weapons, and be emotionless to be a man's man, or an action icon? That's just stupid.
One could argue men don't have to have big muscles, tote heavy weapons, or have to be emotionless to be a man's man, they could easily just say one name, "James Bond." Bond is certainly iconic, and has been for fifty years. He is the ultimate ladies man, the master of cool, the cunning linguist (as Austin Powers would say). So my entire point above is moot now, right? Wrong. Bond suffers from the same ideological issues as Rambo, but they're just put together differently. Whereas Rambo isn't a ladies man, or a smooth-talker, etc, he just blows dudes up and earns respect by force. Bond, on the other hand, doesn't rely on violence and mayhem to gain respect, he has cool gadgets, fast cars, beautiful women; he visits exotic locations and defeats super-cool villains without needing to lift more than a Beretta 418.
The problem with James Bond is that he is also a womanizer, he's irresponsible, rude, cocky, smug, careless, arrogantly emotionless, and sadly, the epitome of what society considers a man; he is essentially the British parallel to John Wayne in how he has contributed to molding a false sense of manhood across multiple generations. Let's look at his progression. There is a consistent progression from 1962 - 2005, and then BAM! 2006 brings us Daniel Craig (who I think is the best Bond, for the record, despite the following bashing) who is the quintessential beefcake.
As seen in the graphic to the right, Sean Connery was a very average looking person, he just so happened to be considered beautiful by a vast majority of people at that time. Daniel Craig is built like a professional wrestler; he is placed in a heightened reality in which viewers strive to achieve, but rarely, if ever, do.
The image of masculinity has changed but both Bonds have women falling all over them, women whom they take advantage of and often amount to nothing more throughout the film -- which is the case in the most recent Bond film, Skyfall (2012), where he has a shower and sex scene with a character who ends up dead twenty minutes later. They are better than real life, and that's why so many people gravitate toward Bond...he's just so "cool." The scary part of this something I touched on above, we can reach a Bond level of masculinity, or "cool" for that matter. It's the same as female swimsuit models, most everyday women will never look like that (especially since the models are airbrushed beyond recognition), but they try and that's why products continue to sell. Bond is still relevant because he has adapted to the times. I've heard people use Bond quotes in everyday life, sometimes serious and other times to be funny. But on things is certain, Bond has influenced generations of movie-goers.
Lastly, and I will keep this one short, the goofballs of cinema. These are Adam Sandlers, the Kevin James', the Jim Belushis, etc. These are the actors whose comedies predominately show them as a goofy screw-up who married a traditionally gorgeous wife who loves them, and has sex with them all the time, and fixes them dinner, and basically organizes their life because they're too stupid, lazy, and childish to do it themselves. But that's what women are here for, right? (just kidding). These stereotypes paint men out to be worthless when they're not making money to take care of "their" family.
We see three forms of masculinity, all of which share certain traits, but each contributing something its own to the construction of a socially acceptable man. What can we do about this? It's something to think about...
No comments:
Post a Comment