Prepare for the longest but laziest post in history, yes, that's right I'm about to regurgitate an earlish draft of one of my film studies essays. (For reader of a nervous disposition and the puerile it does contain the world phallus at least once) ;For some time there has been great interest in the representations of gender and sexuality in the world of film. Mulvey’s influential essay on ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ has prompted a lot of discussion around the area, in particular the representation of women and femininity.
However what has become a feature of this particular area of study until recently has been the tendency to treat the white male as the undefined centre, that is to say there is a lot of discussion regarding those that are seen to deviant from a unaddressed centre point; be it feminity, homosexuality, womanhood or racial differences. This is largely liked into what Mulvey refers to as the "phallocentric bias" of Hollywood and identified by those such as Cohan and Rae Hark in their introduction to the collection of essay on the topic ‘Screening the Male’, "the status of the male in both the cinema auditorium and in screen has, also, oddly enough, been too eagerly accepted as the unproblematic given of the system."
Although there is clearly scope to examine this area of interest, as Hale points outs "if we take some of the terms used in her (Mulvey) description of the voyeuristic look – ‘making something happen’, ‘forcing a change in another person’, ‘a battle of will and strength’, ‘victory and defeat’ – they immediately be applied to ‘male’ genres" Here we are considering what is referred to as male genres as being for example; the war film, the gangster film, the western and others where there is a violent conflict between a male hero and a villain.
Whilst there is an increasing interest in examining this ‘absent centre’ it is still largely undeveloped when compared to the work carried out moving out from this centre point. In this essay I intend to after a brief look at the portrayal of masculinity within mainstream Hollywood is to take a look a two relatively modern examples of the mainstream ‘action’ film produced under the Hollywood system, ‘Die Hard’ (1989) and ‘Lethal Weapon’ (1987) in regards as what is conveyed in these two films with respect to the masculinity of the main protagonists.
Unquestionably attention is paid to the output of Hollywood , as the perhaps the largest cultural , in terms of it’s representation of femininity and what this tells us about current social constructions. We are surrounded by magazines discussion the latest body image of the female film star, the release of films such as ‘Sex and the City’ are seen as cultural markers of the female experience. Although maybe less obviously discussed in the cultural landscape the same attention can be made in term of masculinity, as Taubin argues "One goes to see Clint (Eastwood) to check the current construction of masculinity in American Culture"
So what has Hollywood told us regarding the masculine ideal over the years? In short we can see that the masculine ideal has changed and fluctuated greatly over time as presented in film, from the dashing gentlemen of the likes of Errol Flynn to the modern emotionally aware men, such as Bruce Willis’ John McClane as we shall see later, via the muscle bound warrior machines of the Reagan era and the conflicted anti-hero as favoured by the Hollywood New Wave of the nineteen seventies.
Perhaps the first time we can really see Hollywood focusing on the male image is the nineteen fifties, (Richard Armour writing in Playboy referred to the decade as "The Age Of The Chest") as a series of productions heavily featured a preoccupation with the male form. Films such as Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments and a popular series of Tarzan pictures through out the decade seem to confirm the lure of the well developed male form for the audience. Something which was not lost on ‘Life’ magazine as Cohan notes "Life (in a 1954 pictorial survey of popular male stars) acknowledges that women go to film to look at men too and what’s more that the male image is no less a marketable commodity than the female, is marked to be looked at I multiple and contradictory ways".
At this time the most popular male stars tended to be barrel chested ‘men’s men’ who acted nobly and firmly, won the girl and saved the land. Charlton Heston is probably the best example of this era of masculinity as seen through the eyes of Hollywood. A strong, capable man who could stand against the veiled threat of the communist so often present at least in the background at this time.
Meanwhile the ‘B-Movie’ cycle of the period often saw the educated man as traitor or as the well meaning but foolish and misguided scientist, each time the ‘All American boy next door’ needs to ride to the rescue. Thus the framing of masculinity at the time was geared very much to the ordinary man in the street, whilst a lot of the star of the period had well muscled physiques arguable at this time they would not be too far removed from the body of the typical labourer. So what we have at this time is the age of the working class male hero who is perhaps only separated from his peers by the determination and nobility of his actions.
Moving into the nineteen sixties we begin to see the emergency of the sophisticated male as the hero, with a smaller physique and a greater use of his wits to outsmart the enemy. ‘Dr. No’ (1962) the start of the popular Bond franchise was quickly followed by the likes of ‘Our Man Flint’ (1965) were the hero now whilst physically smaller was still physically capable but important now he was often smarted than his enemy. No longer was masculinity phrased simply in terms of the body but now in terms of the body and the man behind it.
Another change was the increasing sexualisation of the male hero. Now instead of the chaste clinch at the picture’s end we are shown that the hero is sexually potent and is seen to share his bed with whichever woman he chooses to seduce. This period begins the era in which the masculinity of the male is tied so overtly to his phallus. It can argued that for James Bond his sexual being is as much a weapon for him as his trusted pistol.
From here we move towards the more fractured and troubled representations of masculinity prevalent in the Hollywood of the seventies. The New Wave of Hollywood led by self styled auteurs such as Coppola and Friedkin favoured troubled and conflicted representations. With examples such as Michael Corleone from ‘The Godfather’ the upstanding man who is slowly corrupted by those around him as seeks to do right by his family, ‘Taxi Driver’’s Travis Bickle who is cut adrift in a world he doesn’t understand and lashes out with uncontrolled rage and Jimmy Doyle the police detective from ‘The French Connection’ who is as unsympathetic and unlike-able as the criminals he chases.
Here we have a period that represents the crisis of American masculinity inflicted by the uncertain economic climate and the war scars of the Vietnam and Korean conflicts. Man was no longer the calm ocean of days gone, but was now uncertain of his place in the world and often suffering from a physiological problem. The days of the hard body replaced by the softened body and hardened yet unbalanced mind.
We move next into the eighties and the Reagan era which saw a return to the uncomplicated masculinity of the determined and muscle bound hero. Rambo changed from a trouble Vietnam veteran with an undirected rage in ‘First Blood’ (1982) to the nation’s patriotic warrior who would win the unwinable war in ‘Rambo : First Blood Part II (1985)’ and a former bodybuilder would go on to dominate the decade portraying uncomplicated men on a mission.
Though more straight forward than the heroes of the previous decade the days of Stallone and Schwarzenegger were not unproblematic, Creed identified them as "simulacra of an exaggerated masculinity" but others saw a move away from identifiable figures towards a more feminine obsession with body image, "If muscles are signifiers of both struggle and traditional forms of male labour than for many critics the muscles of male stars seem repulsive and ridiculous precisely because they seem to be dysfunctional, ‘nothing more’ than decoration"
Masculinity’s representation had moved to an extreme where the figures displayed were no longer immediately identifiable by the audiences watching them into an almost fetishised obsession with the body and the power of the male. As Creed notes "both actors (Stallone and Schwarzenegger) often resemble an anthropomorphised phallus, a phallus with muscles". For the eighties masculinity in Hollywood was about dominating those around you with force and intimidating them with the size of your body.
But as the decade moved on representations of masculinity again shifted and changed and we see the move towards again smaller bodies and eventually greater emotional intelligence in the male action hero. "Us masculinity in Hollywood films of the 1980’s was largely transcribed through spectacle and bodies. With the male body itself becoming often the most fulfilling form of spectacle..But there is already evidence that the emphasis on externality and the male body is shifting focus"
This is why I have chosen to look at the portrayals of masculinity in Die Hard (1989) and Lethal Weapon (1987), the two films emerged in the latter part of the decade and arguably represent the shifting in masculinity in mainstream Hollywood as noted above towards a form of representation that is still largely dominant in the action films of today.
In ‘Die Hard’ directed by John McTiernan, New York detective John McClane (Bruce Willis) has travelled to Los Angeles to visit his estranged wife Helen. Upon arrival at his wife’s work Christmas party McClane finds himself unwanted by his wife (she has reverted to her maiden name) and then caught up in what at first we are led to believe is a terrorist attack. Assisted over the radio by a local beat cop McClane proceeds to fight back against the terrorist group.
In ‘Lethal Weapon’ directed by Richard Donner , Los Angeles police sergeant Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover), who has just turned 50 years old, is assigned to investigate the death one of the daughters of bank president Michael Hunsaker, a friend whom Roger has known since they were in the Vietnam War together. Beginning with this investigation, Roger is assigned a new partner Sergeant Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson), who has been suicidal ever since his wife died in a car crash. Riggs and Murtaugh's investigation makes them the targets of Shadow Company, a group of former Vietnam War era mercenaries who now bring heroin into the Los Angeles County region.
As we can see both the films fall firmly into what can be labelled a ‘male genre’ that of the Police based action film where the hero is placed in conflict against a villain who is easily identified as being transgressive via their breaking of the law. Thus the two films at first inspection both have typical masculine heroes, men who fight to uphold the law and protect their communities.
Looking first to Die Hard the first thing to note is the juxtaposition of the McClane character against those around him. McClane is put forward as a blue-collar worker, he is a police detective but he is from the ‘uncultured’ New York and to reinforce his ordinariness he spends the majority of the film’s run time dressed in infamously dressed in a dirt and sweat streaked vest top and with out shoes. This emphasises the fact that the character is an ordinary guy, he is dressed as one might suspect a labourer to look after a long day.
Compare this to both those he fights and the employees of the corporation for which his wife works and whose building has been invaded. Very quickly the difference is marked out between McClane and the employees of the company.
Early on in the film we are introduced to a character called Harry Ellis, Harry works for the company alongside John’s wife and is how dressed smartly in a designer suit and the difference between the two men is reinforced by the fact that even at the beginning of the film McClane looks uncomfortable in his shirt and tie and quickly removes them.
One is the blue collar worker and the other is the high flying executive whilst both are shown displaying masculine traits (Ellis is seen taking drugs and seen to be pursuing Holly) we are left in no doubt which is the pattern of masculinity that should be aspired to. As whilst Ellis may pour scorn on the intelligence and capability of McClane he critically fails to use the skills of which he is proud to negotiate with the terrorist leader, losing his life and showing himself to be foolish and arrogant in the process. The failure of Ellis to manufacture a resolution to the crisis alongside the killing of the company leader (Takagi, although he is seen to be an admirable man, bravely stepping forward to identify himself to the terrorist group) seem to push forward the idea that the suited employees are only able to escape due to the intervention of a working class man.
The idea of blue-collar masculinity placed in conflict against a more modern educated masculinity is further emphasised by the representation of the terrorist group. Each member of the group is shown wearing smartly presented designer clothing and the one member who does not fit this pattern is dressed as if he were a graduate college student. Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman), the leader of the terrorist group is even shown to be more expensively dressed than the majority of the company employees, even remarking to Takagi that he has a suit from the same tailor.
This choice of mise-en-scene goes to effectively establish a conflict between two types of masculinity, indeed as the film progresses the crisis becomes essentially a direct conflict between McClane and Gruber. Where McClane is shown to be ‘street smart’ (listening for the terrorist’s names on the radio so he work out how many are in the building), Gruber we are informed reads ‘Time’ magazine and listens to classical music; cues to his more traditional form of education. McClane is shown as using his wiles (he empties the gun he gives to Gruber as he pretends to be a hostage) where as Gruber is shown as untrustworthy in comparison (he turns on Ellis without warning).
Through the conflict between the two men the film appears to be promoting the straight forward ‘man of the world’ masculine traits over the more duplicitous well educated modern man. Indeed McClane eventually prevails over Gruber through his greater physical force and ability, McClane is the man who is more ‘man’.
Although McClane does eventually prevail physically over his enemy he it is important to note that he is not portrayed as a physically dominating presence. In fact he is in one sequence out muscled by one of the terrorists and succeeds in the conflict by out witting his opponent rather than simply over powering him. This step back from the Atlas like physical form of the previous cycle of action films starring the likes of Schwarzenegger and Stallone helps to move the definition of masculinity away from being defined simply by strength and force. Here the dominate male also be smart and aware of his surroundings, it is not enough to have the biggest biceps.
The move from strength as the defining factor of being male is further enforced by the increased depth of the emotional intelligence and life of the McClane character. At the beginning of the film we find him questioning his masculine identity as his estranged wife has reverted to her maiden name for use in her career. (This underlined when John is unable to find his name at reception before he sees his wife’s name).
The conflict with the terrorist group helps McClane to reassert his masculine identity within himself to the point where he is able to admit (both to himself and the beat cop he is radioing) that he is probably at fault for the break down in his marriage and family life. This opens up McClane emotionally in a way that might be seen to undermine his position. However when you compare this to the FBI agents who arrive later in the film it serves to help illustrate that McClane is the better man because he is able to both show concern for others and admit his mistakes; in contrast to the FBI agents who blindly follow the rule book and ignore the concerns of all others. This opening up of an emotional life for the hero is a feature of both films we are looking at, as Pfeil notes, "their definition in these male rampage films is precisely, indeed crucially, that of wild yet sensitive (deeply caring but killing) guy."
We are given access to the emotional life of the male hero, in this case McClane’s regrets over his failing marriage and in Lethal Weapon we can consider Murtaugh’s family life and Rigg’s suicidal depression, so that we as an audience can identify with them. We are given the impression that these action heroes are real flawed people as they overcome impossible odds and carry out outrageous bursts of action to defeat the bad guy. This is a big change from the boom period of the early eighties action film where we are led to believe that to be a man is to be capable of these actions without showing emotional weakness. Critically it seems the masculinity of the male action hero has been repositioned to be more accessible, to bring the dream of being like the hero shown screen closer.
In fact the FBI agents mentioned above (named Johnson and Johnson) can actually be seen as a critical rendering of previous masculine Hollywood constructions. These men are determined, forcibly in charge when they arrive and guided by sense of what is ‘right’. All features that can be located in various earlier Hollywood masculine heroes, but these traits lead them into being duped into assisting Gruber’s plan, endangering the civilian hostages and shooting at the hero of the film.
In Lethal Weapon the heroes begin representing two different patterns of masculinity. Murtaugh is the doemesticated father figure, struggling to stay in his position as the head of the household. Riggs meanwhile is unable to process his grief at the loss of his wife and channels this through his violent and dangerous actions whilst on duty as a police detective.
Again we have what can be seen as working class, blue-collar heroes however this time class conflict plays a lesser role. The eventual conflict that arises is between the domesticated masculinity of the heroes (by the film’s final third Rigg has been adopted as a family member by Murtaugh’s family) against the rawer masculinity of the Vietnam soldiers who have failed to reintegrate into society and simply continue to soldier as before.
The interesting aspect of Lethal Weapon is how the two characters combine to between establish a masculine ideal. Murtuagh is as mentioned the family man but his masculinity is undermined by his unwillingness to undertake violent action to defeat the villain. In contrast Riggs is shown as unable to control his actions, he is the unrefined ex-soldier unable to successfully find his place in society, his masculinity is to ‘raw’.
Through their interactions the pair reach a point where one is able to accept and progress through his emotional distress (we see Riggs handing the bullet he has marked for his suicide to Murtuagh’s family) the other is able to embrace violence and kill as he sets out to save his daughter from the villain who has already killed his daughter’s boyfriend.
While the initial section of the film is indicative of a more complex representation of masculinity the resolution demonstrates physical prowess and skill as a defining factor that sees our heroes triumph. Murtaugh is skill at driving sees the villainous General trapped and killed in a exploding vehicle whilst Riggs is able to best his right hand man Mr Joshua in unarmed combat. An act of physical prowess emphasised against the domestic backdrop of the Murtaugh family home.
The final unison of the two men after their initial dislike is encapsulated when they both shot Mr Joshua as he rises for one last attack., the two men although now shown to be able to act with emotional intelligence are finally bounded together through an act of violence.
It is as if two men can only fully become friends through embracing a typical masculine trait together. It is not enough for them to spend time with each other, only the act of violently defeating another man can they truly connect with each other. This aspect of their friendship helps the film to avoid the potentially unsettling homosexual subtext in the relationship between the two men, something which would dangerously cast doubt upon their masculinity to a point where the audience may no be willing to accept they are capable of overcoming their enemies.
A similar theme is seen in Die Hard in the friendship between McClane and Sgt Powell, "the movie’s largest gush of romantic violins is reserved for that drawn out moment when the two men, Al & John, at last come face to face, approach each other and fall into an embrace", again to avoid any lingering suspicion of homosexual feeling the relationship is finally defined and redeemed in an act of violence has Sgt Powell guns done the final terrorist as he threatens McClane’s life (regaining his masculinity in full in the process, after admitted he has not used his weapon since accidentally shooting a young boy).
What characterises these films against the overblown spectacles of the early eighties is this new emphasis on the internal aspects of the hero as well as the external. These characters show us aspects of the male experience beyond just the physical body image and the skill with which violence can be dispensed to the enemy.
A shift noted by Pfeil, "for all the overlap between most Schwarzenegger films and the Lethal Weapon & Die Hard series in terms of their desublimited, post-oedipal patterns of narrative pleasure, the fact remains that in many ways Arnold’s appeal is virtually the opposite of Mel and Bruce’s" There is the parallels of the sensitive man of Willis’ McClane against Schwarzenegger’s Conan, the wisecracks of Gibson’s Riggs against the puns of Schwarzenegger’s Commando or critically the body fetishism of the Reagan era against the emphasis of blue collar smarts in the new cycle of action film whose beginning is marked in the highlighted pictures.
Hollywood has moved from the presentation of the hard body as the pinnacle of masculinity onto a representation that is vastly more complex, an articulation of masculinity as Jeffords notes, "this reconfiguration of the hard bodied hero away from the un-emotional macho presidential style to an emotionally defined and internally motivated character marks an important shift in the articulation of masculine heroism".
The Hollywood action film has then moved towards a more internal and emotional evocation of masculinity, a trend still apparent as Reeves’ Neo struggles to find himself in The Matrix, Jason Bourne fights to find who he is as a man rather than to vanquish a drug baron and even Willis as John McClane is still struggling to be the good father as fights to free his daughter and is given a surrogate son in the fourth instalment in the still wildly popular Die Hard series.
"The achievement of the hard body no longer seems the goal of such films, but instead an effort to redefine that body as meaningful in emotional rather than physical terms"
With American again entering a period of crisis in masculinity on a social level with the deepening economic decline and finding itself involved in another confused and seemingly unwinable war in the Middle East it will be interesting to see if there is another shift in the portrayal of masculinity in the action film, will there be a return to the broken men of the seventies or a resurgence in the invincible man mountain of the early eighties?
