The Cycle of Masculinity in the Cinema: The Male Hero at a Glance

What ever happened to good old-fashioned James Bond? Ever since Woody Allen introduced the world to a new breed of masculinity in the 1970s, the portrayal of men in the cinema has been engaged in an ever-persistent battle between two distinct forms of the male persona. While traditionally the authoritative male has dominated film narratives, the introduction of Allen’s neuroticMidnight Cowboy from 1969, or Donald Shebib’s 1970 Canadian classic Goin’ Down the Road.) These films came to represent the real vulnerability experienced by the everyday man, forced to contend with a loss of identity after second- wave feminism displaced the conventional gender roles. man displaced the classic structure of masculinity by replacing aggression with emotion, intellectualism with irrationality, virility with insecurity, and strength with imperfection. This became the model of masculinity in the 1970s, as several other films of the era also expressed this redefinition of manhood. (Check out John Schlesinger’s

Image by Adam Meaney

As a response to this displacement, the cinema of the 1980s took action (quite literally) as it sought to reassert control of the “shambled” gender ideologies. Epitomic films of the decade such as Rambo: First Blood (Ted Kotcheff, 1982), The Terminator (James Cameron, 1984) and Die Hard (John McTiernan, 1988) perfectly represent the typical blockbuster action film of the era that bombarded society with images of what it considered to be the “correct” male attributes. As a result, yet another type of masculinity came to be established in this era: ultra-masculinity maintained the same attributes of the authoritative male, but it went even farther by constructing itself as god-like. In the previously mentioned films, actors Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis all possess super-human traits -- they outsmart their enemies at almost every step of the game, and survive all kinds of crazy stunts that no real person would even dare to dream of.

These men also possess yet another key attribute of 1980s ultra-masculinity - a lack of emotion. After a decade filled with highly emotional men in the 1970s, the 1980s sought to erase this association. To do so, the scripts for these action films relied primarily on the use of quick quips and catch phrases (as opposed to the drawn-out monologues of a typical Allen film). The most notorious of these statements are Willis’ “Yippie Kayee Motherfucker” and Schwarzenegger’s “I’ll be back.” To compensate for the protagonists’ lack of words, these films relied on physical action and, as such, the ideal macho-man came to express himself physically. Violence was thereby established as yet another imperative attribute of the 1980s cinematic hero, as “the brawl” became identified as the means through which the male protagonist expressed himself.

While the 1970s and the 1980s are each defined by their own distinct type of masculinity, the 1990s did not align itself with either of these forms, but instead represented both equally. While the personas represented by “The Terminator,” “James Bond” and “John McClane” all made their mark on 1990s cinema, strongly contrasting actors such as Leonardo DiCaprio and Hugh Grant became icons of the era as well. This dichotomy of ultra-masculinity versus feminized masculinity carried through into the cinematic trends of our current decade. Feminized male stars such as Orlando Bloom and Johnny Depp, who possess soft and delicate features, have become extremely popular since the start of the new millennium; however, there also continues to be a simultaneous resurgence of 1980s machismo. In 2002, a film called XXX (Rob Cohen) starring Vin Diesel gained great popularity after it claimed to be the next phase of the Bond film. The film even kills off an actor resembling Mr. Bond in its introduction. The message was clear - James Bond, with his boyish good looks and wimpy physique is clearly too effeminate to be considered a contemporary symbol of the ideal man. A strong, burly and macho man is what this generation needs. Similarly, 2007’s Live Free or Die Hardfeminized man - he is lanky in comparison to Willis and has delicate facial features. Willis and Olyphant are therefore visual embodiments of the struggle between two distinct forms of masculinity. The numerous 1980s film remakes that are apparent in our current decade are the most obvious attempt at a revival of ultra-masculinity. Aside from Live Free or Die Hard, there was Terminator 3: Rise of the MachinesIndiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Steven Spielberg) and Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) will hit the big screen some time this year. (Len Wiseman) projected the same message. It is no coincidence that actor Timothy Olyphant, who played the film’s villain, possesses all the aesthetic features of the (Jonathan Mostow) in 2003, while

It is difficult to predict how the cycle of masculinity will project itself cinematically in the upcoming decade. Live Free or Die-Hard would have us believe that the macho man will forever prevail against any sign of masculine weakness. However, if Robert de Niro can convincingly play a Broadway-singing drag queen, (Stardust. Matthew Vaughn, 2007.), then I’d say forget about gender restrictions - all bets are off.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment

Email Name		Title Comment smaller | bigger
		I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage. Write the displayed characters Add Comment