Megan O’Brien — Core Response #3

 It is no secret that for decades film has utilized its narratives to drive political and social agendas. Specifically, film has channeled characters and plot lines that glorify white men and seemingly belittle every other group. This week's readings highlighted the concept of masculinity that was warped and transformed throughout the Regan era. They analyzed various films, such as Terminator 2, with underlying tones that challenged perspectives of the era. 

The 80s were a time that idolized hyper masculine body types and utilized this physique to emphasize the power of men. However, as film transitioned in the 90s, white men obtained a bad wrap for their heartless decisions and began to prioritize their control on familial structure and reproductive rights, as both their agenda changed and their image that they wanted conceived about them altered. Film encouraged troupes and storylines that credited the reason for men’s violence to defending their family and showed them as the cornerstone of their family. An example of this phenomenon provided by the text is Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon. The Jeffords reading explains how “in 1988, they spoke of his sex appeal; in 1992 they were touched by his expressions of pain at his wife’s death.” Film successfully changed the narrative of even previous characters that caused audiences to sympathize with violent characters. Further, the Jeffords article uses Beauty and the Beast to showcase how films, “forward the image of unloved and unhappy white men who need kindness and affection, rather than criticism and reform, in order to become their ‘true’ selves again.” Both films promote the ideology that men need to be treated and encouraged with empathy because they’re humans too, and the underlying theme highlighting their superiority complex that makes them more capable than women, therefore deserving more patience. 

In addition to their familial role, film also utilized masculinity and body types to drive the concept of men being heroic and otherworldly. In Bukateman’s reading, he notes that “the fusion with machines represents something other than a postmodern celebration of dissolving borders and boundaries, because they are often as much attempts to reseat the human(male) in a position of virile power and control.” He provides insight that masculinity is conveyed as coinciding with power. Dyer adds to this sentiment that masculinity is treated in cinema as an element of performance and is met with admiration, disdain, and even laughter among audiences. Audiences love or hate the role of masculinity in film, but overall are effectively manipulated by filmmakers and fall into their trap of perceiving masculinity as inexplicable and unavoidable throughout the various avenues used by filmmakers.