In reading Dyer’s chapter on “Star Bodies and Performance,” some things initially seemed like common knowledge to me, of course star bodies have a great deal to do with their performance and characters. But then thinking more it seemed like, in our body image obsessed culture of today, it seems obvious that this seems obvious, (but as we’ve seen with Valentino, Marilyn, and others bodies were always an important part of stardom). But the differing projections on the idea of the hyper-masculine action star really intrigued me. I had always assumed that the emergence of the Arnold/Sylvester/Jean-Claude action star was a product of the 80s feminist-backlash and an attempt to show off the all-encompassing awesome of men. Certainly that is part of it, but unintentionally by constructing masculinity in such an extreme it comes off as a parody of masculinity then an example of it. Just take a look at Terminator 2.
Arnold as the terminator seems to be a parody of all of societies expectations for men, and can only achieve this because he is a machine. He is tough, emotionless, intelligent (he has all those files of information), confident, and of course physically strong. The joke seems to be on those men that admire the character as an archetype of masculinity. The differing reactions of audiences that Dyer mentions, “some moviegoers seriously admire the hero’s strength, for others the incredibility of his power becomes a source of disdain or laughter.” Today, watching the Terminator may induce laughter for a number of reasons (aka the Governator), but at the time there were many who found it still laughable. But these types of viewers that are described, I would be willing to bet, fall roughly along gender lines. Despite who one would assume would like to watch male bodies on display (heterosexual females) these actions stars seem more like they would appeal to the heterosexual male. With definite homoerotic undertones, men wish to identify with these action stars as idealized masculinity. Whereas women, sensing this ridiculousness of masculine fantasy would laugh at them, rather than find them physically attractive. The female action stars Dyer discusses, such as Sigourney Weaver and T2’s Linda Hamilton, probably would find the same breakdown. Women might admire in Hamilton the strength and toughness they would want for themselves (I do), men probably didn’t swoon for her too much. But here is a difference; the male action star is masculinity to the extreme, whereas the female action star is not extreme femininity, but some kind of rogue, or even freak, from society.
1 comment:
That ability to have such opposing reactions to Schwarzenegger and the body builder/ultimate masculine male epitomizes the polysemy and "leaks" in the star system that we talked about the first day - everything comes full circle!
I'm not sure that those "leaks" occur across gender lines, though. I think the reaction to that type of character, as Dyer points out, would relate more to one's personal views and/or experiences with masculinity. For example, an insecure male might admire the strong, emotionless, confident persona whereas a metrosexual male might find it laughable. I think it is just as likely that some women will prefer Schwarzenegger's persona while others will be repulsed by it. The depiction of extreme masculinity as either role model or parody would have more to do with the background and mindset of the person than gender.
Perhaps another demographic characteristic that could predict reaction to Schwarzenegger's character would be age. To women raised in the 1950s with depictions of masculinity as gentle and considerate yet domineering, the 80s and 90s male might be an uncomfortable change. Who do you think is the target demographic in terms of age that the new masculine male is supposed to be pleasing? What part of the audience responded most favorably?
Post a Comment