Alpha Behaviour
Cinema serves as a powerful medium that reinforces societal norms, particularly in its portrayals of masculinity, urging viewers to critically assess how these depictions shape real-world behaviors and attitudes towards gender and violence.
'Almost all anthropologists and ethnographers agree that masculinity appears trans-culturally as something to be acquired, achieved, and initiated into a process often involving painful or even mutilating rituals' Solomon‐Godeau, 1993
Fight Club. Merrick Morton/20th Century Fox
"Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable," said the Mexican poet and academic Cesar A. Cruz. My time in film classes suggests that art, as a medium, is neutral; how you perceive it—positive or negative—is unrelated to the validity of its existence. Yet, a question remains: When movies like KGF (2018), Kabir Singh (2019), or Animal (2023) attempt to set a trend in theatres and are mega-blockbusters, what of the population that gets influenced by them? Bloodthirsty men with unhealthy coping mechanisms that root their dominance in the suppression of their female spouse through abuse, physical and verbal, are being idolized by young men and serve as an excuse for older men who behave similarly. Males are continuously associated with violence, such that, to a certain extent, it must be something that they must be prepared to engage in whether they want to or not. Films translate the same onto the big screens, placing unwarranted pressure on men, particularly on younger men in society, by propagating hegemonic masculinity, but this is not an up-and-coming trend.
Fight Club (1999) is an infamous classic loved by many. It explains what a "real man" is, as that's the entire premise of the club for men of all ages who grow to idolize the film. For those who haven't had the chance to watch the movie, the "role model" lead creates a terrorist community and carries out attacks around the city. The Narrator starts the namesake club to show how fighting as a man and feeling pain without seeking help makes them men. Similarly, Todd Phillips's Joker (2019) follows a different plot but reaches the same conclusion. The lead's arc mainly revolves around the realization that violence, asserting sexual dominance, and suppressing emotions come with undeniable social brownie points and lack consequences. The movie attempts to inspire the audience to overcome their oppressed and unmasculine traits like crying publicly, nonviolent conflict resolution, and sexual passivity with toxic masculine behavioral tendencies. It needs to be stressed that masculinity is not synonymous with toxic masculinity; it only refers to harmful and unhealthy tendencies waved off as "manly" and dusted under the carpet of masculinity. Don't worry; we love and support men here, just not unhealthy coping mechanisms that hurt others and yourself <3. The personality change in the film is presented as a necessary step towards a better, if not superior, social status. Fight Club does introduce a female character as the lead's love interest. Still, he internally rejects pursuing her because he convinces himself that she is no good and doesn't want to be plagued by another woman in his life. These ideas of masculinity are hazardous. These films should be a cautionary tale of what toxic masculinity can be and what it could result in, but it's a dream for many.
Violence has been weaved into the storylines of characters to justify and normalize it as a natural progression of males to achieve superordinate positions. Bruce Wayne in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight (2008) is a perfect example. Violence in films usually follows a similar trope, which is past pain or conflicts, and that is irrefutably one of the first things mentioned about Wayne—the murder of his parents that shattered his family and childhood innocence. The construction of masculinity might differ, but it sustains the comprehension of the high expectations men deal with. Stereotypical views act as driving forces, but what reinforces these ideas is the sexual objectification of males. Audiences are attracted to the steamy banter and exchanges actors have onscreen, which associates dominating and controlling characteristics with masculinity. Wayne is portrayed as a womanizer who is virile and charismatic and lacks attachment to people, personifying the lone wolf attitude, basically hypermasculinity, illustrated by using emotionally dependent female characters as devices to further along his plot.
The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) succeeds in mirroring and analyzing the lifestyle and behavior of Wall Street men, but it erases some characters' accounts altogether from the narrative: women. The women lack depth, but that is unsurprising to the audience as it was expected that the female characters would be paraded around in lingerie as a form of reward for the men's hard work. One could reason that the women on Wall Street during the time in question were, in fact, silenced and dismissed, but that doesn't imply their absence. Female characters in the film receive, similar to other films, hypersexualized treatment; I mean, in one of the first scenes of the film, the Narrator is receiving a blow job while driving a Ferrari; does it get more obvious? The women in the movie are passive characters, meant to enrich the plot with their figures rather than words. Funnily enough, the film evokes sympathy from the audience when his wife walks out on him.
American Psycho (2000), directed by Mary Harron, was meant to be a satirical feminist cinematic piece that commented on the shallowness under excessive materialism and ethical decay set around the 80s yuppie culture but invoked devotion from men. The film was a take on the destructive dynamic between men and society and its impact on each other. Roger Ebert, a film critic, said the film differs from its namesake book by changing its theme from bloodlust to the male vanity that forces them to follow masculinity to treacherous depths. Although the film is a cinematographic masterpiece and an acting masterclass, the vision falls short due to the misogynistic lens it uses, as well as the glamorized and gratuitous portrayal of violence, which significantly impacts the narration. The female characters could have been used as integral characters but instead exist as desirable objects, or Bateman's, the lead, brutalized victims, essentially typecasting them into damaging stereotypes. The unnecessarily brutal but glossy illustrations of the murders and repetitive sex scenes increase the validity of the concerns surrounding the blurring line between the filmmaker's artistic exploration and the aggrandisement of violence and masculinity based on the suppression of women.
Violent abuse against females is usually shown against older women. In contrast, films like Lolita (1962) and American Beauty (1997) sexualize young girls, portraying them as seductive sirens. American Beauty's central couple, a father and his teenage daughter's best friend, never consummate the relationship once he has an epiphany of her innocence upon knowing that she is a virgin, unlike the professor and widowed father-12-year-old "nymphette" daughter duo in Lolita. The interesting thing to note is that American Beauty was inspired by the obsession in Lolita, which is adapted from a book of the same name written by Vladimir Nabokov, a survivor of assault. His book explicitly condemns the relationship and its premise—the father's urges—by communicating how pedophiles justify their crimes. Never once was the 12-year-old CHILD said to be a temptress, but for some unintelligible reason, the film does. Not only that, they keep it breezy by leaving the fact that he is GROOMING and RAPING his DAUGHTER in the background of the film. American Beauty is a commentary on facades, the illusion of outward beauty, capitalism in suburbia, and the "American Dream," which, in turn, has become an easy excuse and inspiration for many older men. The rarest circumstance in the film world also allows viewers to comprehend the multiple perspectives of a toxic relationship, the simultaneous releases of Elvis (2022) and Priscilla (2023).
Celluloid has taken a drastic turn in recent times to show that violence and abuse against women don't have to be gory and on the nose, and that the abusers are identifiable villainous brutes. Priscilla (2023) portrays Elvis as kind and warm, Ken as a puppy following Barbie in Barbie (2023), and Poor Things as pity-inducing men. The choice to avoid sensationalism by adding a few graphic rape scenes and taking a more nuanced path that creates an environment that forces one to be introspective seems to be a conscious one.
The uproar against these films from actors, filmmakers, politicians, educators, and the general public is silenced by a simple saying, "It's just a film," but when the same film is used to justify abuse and domestic violence because it gathered so many fans, predominantly female attention for the leads, is it just a film? The obvious rebuttal would be that for every toxic male character, there is an absolute green flag for that character, but why doesn't that inspire anyone to be good? We could bring the BoBo doll experiment from the 80s to prove why it matters, but will it bring about change? As someone who agrees that films are neutral tools and people decide whether to use them to make a toaster or a bomb, one cannot deny the effect of stars, their influence, and the inability to differentiate between 'reel' and 'real.' As the intelligent audience members you all are, we must be strong critics and interact with all films critically. To sum it up, let us use our minds, take what's good, leave what's terrible, and most importantly, enjoy the show.
