Presley:
Arnold as a cultural phenomenon, to me, popularized bodybuilding culture and sanctioned a new kind of body. From him, stars like Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson could arise. Being from California, my first memories of Arnold were him as a political figure. His son Patrick went to preschool with my brother, so it was not uncommon to see him around. I never really connected the “hasta la vista, baby” statement with the man though. I would always hear the phrase and, although I knew the man started as an actor, that iconic phrase somehow seemed to transcend his image. I feel like most people of this generation who are familiar with Arnold Schwarzenegger know him more so as a governor than as an actor. Although we know he had been an actor at one time, neither I or, I’m assuming, most people my age had seen Terminator or any of his movies which popularized his image.
I would describe Arnold Schwarzenegger as a physical spectacle of the screen and a source of controversy in society. His political role has kept him in the public eye and perhaps makes him more susceptible to criticism. When I think of Arnold, I think of his body and his accent. His “otherness”, by being foreign, constitutes a large part of his image. In this way, he is comparable to Valentino. Both stars were positioned as spectacle, which was made possible in part by their foreignness. Both of their bodies were glamorized and sexualized to extreme degrees- with their images often being stripped of clothing to focus on musculature.
Arnold is significant in how he helps us visualize the ‘ideal physical man’ of the time. He was (is) the epitome of physical fitness and embodies the concept of hypermasculinity. Not only his muscular body, but his voice, his gait, his expression, and his roles all support this identity.
2. When studying Marilyn, we discussed ways in which her star image was closely tied to her body, that is, issues of embodiment were tightly bound up with her star persona. Is this true of Arnold? If so, how are visual representations of his body like or unlike representations of Marilyn’s body? Could we say he’s positioned as a spectacle? To what end? What role does genre play in how Arnold is imaged?
Lauren:
Arnold shares some similarities to Marilyn in the way that his body is tied to his star persona. Both of their bodies are used to exaggerate gender difference. Marilyn embodied a sort of exaggerated femininity and her clothing and framing within her films drew attention to her feminine physique. Arnold embodied massive, muscular hypermasculinity. Marilyn's pin-up photographs and Arnold's bodybuilding show the importance of their bodies in their star personas. Despite this, the way their bodies are represented differ. Marilyn’s feminine sexuality needed to be diffused or contained by her roles or childlike persona. Her body is positioned as a spectacle by being object to be looked at. Arnold is less sexualized and his body is presented as something strong, powerful, and capable. While Marilyn is positioned passively as something to be gazed upon, Arnold is active and asserts his image on the audience. He is positioned as spectacle through being a body in motion. Like John Wayne was positioned on screen in a way that showed off his grace and dexterity, Arnold is also positioned in a way that shows off his physical abilities. Similar to how Wayne was paired with the Western, the action genre is central to how Arnold is imaged. The genre is ideal for framing his body around movement and violence in a masculine environment.
Josie
3. How do the readings for today relate Arnold Schwarzenegger’s importance as a star to the cultural moment from which he emerged? Put differently, why Arnold in the 1980s and 1990s? How are these two decades different? Do you buy Susan Jeffords’ argument? What other popular cultural images of the period connect up with the image of Arnold?
“I’ll be back.”
—Terminator, Schwarzenegger
Masculinity in Crisis. As we have seen in recent weeks in class, masculinity and what it means to “be a man” is a fluid concept that is constantly in flux in Hollywood, reflecting a particular social or cultural moment. In the wake of the humiliation of Vietnam, Watergate and male anxieties of the women’s feminist movement and gay awareness, Susan Jeffords argues that America entered a transitional period of disintegration of established white male privilege, status and values (140-141). And, by the 1980s, the nation’s faith in masculine authority figures was badly shaken, giving rise to a perception that America was becoming femininized and weak. Reflecting Reagan’s agenda of white remasculinization domestically and in foreign politics to reassert American dominance, Hollywood responded to this identification crises with blockbuster action films that featured hard, muscled bodies of stars, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who symbolized and reestablished a traditional conservative mythic 1980s dominant white American male hero.
Schwarzenegger as The Terminator (1984), with massive weapons appended to his body, firmly established his stardom as the iconic image of what a “real man” should be. Schwarzenegger with his foreign accent visually came to stand for the nation itself—a fantastical impenetrable, machine-like force against foreign and domestic evil forces. He was a cold, focused machine that could stand against self-serving governments, breakdowns in societal order and reestablish national masculinity in America. Decisive and courageous, the Terminator’s hyper-masculinized, superhuman, chiseled and perfected, his “Mr. Universe” male body was created to be looked at. His hard body which almost disappears as it becomes one with the machine, is designed to control one’s environment and contain the “feared flow of femininity,” female sexuality, and homosexuality (Scott Bukatman, Terminal Identity). Yet, he is also driven by individualism, toughness, and militarism. And, according to Jeffords, because of the pressing international and domestic political issues in the films that required violent, dangerous battles with national enemies and evil, uncaring bureaucracies, 1980s hard body heroes as Schwarzenegger cannot be distracted or burdened by the obligations of family.
This almost rogue cyber-cowboy or machine-like hard body image of Schwarzenegger is consistent with popular cultural images in other big blockbuster action films, including Christopher Reeve’s Superman II (1980), Harrison Ford’s Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Mel Gibson’s Lethal Weapon (1987), Bruce Willis’s Die Hard (1988), and Sylvester Stallone’similar man-as-weapon/machine Rambo franchise (1982-1988). Of course, for every “hard body” masculine film we can think of, during that same time period there are a myriad of 1980s films with “soft body”—even feminine, depictions of popular males. Ferris Bueller (Matthew Broderick), Back to the Future (Michael J. Fox), Big (Tom Hanks), and Rainman (Tom Cruise) come immediately to mind. In popular culture, reflecting this masculinization ideal, the 1980s were also a time of many buddy films, including 48 Hours (1982), Trading Places (1983), and Tango and Cash (1989). Magic Johnson and Larry Byrd fought out white supremacy on the basketball courts. Nike clothing exploded for men and boys, and popular toys were G.I. Joes and Transformers. Masculine posters of Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Rambo, Schwarzenegger and Sports Illustrated swimsuit models were considered “hot.” In other areas, such as music, popular culture undoubtedly exacerbated white heterosexual anxieties, with images completely antithetical to Schwarzenegger’s popular cultural image, including Michael Jackson, David Bowie, George Michael and Prince some of the most memorable artists of the 1980s.
Terminator 2: Hard Body Daddy and Masculine Protector. Cultural moments change, and whereas the 1980s were also driven by men and women who were driven professionally to succeed in the temporary economic heyday of Reaganomics, by the 1990s, these individuals realized these economic gains had come at a high cost to their neglected families. Also, Jeffords notes that by the end of the 1980s, these one-dimensional, hyper-masculine caricatures had become not just dangerous but almost laughable. Instead, “real men” realized that it was okay to cry (for example, although not mentioned in the Readings, Michael Jordan even cried when he won he first NBA championship in 1991 and Reagan choked up after the Grenada invasion). According to Jeffords, this cultural shift in priorities is reflected by the hard body film transformation of Hollywood films and Schwarzenegger’s star image to the 1990s more sensitive “new man.”
Reflecting these cultural attitudes, by the 1990s, Jeffords argues a shift in Hollywood narratives transpired from the isolated and hardened, muscle bound white hero of the 1980s to a more sensitive, loving, self-sacrificing hard body daddy. Nowhere is this recycling of male identities more pronounced than in Schwarzenegger’s transformation from The Terminator’s hard body to the more sensitive hard body “daddy” in Terminator 2 (1991). In this film, the Terminator is no longer using his hard body simply as a weapon to destroy but a good guy that is now intent on protecting and even being a mother/father figure to young John Connor (his mother Sarah is incapable of being a mother to him) to ensure his survival and the survival of all mankind. We realize that the Terminator’s prior cold robotic killing machine identity was forced on him and not his true, inner self or “true nature” (Jeffords 161). In this new masculinity, we see Schwarzenegger’s character symbolize the absolute essence of true familial love. Only a man who truly cares will be brave enough to stand up to evil, sacrificing his own life if necessary for those he loves (167).
Note: As Jefford notes this Terminator male image undoubtedly reflects the increased reality of single parent’s household and a male view that women’s decision to enter the workplace has left the children vulnerable. As such, fathers must act both as a father and mother to their children, providing love and protection (166). We see this in other films of the same time, including Robin Williams’ Mrs. Doubtfire.
Kindergarten Commando: Protector of Children. Likewise, Detective John Kimble in Kindergarten Cop (1994) reflects a cultural return to families. At first, in the film, Schwarzenegger is a typical 1980s hard body designed to shoot or kill anyone who gets in his way. But, assigned to a class of small children (roughly the age of his own son who lives with his ex-wife and her new husband), he realizes to protect those entrusted to his care, he must look inside of himself to find a way to protect these children emotionally as well as physically. This film shows that men can change, and when Kimble turns inward, we discover that the hard body is just an image, a shell. Beneath that brutal exterior, is a lonely, suffering man who wants love and family (Jeffords 154). At the end, Kimball chooses to remain a teacher and father to his new love’s son, rather than a warrior (Jeffords 143).
These images of the 1990s more sensitive, caring “new man” are evident in popular culture of the 1990s. Brad Pitt became a popular poster boy, Bryan Adams “Everything I do, I do for you,” played on the radio, and even Bruce Willis’s Die Hard 2 film shows a man concerned that his wife is taken hostage. Men with children, like Schwarzenegger’s films, are increasingly present in “dad-venture” films, as seen in the popularity of Tom Hank’s films Sleepless in Seattle (1993) and even Forest Gump (1994), Denzel Washington’s The Preacher’s Wife (1996), and Robin Williams Mrs. Doubtfire (1993) and Hook (1991). Even Travolta’s Pulp Fiction and Titanic (1997), which was the film of the decade and starred an androgenized Leonardo DiCaprio, do not display hard bodies but more sensitive male characters like Schwarzenegger’s Kindergarten cop.
Thoughts on Jeffords’ Argument. We believe Jefford’s argument is sound within the narrow genre of big blockbuster Hollywood action films since many of these films reestablish men’s bodies as symbolic configurations of white male power and privilege. This is particularly true with respect to her arguments relating to Schwarzenegger. We also believe it is reasonable to argue that, irrespective of the era, audiences and Hollywood like to link the happiness and well-being of society to the success of favored star figures in blockbuster action films, like Schwarzenegger (154). However, we also believe that to the extent Jefford’s argument is a reductive attempt to only collapse masculine identity in film to cultural moments of specific decades in American history, her argument must fail. As we have seen in other readings, class discussions and the films we have watched, very few men can conform to any ideal of hegemonic masculinity. It is therefore not surprising that, while often reflecting cultural time periods, film ideals of masculinity are not absolutes but sliding scales that exist in relation to our concept of femininity.
Maddie
4. What role does femininity play in a film like T2? How is Arnold’s hypermasculinity sketched in relation to femininity? Can we relate this to wider cultural issues of the 1980s and 90s?
The figure of femininity in the films are embodied by Sarah Connor. In the first movie, Sarah is seen as the damsel in distress, and someone that needs to be protected as she is also pregnant. While in the second film she is a figure that needs to be contained as she is seen as too strong and independent. Yet she is not fully capable of protecting herself, as in the end of the second movie it is Arnold’s character that must kill the villain once Sarah runs f out of bullets. So Sarah’s dominance and importance and need diminishes as the male characters become more important. In comparison, Arnold's character is seen as this hypermasculine being who is essentially a superhuman. His body is seen as this perfect specimen that has been crafted by the best technology--he is what men should aspire to be like. This power and dominance grows as Sarah's strength, power, and independence dwindles.
This dichotomy shows the stark differences between the 80s and 90s. The 80s was a time where a the culture of working out and being fit was at the forefront. Men worked to grow bigger and stronger, while women worked towards growing leaner and losing fat. 80s were also when bodybuilding culture grew, especially for men. In contrast the 90s, were not especially keen on workout culture, but in the sphere of bodybuilding it extended to women. Which could be the reasoning behind why Sarah is seen as ripped and toned as she is.
Chimezie
5. How can we understand the relationship between Arnold’s past as a Hollywood star and his more recent present as a political player?
Arnold Schwarzenegger’s presence and success in both popular culture and political realms is a very unique run that is comparable to only a few others throughout history. Other personalities such as Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump are perhaps two of the biggest names when it comes to turning star success into triumph as a political player. For Schwarzenegger, in terms of the relationship that his star success played in his more recent role as a political player, it is fair to say that his masculine presence in the many movie roles that he was involved in, plus his previous background as a bodybuilder paved the way for his success in politics. Schwarzenegger was always involved in a protective role in the many movies that he starred in, which helped with his political image because many people translated that protectiveness to the real world in hope that he could do the same for their communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment