Alan J. Pakula was a versatile
writer, producer and director of cinema of the 1970’s through the 1990’s.
Unfortunately, like his fellow overshadowed contemporary,
John Sayles,
Pakula was eclipsed by the light of the New Hollywood golden children of Lucas,
Scorsese, Coppola, and Spielberg in the public consciousness. Adept at many
genres, Pakula made a name for himself with the suspenseful political thriller.
While his work may not have coined the term, it certainly redefined it. Three of
Pakula’s films emphasize this genre mastery: Klute, The Parallax View, and
All the President’s Men. These three films loosely encompass what has
been deemed Pakula’s “Paranoid Trilogy” and it is the next focus of the blog’s
continuous director deep-dives.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
Born in 1928 in the Bronx, Pakula, a life-long New
Yorker, eventually studied drama at Yale (graduating in 1948) before moving to
Hollywood, using his father’s contacts at the Warner Bros. cartoon department to
get into the industry. He got his first break as an assistant to Don Hartman at
Paramount, while simultaneously producing plays for the New York Stage. This
eventually led to forming a Production company with director Robert Mulligan
aptly named Pakula-Mulligan Productions.
The first big hit of this
partnership was the stage version and eventual film adaptation of Harper Lee’s
classic American Novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. This producing and
directing partnership, from this collaboration alone, garnered multiple academy
award nominations and three wins: one for each of the pair. This lucrative
partnership would last through the 1960’s, with Pakula first stepping behind
the camera to direct Liza Minelli in The Sterile Cuckoo.
Pakula made a name for himself among actors, earning
their respect and the coveted title of “an actor’s director.” Throughout his
career he directed 8 Academy Award Nominated performances, three of them
winning Oscar Gold, with two of those wins coming from “The Paranoid Trilogy”
itself (Jane Fonda for Klute, and Jason Robards in All the
President’s Men). Pakula was one of the directors that believed that
casting was one of the most important jobs, indicating that if you cast the
film correctly, you do not have to worry about the actor’s performance. This
might be one of the reasons that even outside of the acclaimed ‘trilogy’, actors
flocked to his films for the trust and faith he had in them, especially for the
way he was able to direct female actors.
Even though he only directed 16 films across
three decades, because of affinity for the craft and professionalism of acting,
he was able to secure several A-list actors. This had a differing effect
depending on where the actor was in their career. This “Pakula bump” made up-and-coming
actors a household name (Fonda in Klute), made established actors’ leaders
in the field (Harrison Ford in Presumed Innocent and Denzel Washington
in The Pelican Brief) or reminded the public of older actor’s greatness
(Robards in All the President’s Men).
The films culturally dubbed “The Paranoid
Trilogy” include three films early in Pakula’s career from the 1970’s. While each film was constructed independently,
without the intention of linking the films through the narrative or similar
characters; film historians, critics and cinema scholars have connected these
films together because of their similarity of tone and themes which include the
representation of the 1970’s and the general distrust of the government. This
similarity could also be explained by Pakula himself and the ways that he
approaches the political thriller subgenre. The Films of this “loose trilogy”
of political thrillers are Klute, The Parallax View, and All
the President’s Men.
Klute
(1971)
The
first film in this unofficial trilogy involves a call girl to the wealthy (Jane
Fonda) helping a detective (Donald Sutherland) with a missing person case of
one of her Johns who may have been stalking her. Klute captures the
ambiance and the cultural mood of the 1970’s. Its eerie foreboding is
accentuated by Gordon Willis’s cinematography with grainy shot composition and wide-angle
shots. For as much space is shown in every frame, Pakula and Willis have the
remarkable ability to make each shot feel claustrophobic through editing and tight
cutting. Fonda, originally hesitant to take the role, eventually went on to win
the Academy Award for her portrayal of Bree. Less political than the other
films in this triptych, Klute, like a brilliantly crafted three-course
meal, appetizes.
The
Parallax View (1974)
According
to the description on the Criterion Blu-ray:
“Three Years after
the murder of a leading senator atop Seattle’s Space needle, reporter Joseph Fardy
(Warren Beatty) begins to dig into the mysterious circumstances surrounding the
killing-and stumbles into a labyrinthine conspiracy far more sinister than he
could have imagined.”
Based on
the dime store novel of the same name by Loren Singer, Pakula’s cinematic center
of the trilogy reinforces the political mistrust of the government and the
public’s monopolistic control by shadowy corporations. Their existence, let
alone their operation, filling people with dread.
While
this film was critically reviewed more favorably by established film
journalists than the public at large, the upcoming analysis hopes to recontextualize
the film as we look at it from the vantage point of the last 50 years and under
the current Socio-political context. Perhaps the film has gained more relevance
over the last ½ century.
All
the President’s Men (1976)
The final film in the series is also
the most famous. It garnered the most praise, and collected the greatest number
of nominations, awards, and other accolades. Based on the book of the same name
by journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who in 1972, broke the
political scandal that would come to be known as “Watergate”; culminating in
the resignation of then President Richard M. Nixon in 1974.
This film was elevated over the
other films in the trilogy because of its depiction of real-life events, at a
time when the public was still trying to grapple with the reality of it. Before
the book came out, Robert Redford (who would go on to play Bob Woodward in the
adaptation) purchased the film rights to the book and was in active
pre-production when the book was released. Filmed in 75’ and released in 76’ All
the President’s Men traded on the public’s curiosity and insatiable hunger
for information on this historical moment. Because of the timing of the event,
being a part of the public consciousness of the time, and constructing a riveting
drama around those events, the third film in this loose trilogy is often
thought to be a complete standalone film.
THEMES
The title given to Pakula’s trilogy is evocative and
thematically self-explanatory. The “paranoia” in question is historically
specific to the time-period post the civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s
in the US. By the 1970’s we started to see the fruits of that labor (particularly
with the creation of Title IX, the Roe v. Wade decision, and The Rehabilitation
Act of 1973). Yet, because the US had fought and struggled for these gains for
nearly three decades, this was a time to make sure that these policies were not
only enacted but enforced. There was an increase in the resistance from the
Government to implementing these changes and a concerted effort by social
institutions to minimize Civil Rights legislation’s effectiveness. This is what
led to the measured skepticism and distrust of the government apparatus during
this time; an emotional collective consciousness that Pakula’s films tap into.
All three films in the trilogy
illustrate the dangers of various mechanisms of government control, feeding conspiracies
in the wake of irrational events and a lack of institutional credibility. Whether
through depictions of surveillance, indoctrination, bribery, or murder, there
was a concerted effort in Pakula’s films for the audience to maintain a justifiable
suspicion of Government agents. To clarify, this was not a concerted effort on
the part of Pakula to shape public opinion, but rather to capture the feeling
of uncertainty and unease that followed these unprecedented historical events.
All three films came out during, or in the immediate wake of the Watergate
investigation and directly after the era of rampant political assassinations
which clearly informed these three thrillers. Conversely, the fundamental
success of these films shaped the way that the 1970’s was perceived both by those
who lived through it, and those that came after. Pakula’s ‘Paranoid Trilogy’
joins films like Coppola’s The Conversation, and Scorsese’s Mean
Streets in shaping the cinematic perception of the 1970’s in the populace; despite
dramatic license and the heightened reality depicted.
These three films ask foundational sociological
questions about institutions and organizational systems. Through this trilogy,
Pakula is interested in the fundamental tension between Agency (free non-coerced
choice) and Structure (the institutional mechanism, usually in the form of a bureaucracy,
with a goal of establishing and maintaining order) that is at the core of
Sociology as a discipline. While some have called this Pakula’s interest in “The Architecture of
Power”, within Sociology, these power dynamics can be understood through
the work of classical theorists like C. Wright Mills and Max Weber.
Weber, and Mills’ work on
institutional structures and the relationships within them are unparalleled. The
following essays on each film will be drawing from Mills’ work on “The Power
Elite” and Weber’s understanding of bureaucracy found in Economy and Society.
These essays will also draw on more contemporary scholars in various areas;
namely, Niklas Luhmann’s work on “Social Systems” and Shoshana Zuboff’s explanation
of “Surveillance Capitalism”. The forthcoming analysis plans to also make
allusive parallels to the contemporary political moment in the US; where we are
seeing a similar level of mistrust and even greater hostile resistance from the
government toward its people.
CONCLUSION
Alan
J. Pakula’s “Paranoid Trilogy” embodies the cultural and cinematic flavor of
the 1970’s. These films became the quintessential vision of what it was like to
work in films, as well as crystalize the public opinion of the government at
the time. As the trilogy gained in popularity throughout the decades, they have
inadvertently fueled the conspiratorially addle-brained into an irrational
spiral that has culminated in the Quanon sect of the dark web; thereby
tangentially contributing to the rise of our current fascistic-forward and
equally hostile government. Thus, through the analysis of these films, not only
will we see current socio-political parallels, but perhaps we can find the same
inspirational spark of resistance displayed in Pakula’s Protagonists; regardless
of the outcome.
In Sociology, it is
uncontested that gender is a social construction. The value that we place in
the various and complex categories of gender are socially, historically, and
culturally specific. What is often a point of discussion is the relationship
between the social construction of gender and how that gender is performed:
what counts, what doesn’t, what behaviors are a reinforcement, and which are
utter failures.Using the theoretical
model of Sarah Crowley’s “Gender Feedback Loop” and the notion of
performativity, this paper shall extend that conversation by adding the
influence of pop culture onto the learning of gender and its execution. Through
an analysis of American masculinity, its reverence for violent vigilantes like
The Punisher, and its often-tragic outcomes, this study challenges performative
masculinity as nothing more than a pro-capitalist violent fantasy, installed as
another bureaucratic mechanism of social control.
“is a mechanism of
surveillance, social control, disciplining behaviors, and ideas of the
self.The general messages that
girls and women receive is then internalized in themselves through the
cultivation of a gender self-identity. Then, the expression of that identity is
carried out on their bodies which then become messages for others.
Messages to Selves to Bodies
This general process is common regardless of the level
of restriction a system imposes. However, in a restrictive gendered system like
we have in the US, the messages, selves, and bodies require daily affirmations
and confirmations at each stage. Each of the “messages” require conformation
that they are being properly given, the “selves” require confirmation that they
have been properly received, and the “bodies” are policed to maintain “correct”
expression based upon the system its reinforcing.
This is a panoptical surveillance that sees
this body expression as passive; docile gender bodies (Foucault 1990). The
Foucauldian “bio power” envelops this loop defining the ways that the body is
considered “normal” by the way it expresses gender. The surveillance of
womanhood begins at birth and includes every woman’s behavior (Crawley et al
2008: 93). Girls and women are called upon to cut, pluck, pull, wax, fast, and
kill themselves into a “perfect” body. To accept the creation of masculine
social bonds through their objectification and violation, girls and women
promote masculine power for economic, social, and political stability. Women
are required through this surveillance to actively practice femininity through
what they do, how people respond to them, and how they respond back. They
cannot just be “not men”, they are required by the system to “become their own
jailers.” (Crawley et al 2008).Girls
get acquainted with this Prison and self-sanctioning at a very young age.”
This
feedback loop process is not just designed to police women’s bodies, but all
bodies along the gender expression spectrum. Even though ciswomen are often
policed in a more directly aggressive form, cismen too are policed, albeit in a
more indirect way.
Throughout the process of
social learning, and the lens of our white supremacist capitalist able-bodied
heteronormative patriarchy, cismen and women get the messages that the value of
men is intrinsic to our society. It is not what [they] do, it is that they do
it. “In short, the characteristics of
the powerful, whatever they may be, are thought to be better than the
characteristics of the powerless.” (Steinem 2019: 1). Since cismen hold power
in our society, the value of cismen is rooted in the biological validation of their
personhood, as is, without social, cultural, or historical context. Cismen are just
men (which is part of the normalization through invisibility). Yet, because
there is a tacit acceptance to the high value of men in our society, both the
regulation and expression of masculinity is narrow and harsh.Whereas cisgender women are allowed greater
flexibility in doing behaviors and action that are considered masculine (as
long as they still retain their broader sex appeal to cismen), cisgendered men
have a narrower range of behaviors, actions, and language to reaffirm and
strengthen their masculinity.This
narrow range of behavior is coalesced into a “tough guise” that boys and men have
to create (usually through aggression, violence, sexual exploitation and
alcohol consumption) in order to hide their human complexity and vulnerability (Katz,
2013).
As with cisgender women
in “The Gender Feedback loop”, cismen are heavily policed for their actions, inactions,
and behaviors within this veneer of masculinity. A part of this “guise”, is
narrowing the ability of cisgender men to be able to express their own complex
emotions. Because anger and aggression have been masculinized in our US culture,
this becomes the primary emotion by which men express and interact with the
world. Almost every masculine cultural and social norm, especially when
expressing intimacy around other cismen, has to be filtered through their
singular masculine emotion of anger. Therefore, a variety of intimate and
joyful expressions men display, also have a violent or aggressive component to
it. Cismen are taught to express all of their complex emotions through a
singular avenue: Anger. They are taught to express love, through anger, joy, through
anger, fear, through anger, jealousy, through anger etc. This reinforces the systemic
misogyny of
The Rape Culture by normalizing sexual coercion and verbal, emotional, psychological,
and physical violence as the “natural state of men”, rather than a toxic and
dangerous system that is deadly to everyone involved.
Additionally, it is this
masculine emotional truncation which severely inhibits cismen from being their
full and complete emotional selves, keeping them from understanding and
embracing the full intricacies of human emotions. Because men are socialized
away from human emotions not culturally identified as masculine, or only
learning to express those emotions through a masculine prism, any behavior is only
seen through that lens. This cismale emotional conditioning becomes an issue
in the developing of relationships (platonic or romantic) with cisgendered
women. A common complication that arises from this is a lot of cisgendered
men’s inability to recognize general human compassion. Since men are socialized
to see the world through this masculine “tough guise”, any amount of compassion
shown to them, especially from cisgendered women, is misinterpreted as romantic,
or more likely, sexual interest in them (Walker 2020). Cismen repeatedly and erroneously
identify cis female emotional support: praise, attention, and validation as
intimacy; while ciswomen simply understand this as kindness deserved of all
humans (Walker 2020: 80-81). It is this,
and a series of other misinterpretations/ miscommunications that not only
reinforces the rape culture but evidences the inhumanity of performative masculinity.
Gender Performativity
One of the core Sociological
understandings of gender is that Gender is not something that anyone has. Rather,
it is something that is actively created, a routine accomplishment through an
elaborate gender performance that includes clothing, hair style, language,
mannerisms, and the following of cultural and social norms (Butler 1999).
Regardless of one’s definition and understanding of gender (binary or spectrum models)
we are all socialized to perform a gender identity. The difference is that
based upon how narrow or broad the definition of gender being used, determines
the amount, type, and intensity of the sanctions against individuals that
deviate their performance away from the sex assigned categories they were given
at birth.An understanding of the gender
spectrum allows for the existence of a variety of diverse gender performances a
lot easier than a binary model, which is often more rigid in its acceptable
performances, only legitimating those gender performances that reflect societal
sex assigned categories.
The Surveillance and Accountability
sanctions of “The Gender Feedback loop” are the societal pressures that
maintain a certain limited (usually binary) understanding of gender which not
only reproduces the exclusionary, basic, and incorrect understanding of gender
with each subsequent generation, but it also makes us our own jailers. From the
everyday confirmations or sanctioning of gender in interactions, to the institutional
systemic control through regulation and surveillance, it is all about gender
conformity; the conformation to the definition of gender that a society has
accepted. Therefore, if we all accepted a gender spectrum model of
understanding gender, your gender would be whatever you put on in the morning
without sanction or appeal from anyone else. Unfortunately, most of our
institutions have normalized and accepted the binary model, which puts many
sanctions in place to reaffirm it.
The reaffirmation of
gender happens through the societal acceptance of how we present our bodies out
in the world (Crawley et al 2008). Since we, as people, exist within a society
governed by cultural and social norms, we are representative of our culture by
our simple existence in it. We are walking cultural advertisements, billboards
for everything, including gender. Thus, our bodies become a reflection of
acceptable cultural ideas, and if those bodies are regulated, cut, incarcerated,
or eliminated, then the undesirable message for certain gender expressions
becomes clear. This is more potent the further away the body display and expression
is from what is considered acceptable. In this context, gender is not just
something that we “do” through an elaborate performance, gender is something
others do to us. Whether that is keeping us in a closet or forcing us to live
in a skin we despise, this gender assault is all about Power.
Masculinity, Power
Dynamics, and “Aggrieved Entitlement”
Crawley et al (2008),
Butler (1999) and countless other scholars have shown us that we live in a
gendered society. While the necessity of the gendering has solidly been put
into question, it is still something we wrestle with constantly. This is
predominantly because of the way that we have gendered the idea of Power, and
the systemic valorization of maleness and masculinity within all social
institutions, especially those that dispense power (Government, Military
Economy). We think of and define power in very masculine ways, using adjectives
that have only been given a masculine context. This not only normalizes the idea
of power as masculine but forces other non-masculine, nonbinary individuals to
use the masculine language of power to describe something that has no gender.
We double down on the
gendering of power through the bureaucratic mechanism of social organization.
According to Weber (2019), a bureaucratic social order is designed from a
Bureaucratic rational authority that seemingly gives people access to power
(through a contrived methodology of convoluted alienation) and treats everyone
the same (regardless of access to resources and opportunities). Because we
culturally value maleness and the performance of masculinity in our culture,
the avenues to power and the egalitarian effervescence bureaucracy touts, is
predicated on how close an individual can perform and express the desired masculinity.
This is the formation of the patriarchy as a social order; one that harms men in
uniquely specific ways.
Most people, regardless
of gender, begin to learn these gender messages and the “legitimate pathways”
to social gender acceptance through the social learning process of
socialization. Gender socialization is specifically where individuals learn
which gender model their society supports through the cultural and social norms
that they receive. Yet, what is often lost when discussing gender socialization
is the basic tenet of socialization itself; it is a mechanism of social
control. Through this particular lens, we see the hypocrisy of a lot of the
gender messages that cismen receive throughout the life-course. Sure, they are
valued for their innate assigned “maleness”, but the limited expression of that
identity intentionally makes masculinity fragile; able to be revoked or
reissued at a moment’s notice for any behavior, in any context, at any time. Men
are then forced to have to constantly aspire to validate their maleness through
their behaviors, decisions, and language; effectively “chasing” after their
masculinity (Walker 2020). The result is that men constantly check themselves,
or are checked by others (cismen, and ciswomen) cultivating an internalized
insecurity that is weaponized by the bureaucracy, in all its institutions, to
maintain the social order.
One specific way this
insecurity is weaponized is through the Provider/reward model. Within a
bureaucratically organized gender binary system, the acceptable male/masculine
gender performances are so acutely defined, that it cultivates the unique
consequence of enculturating men to a false consciousness of success.Men, cismen specifically, assume that if they
follow all, or most of the masculine scripts, that they will be rewarded with
prosperity and happiness.
According to Kimmel
(2013):
Most American men live
within a system in which they were promised a lot of rewards if they played by
the rules. If they were good, decent, hardworking men, if they saddled up, or
even more accurately, got into the harness themselves, they would feel the
respect of their wives and children; if they fought in America’s wars, served
their country fighting fires and stopping crime they would have the respect of
their communities. And, most important, if they were loyal to their colleagues,
and workmates, did an honest days work for an honest days pay then they’d also
have the respect of other men (26-27).
One of Kimmel’s (2013)
interviewees sums it up like this:
“Look, I thought if I did
it right, did everything they asked of me, I’d be ok, you know? Play ball and
you’d get rich, you’d get laid[1]…And now you’re telling me,
“Sorry, but you aren’t going to get all of those rewards”…Iwouldn’t have done it if I knew I wouldn’t
get those goodies. How can [Society] take it away from us? We earned it! We
paid our dues! We did everything [Society] told us, and now you’re saying that
we aren’t getting the big payoff?...It all seems unfair (p 27)
What this man is expressing is a sense of “aggrieved
entitlement”, a sense of entitlement that can no longer be assumed and that is
unlikely to be fulfilled” (Kimmel 2013: xiv). Recently, this has been
weaponized in the government to manifest and push forward a far-right political
agenda fueled by white cismale fragility.Yet, this dangling promise of this “bid time return” where cismen are given
what they believe they are owed, is a duplicitous scheme to keep cismen in a
state of false consciousness, wrapped up in their fragilely masculine,
emotionally stunted prison of aggrievedly entitled insecurities. These men are
thereby convinced that masculinity can be achieved, (and they can be rewarded) by
the performativity of empty rituals and toxic interpersonal behavior that has
no societal benefit other than the maintenance of the gendered status quo and
imbalance of social power.
The Cult of Masculinity
The
sense of aggrieved entitlement that cismen often feel, centers around not just the
feeling of not being given what they were promised, but that they were somehow
duped; and because the world has told them that they are valued and important
since the time they were born (general message of gender socialization), this feels
like injustice.This is not
injustice. But it is against their oath in the cult of masculinity: The Guy
Code, the collection of attitudes values and traits that together composes what
it means to be a man (Kimmel 2008:45).
·A repudiation of the Feminine (or anything
that seems “weak”)
·Success is measured in wealth, power, and
status
·Strength is measured by stoic inertia. (being
the proverbial rock)
·Exude an aura of daring aggression
Much of this “guy code” validates itself by
reaffirming narrow and tired gender stereotypes that are reinforcing a binary
understanding of gender and the white supremacist heteronormative ableist
capitalist patriarchy.
Additionally,
men who follow the code, and actively work to shed themselves of typical human
emotions by stripping away their emotional complexity, and shredding their
senses of compassion and empathy, feel that they have sacrificed. Admittedly,
they do not often attribute the feelings of disappointment, sacrifice, and
entitlement to their elected loss of emotional complexity and a lack of caring.
They decide instead, through a plethora of scapegoats, to blame cis women,
Trans and Nonbinary people, Black people, Latinx folks, and anyone else whose
success and happiness is thought to be at the expense of White cismen.Yet, other marginalized groups achieving/exercising
their rights, and gaining status and power for themselves does not hurt White cismen.
Our masculinity is the problem.
Regardless
of if boys and men follow the code or not, they still must deal with it every
single day. Through constant sanctions and surveillance, boys’ masculinity is
heavily policed in social interactions, from friends and relatives to strangers
of any gender. If they are not going to come into the fold, and under the thumb
of “The Guy Code” then they must actively resist it. Unfortunately, this active
resistance has created toxic masculinity variants of this code, rather than an
acceptance of gender neutral and more fluid behaviors. One such alternate are
Incels (Involuntarily celibate) or “Beta male” ideology that often places more
value on intelligence and courtesy. Because they believe they are morally and
intellectually superior to their “alpha” counterparts, they justify their
masculine entitlement to women by convincing themselves they are better people,
rather than just a different flavor of misogyny.
[Incel/Beta male] ideology sees women’s bodies as
products that they pay for with dinners, vacations, clothing etc. So, from this
perspective, if these men provide material goods for women, then they should
have access to their bodies.They
believe that if they are nice to women and are “supreme gentlemen”, then they
have claim to them. Often “Incel” men frequent predominantly online spaces like
4chan and reddit from which this isolated subculture has developed this new
warped sense of toxic masculinity that is both fragile (able to be
deconstructed with the slightest slip up) and preyed upon by our veracious
capitalism.[5] The result of which is a group of emboldened misogynists whose
lack of “sexual conquest” of women they believe is due to feminism.In their mind, feminism is a movement that
hates men; and that any feminist progress is one that hurts men’s sexual access
to women.Thus, when their masculinity
is shattered by women being able to have free and equal choice, these men have
lashed out violently due to the imagined slights by women that they have
perceived.
Accept it, reject it, or mutate it, masculinity is a force
in all people’s lives: individually, communally, and institutionally. The voracity with which people fight for, or
against it, becomes reminiscent of religious belief.
Sociologically,
a cult is understood as an informal and transient type of religious
organization or movement usually distinguished from other forms of religious
organization by its (usual) deviation from the dominant orthodoxies within the
communities in which it operates…combining elements of various religions,
focusing their allegiance on specific inspirational and charismatic leaders/characters
arising in mass during period of social unrest or change (Jary and Jary 1991:
98).
Masculinity has been
built as a cult. It’s codes, rituals, evangelizing of figures/leaders are the
blatant power language of bureaucratic social institutions; allowing
masculinity to take hold and root in every aspect of our social apparatus, so
that all institutions, especially the powerful ones, can entice, recruit, and convince
individuals into accepting masculinity as their religion, whether that be by actual
membership (cismen) or by association (ciswomen through patriarchal bargaining).
Each of these institutions promotes and supports the growth of masculinity in
various ways: whether that be the lobbying for the support of irrational gun ownership
legislation (because Guns are coded masculine), the elimination of reproductive
rights for anyone with a uterus, (men need to secure their legacy through
children) restrictions on funding for non-STEM education, to the support of
capitalism during a health crisis. All these actions are in place to validate
masculinity.
However, the validation
of masculinity through these institutions is only maintained at the macro
level. The cultish system of masculinity makes sure that individual’s grasp of,
and valorizing for achieving masculinity is left tenuous. For the purposes of social
control, Masculinity remains elusive and fragile for most men. Hard to catch,
difficult to keep. Because the conditions of masculinity are vague and dynamic,
men spend most of their time performing masculinity rather than being able to
achieve it. Masculinity becomes a motivational tool for cismen to exist within
the world, rather than something that is a part of them. Thus, Men drape themselves
in the costume of masculinity in order to hide their insecurities, emotional
trauma that following such a cult has caused; to the benefit of no one except
the institutions that peddle it
CASE STUDY: THE PUNISHER AND THE UVALDE
POLICE DEPT.
Basics
On May 24 2022, a gunmen entered Robb
Elementary school unimpeded, with an AR style rifle.
He shut himself in two adjoining classrooms and was not engaged with for over
an hour. In that time, the shooter was able to kill 19 children and 2 teachers.
Off duty border patrol agents bypassed the local police, entered the room, and killed
the suspect.In the intervening hour
plus, when the gunman was not engaged, the Uvalde police department cordoned
off the area, kept civilian parents back from entering the building to rescue
their children, and then waited for more personnel, and military style weapons,
before the breach was made.
A Failure to act, and a successful
performance?
The
Uvalde police department has been rightfully criticized for their actions on
nearly every level. They actively went against the training they’d been given
on how to deal with an active shooter thereby costing more lives. One
particularly damning piece of evidence is a hallway video where police waited
for over 60 minutes, getting hand sanitizer, fist bumping each other, and
checking their phones, while gunfire could be heard along with the screams of
children.The police failed, the training
failed, the “good guy with a gun” ethos failed, and masculinity failed. Yet, all
these things will survive, and the cult of Masculinity will rise, strengthen,
and spread. Because, regardless of the outcome, (no matter whose life is lost
in the process) the expression of masculinity in a patriarchal system is about
control. It is a label assigned to individuals based upon superficial performances,
platitudes, and language that they use. Masculinity is a costume; a security
blanket used to seek acceptance; daily affirmations that convince men they are
worthy and that they matter, only to keep them functioning in the larger
bureaucratic machine.
The Soft Power impact of Pop Culture on Masculinity
and Police
Since
the late 1970’s, there has been a wave of examples of films depicting Lone Wolf
Police or military individuals that break from the system to fight “the bad
guys”, whether they be battling space aliens, or terrorists, sans shoes. These
films became the cornerstone of US masculinity. These men had no armor, nor
back up…just their muscles, and a gun. This began to connect the ideas of
vigilante justice with expressions of Masculinity that would later be
weaponized by Police and the military through various forms of warrior style training
(Stahl 2009).
This collusion between pop culture and the
military, is a part of the Military Entertainment Complex [2]. Playfully referred to as “Militainment”, this
is a part of the larger Military Industrial complex in which Hollywood films,
television, and video games, are supported by the military (giving them access
to military style weapons, gear, and tactics; thereby lowering their production
budgets) in exchange for a favorable image of police and the military in the
final product, to boost recruitment. This becomes even more salient since the
advent of pilotless drone warfare have allowed video games to simulate the verisimilitude
of actual war.
Additionally,
since the majority of this ‘militainment’ content is gendered and marketed
almost exclusively to boys and men, they also shape the gender socialization of
boys to be soldiers, providers, and protectors.‘Militainment’ is also masculine entertainment, where all of the
masculine gender norms are reinforced with a glossy sheen of popularized militarized
violence on top, without any liability…because it is a fantasy.
The Punisher: Fantasy in
a Flak jacket
One of these icons of
masculine ‘Militainment’ is Marvel comics’ Frank Castle: The Punisher. A
military veteran (Vietnam or Afghanistan depending on the comics run) who
witnesses the death of his family in Central Park due to mob violence. Unable
to deal with his grief, Castle vows a one-man war on criminality, murdering his
victims. In most of the depictions of the Punisher (outside of the Warren Ellis
run), Frank Castle is just a man with a certain set of (masculinely violent) skills,
and strong brand marketing (His costume is a t-shirt with a huge white skull on
it). Castle has no superpowers, just himself, his resiliency, and a gun. The
Punisher gets embraced
by the police and the military because, much like the
militainment films of the 80’s featuring Schwarzenegger and Stallone, Castle doles
out vigilante justice; often without consequence, remorse, or accountability. This is what a lot of men
are socialized to desire, power: the ability to do what you want even when
others resist. Even though the creator of the Punisher
has stated that the character is misinterpreted;
and should be seen as a failure of law and order; through Castle’s
masculinization and marketing, many cismen embrace him as the opposite; as the
True Justice of Masculinity.
According
to Abraham Riesman (2020) Frank Castle seems to be the patron
saint of police, Military, and Private security:
“Marine
Corps veteran Christopher Neff…owns thousands of dollars in Punisher comics and
merchandise, has a Punisher tattoo, and even designed one of his wedding cakes
to look like the character’s distinctive skull logo. Neff goes out of his way
to say he keeps his admiration for the character “safely in the realm of
fantasy,” but as far as fantasies go, it’s a powerful one. “Frank Castle is the
ultimate definition of Occam’s razor for the military,” he says. “Don’t worry
about uniforms, inspections, or restrictive rules of engagement. Find the bad
guys. Kill the bad guys. Protect the innocent. Any true warrior? That’s
the dream.”
Jesse Murrieta… served an
array of roles in law enforcement, including working at a Department of
Homeland Security prison, transporting federal inmates with the U.S. Marshals,
and doing freelance security work, and he’s a Punisher addict. He’s
particularly enamored of the skull: He owns rings in its shape, wears a dog tag
bearing its image, and spray-painted it onto the body armor he wears for work.
Like Neff, Murrieta sees an element of wish fulfillment in the character.
“Frank Castle does to bad guys and girls what we sometimes wish we could
legally do,” he says. “Castle doesn’t see shades of grey, which, unfortunately,
the American justice system is littered with and which tends to slow down and
sometimes even hinder victims of crime from getting the justice they deserve.”
Yet, the attitude and marketing strategy of this
‘Militainment’ only goes so far as its ability to bestow masculinity on others.
It allows men to fill in their cracks of insecurity through the selling of this
imagery and iconography, safely, and without consequences. It is a part of the
performativity of Masculinity. Men learn through this marketing, to mask fear
and self-doubt through unearned confidence and bravado, or that they need to
drown it with alcohol or other forms of self-medication, or you’ll be able to
ignore it with a big enough gun in your hands. The image of the Punisher is just
the latest costume masculinity offers to men, then uses it as an irrational
standard by which to judge them.
Masculinity as Criticism
As
stated above, masculinity has a greater level of scrutiny. The limited and
specific behaviors and norms that make up acceptable masculinity in the
bureaucratic structure are consistently policed by individuals, groups, and institutions.
Nevertheless, masculinity is still valued, integral to the social control of
millions of men in the US, and a strong marketing tool. And rather than take
measurable and significant steps to try and change the definition and understanding
of masculinity, or at least decreasing its overall importance to the operation
of our social systems, our culture decides to “double down” on masculinity and
use it as criticism.
Amongst
the legitimate criticism of the Uvalde police department for their inaction,
and the rational and sensible calls for stricter gun legislation to an outright
ban of assault weapons, there has been a consistent narrative critical of the department’s
actions through the lens of masculinity. While a broader criticism of
masculinity is valid, this narrative instead criticized the department for their
lack of masculinity.
Couched in masculine rhetoric,
the Uvalde police have been called dishonorable,
and branded as cowards.In the typical internet pile on that happens
on social media, every pro-gun weekend warrior, with any hint of tactical
training in their background, poured over the footage pointing out the various
errors that the officers involved made, making sure to their audience that the
problem wasn’t with the training or the weapons. The problem, in their mind,
was that the Police officers weren’t ‘man enough’.When it was revealed that one of the police
officers waiting in the Robb elementary hallway, had
a Punisher logo lock screen on their phone, some of the criticism dipped
into the rightful questioning of why police officers should emulate violent
murderous vigilantes. Unfortunately, a lot of the conversations was also in the
vein of “What
would Frank Do?” as a way to preserve the sanctity of their precious pro
capitalist phallic obsessed massacre prone masculinity.
CONCLUSION
Masculinity as criticism,
is a part of the way “The Gender Feedback Loop” functions. This criticism
regulates performativity and the multiple and various ways that boys and men
can lose and regain their fragile “man card”. Pop Culture is a tool for that regulation,
and through the commercialization of his iconic image, Frank Castle, the
Punisher, has become the latest and most recent paragon of toxically violent
masculinity, worshiped by cismen who fantasize about dystopian lawlessness as
an excuse to be able to kill people without repercussions. This fantasy, while
disturbing, and illustrative of deeply rooted racist, ableist and misogynistic beliefs,
is also a distraction for cismen from the feelings of isolation, alienation,
and emptiness masculine gender socialization causes in its strive to maintain
social control.
REFERENCES
Brady,
Anita and Tony Schirato 2011. Understanding Judith Butler Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publishing
Butler,
Judith 1999. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity 10th
Anniversary eds. New York: Routledge.
Crawley, Sara L. Lara J. Foley and Constance
l. Shehan 2008. Gendering BodiesNew York Rowman and Littlefield
Jary
David and Julia Jary 1991. The Harper Collins Dictionary of Sociology New
York: Harper Collins
Walker,
Alicia 2020. Chasing Masculinity: Men Validation and Infidelity New
York: Palgrave Macmillan
Weber,
Max 2019. Economy and Society: A new Translation Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press
[1]It
needs to be pointed out that a lot of these expectations on the part of men do
not take into account the agency of cisgendered women, that a lot of cismen
believe that they would be presented with women as a reward for being “a good
boy”.
*Author’s
Note: There is a lot to unpack with this film, its visuals, music and
especially its rich and textured themes. With any film like this much of the
themes, ideals and even plot points are up for interpretation. Thus, most of my
breakdown of the themes will come in the Social Analysis section where I will
use the Sociological Perspective to unpack the complexities that the film
presents.
Mandy, the new
psychedelic horror film starring Nicolas Cage and Andrea Riseborough is at
times a soulful, almost mournful look at life, regret and an attempt to eke out
at a semblance of stability and tranquility in a harsh world; and at other
times a gonzo radical gore fest telling the tale of a drug induced bloody
revenge fantasy. Whose fantasy that is just one of the questions the audience
is left with when the film ends. The juxtaposition of these two wildly
divergent themes could be disastrous in less capable hands; but Director Panos
Cosmatos balances out each thesis clearly, while visualizing the causal
thematic link surrounding the film’s inciting incident.This is a brilliant film of both style and
substance; and given the
overwhelmingly positive reviews is ripe for sociological analysis and
dissection of the film’s content and themes.
PLOT
In 1983, somewhere near the Shadow
mountain’s lives Red (Cage) and Mandy (Riseborough). A logger and artist
respectfully, they have a quiet and lovingly simple life; full of sweet but
painfully cheesy inside jokes, and sanguinity in a world that seems to be
bleak. However, just beneath the surface, there seems to be something that both
Red and Mandy are trying to hide; and the happiness and contentment that they
experience is a thin veneer; that can be stripped away by the slightest
complication. That complication comes in the form of Jeremiah Sand (Linus
Roache) and his cult followers calling themselves “The Children of the New
Dawn.”. Seeing Mandy on the road, Jeremiah becomes obsessed with her and claims
her as his own. With the help of drugged out demon bikers, the cult is
successful in capturing Mandy and subduing Red.Once Red is able to get free, he begins to cut a swath through bikers
and cult members alike to get to Jeremiah for a final confrontation.
FILM
ANALYSIS
The film’s mood, score and characterization
invokes the styles of epic metal bands, Dungeons and Dragons, Grindhouse Horror
and psychedelic films of the 1980’s. The film is difficult to classify and
understand because of the way that it amalgamates all of these influences into
a wonderful artful tapestry. We get a glimpse of this early in the film when we
are introduced to Mandy. As we are introduced to her, we see her working on a
particular art piece that will become emblematic of the film as a whole. Her
work, (which we only see glimpses of as we see her touch up, edit, and blend
together) becomes an allegory of the journey the characters will go on in the
film.
Cinematography
It is through the outstanding work of the
Director of Photography Benjamin Loeb, that the film comes alive through his
use of color. The muted opaque blues and greys of the film’s first half,
visualizes the sanctuary that Red and Mandy have created, far away from a harsh
past that is both implied and referenced through anecdotes; but never directly
addressed. The film’s somber mood is bathed in a gentle hue that reminds you of
early misty mornings upon a mountain. Yet, as the danger increases for the
couple, Loeb stylistically begins to seep the color red into their surrounding
environment. The deep crimson is used as the color of danger that the cult and
the bikers represent.
There is a wonderfully visual moment
(though not particularly sensitive for people with epilepsy, or prone to
seizures) in the film, when this color scheme reaches its zenith. Mandy and Red
are sleeping and they are saturated in the muted tranquility of blue and grey.
However, half way through the scene Loeb begins an intense strobing effect to
signify the terror and disorientation being felt by Red and Mandy as they are
accosted by the bikers. As Red is strung up, the colors of yellow and orange
begin seeping into the blue washed background and it isn’t until Mandy meets
Jeremiah that the entire scene is saturated in bloody crimson; so rich that it
washes out facial definitions. This color also is used to represent Red’s
transformation. With each step in his journey, he is slowly becoming soaked in
crimson, signifying that he is becoming what he is hunting, deliberately and
without remorse.
Loeb’s camera work is also important in
cultivating Mandy’s unique visual
style. Early in the film, the camera work is visibly steady; full of long takes
and close ups to immerse the audience in the relationship of Red and Mandy. Like
a glassy pond, the stillness of the camera exudes the intimacy felt by the
characters. Several times throughout the film, Loeb allows the camera to linger
on the faces, allowing them to sit with their emotions. Each of the main
primary characters are the centerpiece of a shot like this; as they manifest
laughter, anguishing rage, and disaffection. In one scene in particular, the
camera effect of overlaying images is used, and without cutting away, the camera
lingers in a moment that is both visually unsetting and full of pathos.
Soundtrack
Mandy is the final work
of Johann Johansson, an Icelandic composer who died on Feb 9th 2018
at age 48. I believe that it will be his Magnum Opus. To keep pace with the
plot and overall structure of the film, each part of the film has a different
melody. The first half of the film is melodically still, full of the films more
quieter moments. These early scenes are infused with Johansson’s more melodic
sensibilities as it plays off the earnestness of the character’s emotions. One
of the best tracks on the album titled “Mandy’s Love Theme”
This track is both the embodiment of the titular character, and the
characterization that Red holds onto as he seeks justice. This track is used
throughout the film in haunting fashion gently guiding Red on his quest of
retribution. The music overlays flashbacks with Red and Mandy, when and where
they met, and acts as an echo in the rest of the film to remind Red (and
frankly the audience) where we have been and how far we have come.
According to Cosmatos, he wanted Mandy to have a rock opera feel[1]
but he wasn’t sure if the usually lyrical Johansson would go for it. Cosmatos
added that he was fortunate to find out that Johansson grew up a metal head. While
there are more than one nod to epic metal, the film uses this to punctuate the
story of Red and Mandy as their world morphs into something that they, or
anyone has seen before. The film opens with a poem about the value of metal,
and it is through this metal focus that the film can harness its more
fantastical, magical elementsThese
ideas really start coming through during the films second half. The track that
embodies this shift is titled “Forging the Beast”.
When this rock opera 80’s fantasy magic montage begins, coupled with Loeb and
Cosmato’s style, it signifies that the audience better get on board for the
Gonzo Gore Grungefest that is about to ensue, because the ride isn’t stopping
for the faint of heart.
Andrea Riseborough
and Nicolas Cage
As I have eluded to above, this film is
bifurcated. It starts with a slower pace that is tranquilly ethereal then
shifts into a death metal rage of adrenaline. This bipolar atmosphere is
embodied in the films two leads. The first half of the film belongs to
Riseborough’s Mandy a soft spoken artist that has a penchant for metal band
t-shirts and reading dark fantasy novels. Riseborough plays her with such an
ethereal quality it is difficult to tell sometimes if she is real or not. She
glides on a whisper through the woods, like a nymph or a fairy, soft spoken and
slightly morose. Her affectation permeates through the entire film, but is
really haunting in the opening scenes where we follow Mandy in her art, at her
job and on her walks in the woods. In the subtleness of Riseborough’s
performance, we see small character choices that convince you that she could be
forgettable and the object of obsession at the same time. It is clear that
Mandy can make someone feel like they are the center of the universe or
insignificant. This balance is key to the films plot and Riseborough is sheer
perfection. The scene in which we truly get a glimpse into Mandy’s character is
when she recounts the killing of the starlings. Her evocative melancholy
delivery is full of so much raw pain and wonder that it adds a troubled and possibly
violent backstory. Yet, Riseborough has
a delicious delivery to her lines. They are like molasses; slow thick and heavy
with a hint of sweet innocence. The film emulates the pace of her dialogue in
the early scenes; allowing us to live with these characters. This is important
because Mandy is the driving force of the entire film.Yes, she is unfortunately someone that things
happen to in the film, but despite that, she expresses her true power through
an unforgettable act of defiance.[2]
It is from that act and the subsequent consequences that the film shifts in
focus from Mandy to Red.
Red (Nicholas Cage) at the start of the
film, is a soft spoken, gruff, yet principled person that seems to gain
strength and vitality by being in Mandy’s shining light. He loves this life
because he loves her. Yet, he has a commanding presence on screen that hints at
a darker, more violent past. As the film shifts to Red, he becomes the tip of
the spear that eviscerates the slow pace of the film and magnifies it to a face
melting cocaine rush of adrenaline; as if Mandy was the damn that kept the
consuming waters of intensity and rage at bay.
I have never seen a Nicolas Cage film
where the film lived up to Cage’s well known levels of intensity. This has
always made Nicolas Cage seem out of place in almost every film.[3]Mandy breaks that streak. As the film
transitions to Red’s perspective, it is almost like both Panos and Cage are
trying to outdo each other. One elevating the stakes, and the other elevating
his performance.This is the first film
in which Nicolas Cage seems tame; as he is set against a transitory and
psychedelic backdrop and a haunting score. Yet, Cage is allowed to show all his
range, and in one single scene, shot using a single take, he shows his
brilliance by going from zero to a thousand and back again in under two
minutes. After that, the film unleashes itself (and Cage) to embrace the
violence gore and devastation that is the film’s final two acts. It is
magnificent to behold.
SOCIAL
ANALYSIS (spoilers ahead!)
“Men are afraid
that women will laugh at them, women are afraid that men will kill them.”-
Margaret Atwood
There may be many overarching themes and
points of analysis in Cosmatos’ Mandy that
many sociologists can spend copious amounts of time and energy dissecting.
However, the clear singular statement that is presented in the film’s plot,
character motivation, and behavior is the dismantling
of the Patriarchy and the cost one pays in order to do that. The film
goes to great lengths to position each character and/or group as a representation
of some aspect of the patriarchy. From Toxic Masculinity and “Incels” to
feminism and male ally-ship, the character’s journeys are a fantastical
referendum on subtle and overt male domination, gender socialization and
correlation between masculinity and violence; the end of which is tragically
bitter-sweet.
Demon Bikers of
Toxic Masculinity
Toxic Masculinity[4]
can be defined as to stereotypically masculine gender roles that restrict the
kinds of emotions allowable for boys and men to express, including social
expectations that men seek to be dominant (the "alpha male") and
limit their emotional range primarily to expressions of anger. These toxic
practices are a part of what RW Connell (2005) calls hegemonic masculinity as a practice that legitimizes men's dominant
position in society and justifies the subordination of women, and other
marginalized ways of being a man. It is the world perspective that results in
the creation and maintenance of the patriarchal structure and male dominant
social system.
In the film, the tenets of toxic
masculinity are represented by the demon bikers that are called by the cult “The
Children of a New Dawn.” These demon bikers are hyper violent, constantly high
on a variety of drugs, obsessed with aggressive violent sex and pornography,
and are physically imposing and intimidate even the cult members. They, like
the culture that they embody: destroy, rape and pillage everything around them.
The demon bikers are the cinematic
manifestation of a form of masculinity that all men have to confront. This
toxic masculinity is a constant cultural state that, like the bikers in the
film, everyone knows are out there, how to tap into [them], and how to avoid
[them]. Many men attempt to embrace this form of masculinity. Even though these
boys and men will fail, they still become indoctrinated to its ideology and
strive to achieve some aspects of its philosophy. Individual boys and men find
some way to measure up to this form of masculinity. For some, it might be the
amount of alcohol consumption, or how many sexual partners you’ve had. For
others, it will be their propensity for violence or their willingness to
withstand enormous amounts of pain and psychological stress without breaking
down. Many men are a part of and participate in the reinforcement of this type
of masculinity even if they are only partially successful. However, recently
there has emerged a rejection of the “alpha male” toxicity among some men
creating a new form of “beta male” sexism that is the new form of the
infestation of masculine domination.
Jeramiah Sand and
“Incel” Culture
“Beta” males are defined as men who
don’t identify/ fit the toxic forms of alpha male behaviors. Some men embrace
this position as a way to show how they are morally and intellectually superior
(the qualities they are using to define their masculinity) to the “alpha” male.
This superiority impacts their views on women. Because they believe themselves
to be superior to the “alpha” male, they should be garnering the attention of
women and not them. Thus, their perceived superiority over other men, results
in a sense of entitlement they believe they should have over women. This has
culminated in the birth of the violent “Incel”
movement.
“Incel”s (short for involuntary celibate)
are a relatively new form of misogyny. They are a subsect of “beta”
male sexism that is adopted by men who do not fit the masculine beauty or body
standards. Their ideology sees women’s bodies as a products that they pay for with
dinners, vacations, clothing etc. So, from this perspective, if these men provide
material goods for women, then they should have access to their bodies. They believe that if they are nice to women
and are “supreme
gentlemen”, then they have claim to women. Often “Incel” men frequent
predominantly online spaces like 4chan and reddit from which this isolated subculture
has developed this new warped sense of toxic masculinity that is both fragile
(able to be deconstructed with the slightest slip up) and preyed
upon by our veracious capitalism.[5]The result of which is a group of emboldened misogynists who’s lack of “sexual
conquest” of women they believe is due to feminism.In their mind, feminism is a movement that
hates men; and that any feminist progress is one that hurts men’s sexual access
to women.Thus, when their masculinity
is shattered by women being able to have free and equal choice, these men have lashed
out violently due to the imagined slights by women that they have perceived.
In Cosmatos’ Mandy, Jeramiah Sand is the quintessential “Incel” “beta” male
misogynist.He did not have the physique
or the looks to be an alpha male in his mind. He was a musician that crafted
this 1970’s free love folk god, and when he was eventually rejected by the
music industry he took that persona into the real world. He believed in that
godlike image and began to experiment with drugs and started the cult “The
Children of the New Dawn” He believes himself to be so superior and “special”
that he gains a sense of power in bartering with the demon bikers and being
worshipped. However, like all masculine fragility when put under stress this
false identity shatters at the slightest hint of rejection from Mandy. The
result, like his real life counterparts in Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian, is
violence; when Jeremiah Burns Mandy alive for the rejection he felt.
Mandy and the
women of the “New Dawn”
The three women in the film: Mandy
Bloom, (Riseborough), Mother Marlene (Olwen Fouere)and Sister Lucy (Line
Pillet) represent three different reactions to the system of patriarchy that
exists in the world. In the plot of the film these women’s actions represent
the symbolic acquiescence, survival and resistance to the system of patriarchy
itself.
Mother Marlene being portrayed as an older
female in the film represents the acquiescence
to the patriarchy that has taken root in our culture by a lot of older
(typically) white women. Marlene’s constant rejection by Jeramiah, represents
the way that many older women are often devalued and cast aside within the
patriarchy when they gain the inability to bare children and/or cease to be
considered sexually attractive[6].
Jeramiah even has the line of dialogue: “You can do nothing for me.” This
pierces at the core ofMother Marlene,
but rather that direct her outrage in the proper direction (toward Jeramiah and
the gendered ageism that she is experiencing),she instead lashes out at Mandy
for capturing the attention of Jeramiah himself, berating Mandy for her hold
over him, telling her his attention won’t last.
This
reaction is common among older women who have lived within the restrictions of
a poisonous gendered system for so long, that they have adopted and help
recreate many problematic and dangerous practices that help to perpetuate the
patriarchy by being its support system. This is much in the same way that women
in the 1950’s maintained to adopt traditional gender norms (even if they didn’t
believe in it) for the purposes of survival. This survival mentality is supported
by the classic statistic that when white women began to enter into the
workforce in greater numbers the divorce rate also increased.
Second Wave Feminist authors Betty Friedan
( in her book The Feminine Mystique)
and Simone de Beauvoir (The Second Sex)
discuss independently that Females are not born women, they must become them
(de Beauvoir 2011) and that when they do, they have a crisis of gender identity
(what Friedan calls “the problem that has no name) because the way that they
are taught to become women is in the service of other people (namely their
husbands and children), so they define who they are by their relationship to
someone else. In the context of the film, Mother Marlene does not know her role
outside of this patriarchal domination which is why she works so hard to
support both it and her position. She seeks to punish Mandy for her actions
against Jeremiah, yet, when Jeremiah’s masculine strength wanes and is usurped
by Red and his crusade, she attempts in vein to manufacture a position for
herself in Red’s new world order.
Sister Lucy is the representation of the sex object stereotype that is given
to women as one of the few acceptable identities within the patriarchal system.
She is young, attractive, sexually available, silent and devoted. So devoted in
fact that she shows her “love” for Jeramiah by being willing to commit suicide
upon his command. In the film, Sister Lucy is there to show that what is
happening to Mandy has been done before. She is evidence that this “seduction”
concocted by Jeremiah is viable.
Yet, more broadly, she embodies young
women in our patriarchal rape culture getting warped by these toxic gender
messages. Again, de Beauvoir (2011) said it best when she said “[within a
Patriarchy], a real women is one that accepts herself as other” (273). Women
thoughtlessly buys into this feminine stereotype that is determined by a male
dominated society, conditioned in such a way to flee from her own freedom. For
de Beauvoir (2011) this creates a level of feminine inauthenticity that the
male majority creates in order to validate themselves by what they are not
(meaning women). Therefore, the subjugation of Sister Lucy is one that gives
Jeremiah power, reinforcing his masculinity, and his importance to his other
followers and most of all himself. This feeling is so intense that he believes
that this subjugation will work on everyone, including Mandy.
The character of Mandy embodies the resistance that is always pressuring
the patriarchal system to be dismantled. She is an independent self-possessed
artist that has agency and her choices are based upon her own desires.
Throughout the first hour of the film Mandy is presented to us as someone who
challenges the gender norms of the world around her. She soes not participate
in the established beauty standards and complicates the simple notions of
femininity that the patriarchy attempts to reinforce. Yet, Mandy’s ultimate act
of resistance is when she is brought before Jeramiah, drugged and surrounded by
his followers, she rejects him outright.From Jeramiah’s introduction up until the point of this rejection, he is
seen as charismatic, powerful and one commanding respect. As he presents
himself to Mandy his body and his ego are on full display. Her reaction is
uncontrollable manic laughter.That
laughter as resistance is powerful enough to strip him of the façade of power
that he has cultivated and re-contextualized his image in the minds of his
followers. Though it costs her life, Mandy is the first one in the film to
damage the patriarchy; a charge that is taken up by the character of Red Miller
Red Miller
In the film, Red is a cypher for all men in the patriarchy. Like all men, he can be
either influenced by the patriarchal gender norms saturating is every waking
moment, or he can be influenced to see women as people and support them in
their own struggles and cultivate partnerships based upon trust, consent and
equality; to truly be an ally.
The beginning of the film, through the
first half, there are subtle hints as to Red’s and Mandy’s backstory. Though
not directly indicated on screen, it can be implied through various actions
(like not drinking a beer with his fellow worker) and his initial quiet and
gentle demeanor, that Red is trying to be a changed man from who he used to be.
Much of that change one can assume is because of Mandy’s influence.[7]
Thus, it is through Mandy that Red is detoxed from the pestilential forms of
masculinity that plague all men within this system. It is this ally-ship that
is key to the utter obliteration of this noxious amalgamated trifecta of terror
between Masculinity, violence and sexual objectification. However this is not
achieved without paying a high price.
Masculine Ally
ship
“The Master’s tools won’t dismantle
the Master’s House”- Audre Lorde
The one unfortunate trope that this film
needlessly falls into is the “Fridging” of a female character. Objectively, if
you look at the basic plot points of the film, it is pretty obvious that
Mandy’s death is used to motivate Red into taking revenge on the Bikers,
Jeremiah and the rest of the cult.This
is the textbook definition of “Fridging”. Yet, as indicated above male feminist
allyship rarely is created on its own. Women have always been the motivators of
men, not in small part to the historical alienation from positions of power
women have experienced. Thus, any type of feminist movement toward equality
have relied on male ally ship in power. No type of feminist legislation was
ever created without the help of likeminded men in power. Thus, even though
Mandy’s death is a sexist troupe, it is using the same call to action women
have been using to gain male support; to frame all women through their
relationship with men ala “She was someone’s daughter, wife, sister.”, which is
echoed in a lot of male ally-ship “ I have a wife, mother, sister daughter
etc.” While this is not the best nor clean strategy for smashing the patriarchy
(in part because it still frames women’s importance based in male relationships
rather than just seeing women as important outright), it does give the feminist
movement a weapon against institutionalized toxic and subtle patriarchy…men;
and since Mandy represents female resistance to the patriarchy, then Red Miller
in the second half of the film, is her weapon against it. Thus, reinforcing the
important history of men’s involvement in the liberation from this toxicity for
both men and women.
As Red crusades for the bloody and violent
annihilation of the patriarchy that takes up the latter half of the film,
slowly he begins to take on the mannerism and language of that which he is
trying to destroy.The more violence he
commits the easier that violence becomes to commit (his last kill is easier
than his first). Thus by using the
tools of the powerful, you cannot remove that power, just supplant it.
The tragedy of this story is that as Red becomes this embodiment of this
injuriousness, he believes he is justified at the end because it was in the
name of ally-ship. Thus he is willing to become the last sacrifice to
reconstitute Mandy and her ideology at the end of the film; much in the way
that men throughout history have risked their lives and careers for women in
order to do their part in advancing a feminist agenda.
CONCLUSION
This is one of the best movies of
the year. As an added bonus, it is a film ripe for sociological analysis even
beyond what has been mentioned in this review. This film represents the current
socio-political climate we find ourselves in. From “incels” and white national
toxic masculine violence to the #metoo movement and the push for the role back
of women’s rights; we are living in a scary time, and many of us wish we could
be Red Miller and violently extricate this cultural cancer from our society and
eradicate from the earth. However, as much as we would like to pretend, Red’s
revenge is in fact a fantasy, regardless of how cathartic it would feel to
emulate. The real solutions to these very real problems of which Mandy is an allegory for, are complex,
and must deal with diplomacy and compromise…lest we end up like Red himself
lost in violence, madness through a drug induced hallucination.
References
Connell, R. W.
(2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Berkeley, California: University of California
Press.
de
Beauvoir, Simone (2011) The Second Sex Vintage
Publishing New York
[2]
The more I think about it the more I like the fan theory that Mandy is the only
real person in the film; and that after the opening sequence what we see is the
story Mandy is telling through her art. The tale of a Paladin avenging the
death of his love goddess. If you look closely at the film, when we are
introduced to Mandy, if you look at her drawings you can see hints of events
that will eventually transpire
[3]
The one big exception is of course Vampire’s
Kiss
[6]
Because through gender specific norms we define sexual attraction through
youthfulness
[7]
Socially speaking, thee is a lot of evidence both academic and anecdotal that
suggest that men’s relationship with women is a gateway into feminist allyship
