Cinematic representations of masculinity

Because this thesis is interested in the way a certain group of people (i.e. men) are depicted in movies, the analysis and discussion are inevitably concerned with representations. As Richard Dyer (1993: 1-3) argues, representations affect the way social groups are treated in life, how people belonging in these groups perceive themselves and how they are seen by others.

Representations are also culture-specific and do not have a single interpretation as people make sense of representations based on the cultural codes they have in their possession. Still, even though representations have real consequences for people, they are not reality. However, representations do not simply reflect the world in which we live but are involved in constituting it (Hall 1997: 5-6).

One reason that makes analysing representations of men interesting is that, according to Dyer (1993: 4), traditionally representations of those in power (such as heterosexual white men) have gained less attention, thus constituting these groups as the human norm. By bringing attention to aspects of masculinity, whiteness and heterosexuality, Dyer speaks of making

“normality strange, that is, visible and specific” (ibid.). As white heterosexual men dominate screen-time and are proportionately over-represented in contemporary popular cinema, their representations in movies should be analysed in more detail in order to “shatter the illusion that normative masculinity is a seamless identity” and contest them as the human norm (Rehling 2009: 2-3). Similarly, Kimmel (2005: 3-5) writes of masculinity as a sort of default and men as the “invisible gender” because of their privilege. He argues that when one is privileged by, for example their gender or colour of skin, this aspect of themselves becomes invisible to them.

Because of this, I argue that understanding how men and masculinity are represented, for example in movies, is important for making visible inequality between different groups (including different groups of men) as well as imbalances in power.

The concept of hegemonic masculinity discussed above is relevant for studying representations of masculinity in movies as Hollywood has tended to be interested in the depiction of exemplary masculinities. Indeed, as Connell (1995: 213-214) argues, culture is

important for producing exemplary masculinities in order to maintain the hegemony, for example by depicting masculine heroes for the purposes of military recruitment. However, as already discussed above, these depictions can be far from reality. Culture is not used only for the (re)production of these desirable forms that men should aspire to but also to deny those who do not meet the required standards of manhood. This kind of “promotion of exemplary masculinities” can be one possible response to crisis tendencies in the gender order, according to Connell (ibid.). Although the focus here will be on movies, they are far from being the only possible avenue for the reinforcement of hegemonic masculinity. However, this does not mean that all movies and Hollywood productions are made with this intention.

Similar to the exemplary masculinities discussed by Connell, Roger Horrocks (1995: 16-18) writes of ‘myths’ – types of “collective fantasies” – that are involved in the process where gender is learned as people absorb sets of “complex interlocking unconscious myths about men and women, how they should behave, think, feel, dress, work, make love, speak, and so on”.

He continues that masculinity needs to be maintained for it to persist and, as a consequence, myths about masculinity reward conformity for adhering to these myths while punishing for transgression. Gender, according to Horrocks, “is embodied in various myths, which teach, warn, punish and reward” (ibid. 20). Involved in mythical narratives are exemplary icons (Horrocks names Clint Eastwood as one) who have transcended everyday reality and are associated with numerous “emblematic meanings”. These icons can be real people or fictive ones, such as actors and the characters they play (ibid. 17).

In reference to Theresa de Lauretis, Järviluoma, Moisala and Vilkko (2003: 6) explain that, in Western countries, representations of gender are products of ‘technologies of gender’, including cinema, and that “[t]he impact of these mediated images of gender on people's gender beliefs and gender performance cannot be underestimated”. Thus, focusing on the ways gender is represented and produced in mass culture, including cinema, is of importance as the way people are depicted, for example in movies, affects the way they are generally perceived by others and themselves. This in turn affects the types of representations produced of these groups, such as men and women, as representations are involved in changing perceptions of certain groups while also revealing how these views can change in time (Paasonen 2010: 45-46). Even though movies are only one medium where representations of gender are produced and presented, the effects of these representations do matter and should be critically evaluated.

This is important also in the case of masculinity, especially because “[m]ass culture generally assumes there is a fixed true masculinity” (Connell 1995: 45).

Yet, the representations of masculinity in media can be contradictory and, regarding movies,

“almost every historical moment of cinema purports conflicting images of masculinity” (Gates 2006: 49). One example of the varying representations of masculinity, according to McKay, Mikosza, & Hutchins (2005: 13-16), is the emergence of the ‘new man’ and ‘new lad’ in the 1990s, both of which appeared in numerous lifestyle magazines targeted at men. Much like the

‘softer’ male image that became more popular in the 90s, the new man was depicted as involved in childcare and other activities that were traditionally associated more often with women. After this, as a response to the new man especially in the UK and Australia, the new lad became a popular model of masculinity targeted at men in the media. The new lad exhibited behaviour of

‘traditional’ forms of masculinity, such as drinking, risk taking and many misogynistic activities. However, this kind of variation of even contradictory masculinities in the media shows that hegemonic masculinity has become less culturally secure, even though it still holds power regardless of other challenging representations of men. Similarly, Grant (2011: 11) point to the instability and varying nature of masculinity, at least in American cinema, and how it “is an always-shifting concept, revised and reconstituted by the discourses of popular culture, including movies, as the needs of the historical moment require”.

Referring to Judith Butler’s idea of performativity and performing gender, Gates (2006: 37) argues that “[c]inema offers a constructed, performed, and ideal masculinity while promising its audiences that it is a real and attainable one”. Despite being mostly fictional, characters of a movie are played by real human beings which makes the boundary between reality and fiction ambiguous for the viewer. This real-life actor then embodies a certain masculine image through his performance of a character in a movie. This, Gates argues, affects the viewer and their conception of masculinity, because cultural objects can influence audiences’ attitudes and perceptions. Both women and men are affected by this as the male character exhibited on screen is “to be looked at as an ideal of masculinity for heterosexual women to desire and heterosexual men to want to emulate” (ibid. 39).

All of this is not to suggest that all representations of men and depictions of masculinity in the media are made with the intention of reinforcing more harmful dominant masculinities and encouraging toxic behaviour by men. However, by critically analysing masculinities in the media, some of the more nefarious, as well as positive, masculine representations could be revealed. In addition, representations of masculinity can be seen as the ‘natural’ ways of being male, thus conditioning people to certain types of behaviour and ideas concerning masculinity (Kahn 2009: 106). Although popular media’s and culture’s effect on people’s perception of

gender should be considered, they should not be seen as omnipotent in shaping audiences’

views and behaviour. For example, Roger Horrocks (1995: 29) points to audiences’ agency in interpreting texts (such as movies) and their possibility “to actively subvert or oppose the text’s dominant reading”, leading to numerous, even contradictory interpretations made by individuals.

3.5. Conclusion

This section has introduced various aspects of masculinity and its study in the context of movies. By providing background on prior work on the topic, this section has placed the thesis in the field of film studies as well as men’s studies. In addition, by discussing hegemonic masculinity and the crisis of masculinity, this section has given some of the most central tools that will be used in the analysis and discussion of the chosen movies and their depictions and representations of masculinities. The criticisms faced by these concepts were also discussed and addressed in order to acknowledge that the subject of masculinities is not simple or without its debates and contradictions. Thus, with a better understanding of the wide field of men’s studies and masculinities as well as the study of masculinity in cinema, the thesis is able to proceed to the aims, research questions, data and methods of the analysis.