h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Masculinity in the Movies - A4668366
Author: Jimster - U292

Salvaged from an old essay from University (yes, they did have movies back then - and electricity!), I'm hoping the entry matches the subject title enough. Not looking to examine every single film ever made, so I'm hoping this covers enough ground with the examples supplied.

I do think that the entry matches the subject title, and that you illustrate your points well with the examples of films you've chosen.

But it is just a tad obvious that this entry began life as a university paper. It seems to me like it stands out as being unusually formal for an h2g2 entry. I don't know what you can do to change that, really, but that was just a feeling I got.

And I've got a few nit-picks:

20th Century popular culture --> 20th-Century popular culture

Why is 'Big Screen' capitalised? It doesn't seem quite right.

called into question; a refugee from the planet Krypton; an orphaned baby adopted by a middle-aged couple in small-town America; a superhero with a secret identity. --> called into question: a refugee from the planet Krypton, an orphaned baby adopted by a middle-aged couple in small-town America, a superhero with a secret identity.

might not Lois Lane find herself 'drawn to Clark Kent's non-threatening persona and feel some conflicts in her swooning response to Superman?' --> question mark should go outside the quotes.

Batman Returns --> should be italicised

But on the whole, I like it!

I don't think 20th century needs a hyphen, but there is an open bracket in the Superman quote but no close bracket.

"wears what we would consider to be woman's make-up" Perhaps times have changed since you were at uni, but I don't think make us is considered 'girls only' any more. Or do I just hang around with strange people?

But it does, Mina! It's an adjective describing popular culture!

Ta for the feedback there - made a few little changes

One thing that always amuses me in (particularly 20th century American) movies and television series is the way the actors have quiet but deeply exaggerated 'basso-profondo' speaking voices! Especially the hero. And to make the hero even more masculine, the hour-glass blonde heroine had to possess an equally exaggerated high-pitched squeak of a falsetto.

Nowadays, they all have to speak with the speed of a Gatling-gun!

I once read the theory somewhere that male actors who adopted an exaggerated depth of voice well below their natural level of pitch could develop cancer of the larynx.

I often wonder, too, whether a certain lady politician who had been advised to speak less shrilly to make herself more popular, had developed some throat condition as a result of forcing a lower pitch for a number of years, in office and out!

This is an interesting 'take' on masculinity. I like it.
(I'd better not say any more, or a certain person might berate me again for 'brown-nosing' you!


f.

Hi, Jimster!

This looks interesting...

One general comment: I think you should give the date of each film when you first mention it, eg Jaws(1975).

The Lethal Weapon(s) bit looks spot-on. I found both Superman and Batman unmemorable enough that I can't really comment on that section. But I saw Jaws on its first release at a fairly impressionable age,and I'd take issue with your intepretation of Quint.

"Even something as codedly masculine as a tattoo provides Quint with a further anecdote about his experiences in the war and his first brush with a shark. Hooper's purpose in this scene is to undermine this fake masculinity with humour, to diffuse the conflict that Quint has within him; he needs these two men to help him in his quest for the shark, but he feels uncomfortable being enclosed with two men in such a small space - his homophobia seen to even extend to two (proven) heterosexuals."

I seriously think that what Quint is showing is not homophobia, it's plain old-fashioned misanthropy--he dislikes and despises people in general, not just homosexuals. My recollection is that the memory of the war came *after* the humorous competition, and was actually a startling change in mood. It's not just 'his first brush with a shark', it's a revelation of a past episode which on a trauma scale easily matches World War I shellshock. 300 survivors from a crew of over 1100, with over 400 lost to sharks? I think homophobia is a red herring here--the real message is Quint's association of sharks with utter destruction--the coded part being that the Indianapolis was returning from delivering the parts of the atomic bombs to Tinian, to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Shark attacks are being associated with weapons of mass destruction. Homophobia? Tosh! It's WMDs all the way...

Azara

One other thing I did think of later was that I'm not sure the title really fits. It only mentions a few movies, and I think that the title 'in the movies' would lead people to expect discussion of more movies. Or am I talking cobblers?

I did my University dissertation on Masculinity in movies, so I found this entry really interesting.
My work focused more on father figures in crisis; how fathers have been represented in modern films in relation to films from the 1950s (such as Rebel Without A Cause). The modern films I used were mainly 'American Beauty', 'Falling Down', 'Mrs Doubtfire' and 'Die Hard'.
I'm not sure if anyone would be interested enough if I was to post it on here (not the whole dissertation! ) or is it too close to this entry? Sorry I am still new so not sure if there is any way of doing that and linking the two together??

Thanks

Hi again,
Regarding the make-up comment from earlier - how about:
"wears what would have traditionally been considered women's make-up"?

I really enjoyed reading this. The "Boat envy" section was delightful and makes me want to see "Jaws" again just for the scar comparison sequence.

"High Noon", (1952) was the ultimate definition of masculinity in the movies. "A man's got to do what a man's got to do"...how true...how profound.

Hi Jimster,

Really well thought out Entry, I enjoyed it. A couple of very quick points though:

Batman's a lousy lover because Vicki Vale isn't in the sequel? In that case, James Bond must be even worse! There's probably a sociological theory in the constant changing (without explanation) of female love interests in series of movies - Batman and Bond are the ones that come to mind - and what that implies for masculinity, but I have no idea what that might be. Any thoughts?

My only other quibble is just that it ends so abruptly. We finish with Lethal Weapon, then it's over in a paragraph. Is there some way to tie everything together a bit more clearly for science-minded dunderheads like me?

Matt

Good points all. I veered away from Westerns in the original essay because our lecturer was a John Wayne fan and I loathe him (conversely she didn't rate De Niro and I do). But this does need a bit on Westerns and perhaps a bit on Rebel Without a Cause too...

I'm yet another film studies student, and I found this a very well-argued and entertaining read. After reading this, I'm now considering adapting my own recent essay on the rewriting of history for movies and TV into a Guide Entry!

I agree with KitKat's solution to the question of the line about make-up for men. Some of the Goths I study with at Bradford University would certainly agree that eye shadow isn't just for women.

Perhaps, at the end, it'd be worth mentioning the recent 'Mr & Mrs Smith' - an archetypal action movie in many respects, except that the ultimate threat to the traditionally masculine professional assassin John Smith (Brad Pitt) comes from the revelation that his wife Jane (Angelina Jolie) is also a professional killer, who ends up being commissioned to bump him off! There's one very silly but wonderfully entertaining sequence in which the two of them rampage around their home trying to kill each other, almost demolishing their house in the course of a vicious battle that ends with them pointing guns at each other. But neither can bring themselves to pull the trigger, so they go to bed instead. Now that's what I call foreplay.

A small tweak to the Superheroes section and a new, concluding Westerns section.

Not sure I'm happy with including Mr & Mrs Smith, partly because I thought it was going to be a mediocre remake of a very poor Hitchcock movie (but turned out to be a reworking of a quite fun James Cameron one) and partly because I doubt very much it has much of a position in the history of film. It's very much an 'also ran' compared to the other films I've discussed.

Still want to find a way to tackle Rebel Without a Cause though...

I also used the film 'Shane' (1953) to show a father figure in crisis, as his place within his family (as a husband and father) is threatened and he has to learn to be more masculine.
In 'Rebel Without A Cause' (1955) there are two father figures, each having a crisis of masculinity, but in different ways. I'm not sure if this is moving more towards films focusing on the family unit and too far away from the other films you have mentioned?

I do have other ideas on Rebel Without A Cause, if you would like some more input?

Actually, what I'd suggest is you write an entry on Rebel Without a Cause separately - we don't have anything near enough on James Dean and should it get through Peer Review we could link the two entries together.

(I always preferred East of Eden to be honest )

Sounds great, thanks for the advice. I will get to work on it.

I could go on and on with examples, but I think I've covered the main points I was after, so unless there are any pick-ups or pointers I think this is done.