The articles this week reflected the attitude of
maintaining masculinities image through time, and the importance that this image
had as a star. Yet, now, masculinity, if anything, has become largely toxic and
unwanted by the public as a whole. The romantic male hero lead has now become a
joke, and seen as an object of ridicule and scorn for the modern audience.
While we do have desires pegged on certain men (Benedict Cumberbatch, Chris
Pratt, Eddie Redmayne, etc.), these desires are different. We no longer focus
on how ‘masculine’ these figures can be, but how open-minded and striving for
equality they can be. There isn’t a crisis with man’s image; men have realized
how ridiculous this can be and are, for the most part, getting over it. We no
longer rely on making ‘masculinity”.
In Willis’ article, he talks a lot about the icon of
John Wayne and how important he was to both the American and Male ideology.
However, he does mention that “Wayne was not born Wayne. He had to be invented”
(Willis, 15). This fits in perfectly with the idea of how narrow and ridiculous
the scope of masculinity can get; we believe that only one portrayal/example is
good enough to symbolize what every man should strive to be and don’t question
it. It isn’t until now, when we have more self-reflexive stars who aim to not
be ‘manly men’, but ‘good men’, that we get to be rid of this silly, overrated,
and annoying notions that men have to be masculine. Over the top masculinity is
not the indicator of the male sex.
On the topic of the 'struggle' of masculinity, I saw a rendition of Twelfth Night a year ago, starring
Tamsin Greig as Malvolia; she was not a woman playing a male part, but a woman
playing a part that had been changed to become female. While her performance
was amazing, an article was published shortly afterward, arguing that changing
male roles to female would be the ‘death of the great male actor’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/what-to-see/thought-polices-rush-gender-equality-stage-risks-death-great/).
The article writer goes on to write about how “From now on, we must ask, is any
male part in the canon fair game for the “opposite” sex?” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/what-to-see/thought-polices-rush-gender-equality-stage-risks-death-great/).
Short answer: YES AND ABOUT DAMN TIME! How do we still have these idiots
claiming that the masculine, male actor image is in danger? It isn’t, and quite
frankly, getting rid of it would do a great deal more good than bad.
I think it's fascinating that that author was so upset by the gender of one part being changed in a Shakespearean play. Many professional Shakespearean companies I've been to make common practice of gender bending roles- King Lear at The Globe in London last fall had a woman playing Kent, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival recently cast a woman as Hotspur, and a group in the Bay Area just did an all female production of Hamlet. I often lament that more contemporary American plays aren't given this same freedom (why shouldn't two women star in Waiting for Godot?), but generally consider Shakespearean plays a place where it's agreed that you can mess around with setting, race, gender, and things like that that have values that have changed in the past five hundred years. If you look at Shakespearean plays translated into other languages, there often isn't even the expectation that all of the scenes or characters are represented. I think it's a shame that people get so stuck on this detail of gender that they can't get past it and look at the larger story represented. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
ReplyDelete