It’s funny to me how the heterosexual white male is never in the wrong. Even if he is in the wrong, it’s not his fault. Jeffords touches on his notion a few times. First off, she talks about how movies in 1991 characterized the return of men to the family. These movies gave off the sentiment that men were forced into these crazy, time-consuming jobs against their will and that completely stopped them from being a loving father. I totally understand that often times a parent’s work does make it difficult for them to be there for their families all of the time, but I think it’s a character trait that you either have or don’t have that you either want to put in the effort to be there for your family or not. It is very possible to travel often and be so consumed with work that you miss some landmark moments, but that type of parent can choose to deal with that in different ways. A father can allow that to be an excuse that he gets wrapped up into or he can choose to do the best he can and still make his family aware that he loves them, even if he did miss his daughter’s dance recital. Rather than being men that hide behind their work because they are damaged, it seems to me that in reality it’s more likely that they might not have cared in the first place. Apparently, the men in these films were acting this way because they were so emotionally hurt and suppressing their pain. I wonder if this was REALLY accurate of the men of this time because if so, that’s a shame. They should have been able to find joy from their families aside from their jobs. Even if their jobs were draining and hard, maybe knowing they were coming home to a loving family at the end of the day would have made it worthwhile for them.
White men are the victims, how ironic is that. I liked two quotes. The first is: “it is largely white men who have suffered from the burdens of traditional masculinities, and white men who have to be given this extra help in learning how to change themselves into “better” people.” The second is in talking about how bodies of colored people are not betrayed even though they are “historically marked by the continuous betrayals of a social, political, and cultural system . . . [it is] instead, the body of the white man who is suffering because he has been unloved.” This makes the white male seem like a baby crying who needs to be wrapped up in a blanket and coddled. It’s literally like their egos need to be stroked. The white men are set out to need constant validation and affection, but colored men are never shown in this circumstance, as mentioned by Jeffords, probably because they aren’t held up to the same expectations as white men, the “white man’s burden.” It’s just terrible. I think we have definitely made some progress in film and television but still we have a LONG way to go in terms of casting choices and creating scripts that are universal and not racially specific. Many of these action films probably could have a black male lead, but the films were probably created with the intention of having a white male in the role. Hopefully down the line it will get to the point where the best actor is picked for the job, not the actor with the whitest skin.
Again, in Jefford’s Beauty and the Beast example, the white male is not responsible for his actions. He is the way he is, a brat, due to bad parenting. He doesn’t know any better and he just gets away with it because he is of nobility so no one tells him to act otherwise. I liked this section of the article because I am unfamiliar with any other version of Beauty and the Beast besides the Disney version. Well, there’s been tons of reboots of it, but they all follow essentially the same storyline as the Disney version. The comparison to Reagan is really, really funny. It is really is a great comparison. Jeffords wonders, so does this mean that Reagan too wasn’t intentionally breaking laws with the Iranian contra scandal? Did he just have a minor lapse in judgment? She compares, if Reagan gets impeached, it affects all of America just like if the Beast doesn’t break the spell, it affects all of his undeserving servants. The Beast really is unappealing. There isn’t really a reason for Belle to like him, he is really, really rude. I think it would be much more realistic if he was as is described in the original versions of Beauty and the Beast. Then, on to Gaston. The Beast becomes an attractive figure because the alternative is really awful. Gaston truly represents the idea of the perfect masculine creature, which is scary because he is terrible and I think to this day, many guys, especially my age have this idea that that’s how they need to be. They are entitled, they show off, they expect women to swoon after them, and they choose who they want rather than properly asking a woman if that’s what she wants.
In Stars, Dyer talks about how the male body and physicality often times show masculinity and power. He talks about how there is some rebuttal between physical strength actually portraying that masculinity or instead being a “source of disdain or laughter.” I think it definitely gives off masculinity. It might not be a totally accurate representation of what masculinity really is, but I think it certainly portrays that image, especially in the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Like Gaston, Schwarzenegger is a bulky, manly figure. Certainly throughout the Terminator he is classified as that, even when he does come back to the family. Even in his other movies, seeing him that way is inevitable. For instance, in Jingle All the Way, Schwarzenegger spends the majority of the movie being a family man, searching for a Christmas present for his kid, but even still he gets in a fight, using his physicality in a matchup between himself and a pile of Santas. Even though I’m pretty sure he doesn’t win the fight, we still see that side of him because his physicality is a big part of how his star image was created.
Lastly, there’s a comment Dyer made that I don’t agree with. He was talking about how actors are always performing but not necessarily acting. Maybe I’m misinterpreting but it seems he is equating Oscar nominations with the quality of acting. There are plenty of working actors who will never even come close to having an Oscar nom, but that doesn’t determine the quality of their acting. Schwarzenegger may not be the best actor, but I don’t think just because he plays something similar to himself means he isn’t acting. Acting is based on if the actor is playing the truth of the moment in a believable way and just because Schwarzenegger isn’t putting on a different accent in every movie, I still think he is pretty truthful in his performances, even though they aren’t too far off from each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment