Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Masculinity and stereotypes in movies
Masculinity and stereotypes in movies
Masculinity and stereotypes in movies
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Masculinity and stereotypes in movies
Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette demonstrates a sort of hyper-femininity that contrasts perfectly with Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds and Tarantino’s reputation for hyper-masculinity. Coppola’s use of treating the character of Marie-Antoinette like a doll proves feminine and specifically non-erotic. Tarantino’s use of phallic symbols prove masculine, and visually erotic, by many viewers.
In Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds¸ Lieutenant Aldo Raine and his band of Jewish-American guerilla soldiers fight the German Nazis during the Third Reich. Before watching the film, the common viewer knows a few things about The Holocaust and the effect of German-occupied areas; such as: The Nazis hated and killed Jews and Hitler shot himself.
…show more content…
Therefore, the common viewer may notice a few discrepancies.
More particularly, neither Hitler, nor any of the higher-ranking officers have a fiery death in a cinema. Historical variances aside, Inglorious Basterds is the epitome of masculinity. In the beginning of the film, when Landa is speaking with the milk farmer about harboring Jews under the floorboards, the milk farmer begins to smoke his average corncob pipe. Right before Landa begins to convince the milk farmer to give up the Jews he is harboring; he takes out this massive hornpipe and begins to smoke it with the farmer. This is a symbol for a phallic contest, a sort of “mines bigger than yours” instance, which is a symbol for the male sexuality. The basement scene provides another phallic example when the first “Mexican standoff” occurs. When Lieutenant. Hicox and Major Hellstrom had their guns pointed at each other’s testicles, both the guns and the direction each were pointing were archetypes for masculinity, or more specific, the male sexuality. In the baseball scene, Donny Donowitz strikes the baseball bat, being a phallic symbol, at the Nazi’s head so many times that is much of an overkill. However, it provides such beautiful satisfaction to the …show more content…
viewer, that the scene could be seen as erotic. In the fiery cinema scene, right before the explosions, Donny Donowitz, again, is seen destroying a Nazi’s (Hitler’s) head. This time he uses a machine gun, another phallic symbol, to destroy Hitler’s head so much, it is parallel to the floorboards of the milk farmer’s house at the beginning of the film. Therefore, Inglorious Basterds is an erotically masculine film. Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette tells the story of a young girl and her struggles with taking on the role of the Queen of France.
Before watching this film, the common viewer has some basic knowledge of the time-period and Marie-Antoinette. Such as: there were no such thing as Converse sneakers, rock music, or pastels at that time. However, Coppola’s Marie Antoinette nontraditionally exemplifies femininity. During the transferal scene in Vienna, Marie-Antoinette arrives with her natural hair, a simple dress, and no make-up on; she exemplified innocence. When she leaves, she has this tight dress on that shows her cleavage, her hair is up and in powder curls, and she is wearing several different forms of rouge. This is a symbol of loss of innocence, which generally only occurs with women. To explain, the most common symbol of innocence is virginity, which is a concept created by men to control the sexualities of women. For a man can has sex with as many women as many times as he wants, and nothing will change about him (other than his reputation being great among his friends). Therefore, this symbol for loss of innocence is also a feminine symbol. In the morning dressing scene, Marie-Antoinette is treated like a doll for her court to dress and undress as they please. The Comtesse de Noailles tells her how to get dressed, address everyone whom enters the room, and to not reach for things, as it is the privilege of another person. When her night-dress is removed and
the under-dress is about to be put back on, the role of putting the under-dress on goes to three different people. During this time, Marie-Antoinette’s naked body is put on exposé for all of her court to see. This serves as an example of the sexualization of women that occurs every day. This is a feminine symbol as men are not sexualized as often as women. The Comtesse serves as the role as her controller. The Comtesse, in result, symbolizes the media and how they control the lives of women everywhere. This makes Marie-Antoinette, in turn, a Christ-figure. During a letter scene, Marie-Antoinette is shown standing on the balcony of Versailles, alone, as the camera zooms out creating the image of solitude as her mother’s words of detriment are heard. The viewer understands: she is alone, everything is on her shoulders, and no one can help her. This scene serves as a heroic feminist symbol. For the post nephew-birthing scene, when Marie-Antoinette is shown crying in the corner of her room, with no dialog, Coppola is able to demonstrate the struggle of being a woman and not being able to have children. This non-erotic, feminist symbol claims the film. Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette exemplifies Femininity while Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds exemplifies masculinity; however, Tarantino’s masculinity features erotic satisfaction whilst Coppola’s femininity does not.
The piece shows Marie posing with her three children, the reason for this painting was to create a public message depicting her as more than just elegance and put her on the same level as the general public. Because the painting was meant for the eyes of the general public the painting is rather bland and lacks detail. Instead of Marie looking down on the population showing off her lavish and extravagant items she has just her children attempting to depict herself as a regular mother just like every other female raising children. There is very little details in the paint except for the empty baby carriage which was most likely only included to honor the death of one of her children at a young
While a lot of her common work was depicting the wealthy, she also had other projects of artwork that showed various anonymous women that were posed erotically and often portrayed an exaggerated form of femininity. Lempicka was openly bisexual and was very proud of her sexual endeavours, especially with women — as present in her work. Due to the nature of her work, it has often been misinterpreted as a piece created by a man, and so seen as “[an] icon of women's disempowered status as the object of the male gaze.” However, due to her style and use of irony and exaggeration actually creates a sense of artificiality that protects the women in her pieces, rather than exploit. Lempicka’s openness about her affairs and sexual encounters has made a large impact on western culture today, as we see sex become a common place issue that everyone talks about. It is taught about in school, and it has become more accessible than ever through the emergence of the internet and cinema (porn and sex scenes in movies being easily found and seen by a lot of people). The sex culture has even grow to the extent where events such as Sexpo have become popular for both men and women, and are heavily publicised. Nothing is as taboo as it was in Lempicka’s time and before, in which everything was taboo regarding sex due to the repression that was instilled during the Victorian era. I believe this is owed
During the Holocaust, around six million Jews were murdered due to Hitler’s plan to rid Germany of “heterogeneous people” in Germany, as stated in the novel, Life and Death in the Third Reich by Peter Fritzsche. Shortly following a period of suffering, Hitler began leading Germany in 1930 to start the period of his rule, the Third Reich. Over time, his power and support from the country increased until he had full control over his people. Starting from saying “Heil Hitler!” the people of the German empire were cleverly forced into following Hitler through terror and threat. He had a group of leaders, the SS, who were Nazis that willingly took any task given, including the mass murder of millions of Jews due to his belief that they were enemies to Germany. German citizens were talked into participating or believing in the most extreme of things, like violent pogroms, deportations, attacks, and executions. Through the novel’s perspicacity of the Third Reich, readers can see how Hitler’s reign was a controversial time period summed up by courage, extremity, and most important of all, loyalty.
It differs greatly, in its portrayal of mothers, from Le Brun’s Self-portrait with her Daughter and Cassatt’s artworks. Behind Marie Antoinette, you see a jewelry cabinet, off to the right of the canvas. This illustrates that, although she is with her children, she finds treasure within her own materialistic objects. Furthermore, her expression lacks emotion as she holds the child loosely within her arms. The child looks off, barely acknowledging its mother, who is holding him. Next, the child, on the far right of the canvas, reveals an empty cradle, alluding to a child who has died. Again, Marie seems unfazed or simply chooses not to acknowledge the boy’s actions. Furthermore, the young girl, on the right of the canvas, clings on to her mother as she lovingly looks up to her mother. Marie holds a wry smile, appearing somewhat annoyed or displeased. The color scheme is dark, but Le Brun utilizes contrast to emphasize the royal family. However, it only works to further expose the detached relationship between a Marie and her children. According to the lecture, “To counter people’s hatred of the queen and their criticisms of her as a bad (even a degenerate) mother, Vigée Le Brun was commissioned to paint this portrait of Marie Antoinette and her children” (Gartrell). Sadly, the painting was
The events which have become to be known as The Holocaust have caused much debate and dispute among historians. Central to this varied dispute is the intentions and motives of the perpetrators, with a wide range of theories as to why such horrific events took place. The publication of Jonah Goldhagen’s controversial but bestselling book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust” in many ways saw the reigniting of the debate and a flurry of scholarly and public interest. Central to Goldhagen’s disputed argument is the presentation of the perpetrators of the Holocaust as ordinary Germans who largely, willingly took part in the atrocities because of deeply held and violently strong anti-Semitic beliefs. This in many ways challenged earlier works like Christopher Browning’s “Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland” which arguably gives a more complex explanation for the motives of the perpetrators placing the emphasis on circumstance and pressure to conform. These differing opinions on why the perpetrators did what they did during the Holocaust have led to them being presented in very different ways by each historian. To contrast this I have chosen to focus on the portrayal of one event both books focus on in detail; the mass shooting of around 1,500 Jews that took place in Jozefow, Poland on July 13th 1942 (Browning:2001:225). This example clearly highlights the way each historian presents the perpetrators in different ways through; the use of language, imagery, stylistic devices and quotations, as a way of backing up their own argument. To do this I will focus on how various aspects of the massacre are portrayed and the way in which this affects the presentation of the per...
These movies allowed female characters to embody all the contradictions that could make them a woman. They were portrayed as the “femme fatale” and also “mother,” the “seductress” and at the same time the “saint,” (Newsom, 2011). Female characters were multi-faceted during this time and had much more complexity and interesting qualities than in the movies we watch today. Today, only 16% of protagonists in movies are female, and the portrayal of these women is one of sexualization and dependence rather than complexity (Newsom, 2011).
Today, contemporary audiences and critics have become preoccupied with the role the cinema plays in shaping social values, institutions, and attitudes. American cinema has become narrowly focused on images of violent women, female sexuality, the portrayal of the “weaker sex” and subversively portraying women negatively in film. The “Double Indemnity” can be read in two ways. It is either a misogynist film about a terrifying, destroying woman, or it is a film that liberates the female character from the restrictive and oppressed melodramatic situation that render her helpless” (Kolker 124). There are arguably two extreme portrayals of the character of Phyllis Dietrichson in Double Indemnity.
How can you be a man to your family when you are poor and black? Killer of Sheep poses this question over and over again, and the tension between masculinity, blackness and poverty is central to the movie. The film seems to provide Stan with several choices, all of which are directly related to his masculinity. He can accept the advances of the white woman, which offers him both a way out of a miserable job at the slaughterhouse and a boost to his “manliness” in the form of a tryst with a woman of a higher status. This is immediately unpalatable to him, a fact that is emphasized by the uncomfortable close-on of her hand rubbing his wrist and followed by her sideways smirk. Although he promises to think about her “warm proposition,” the movie never again explores this possibility. Alternately, he can buy the engine, which serves both as an assertion of masculinity and—as his friend notes—as a signifier of class. While he opts to try this, the entire plan is ill-fated; the scene where he picks up the engine contains some of the most imbalanced sequences in the entire movie, and the extreme and off-putting diagonal of the street effectively communicates
Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in 1933 and his sudden control over Germany sparked a new age of reform within the new “Nazi-state” (Hunt 848). As Nazism became a major aspect of everyday life in Germany, Hitler plotted against his enemies and those he blamed for Germany’s defeat in World War I: the Jewish race. In his biography, Mein Kampf, Hitler discusses the artistic, social, and technological superiority of Germany (“Aryans”), why he believes the Aryans are the ultimate dominant human race, and he makes many anti-Semitic remarks against the Jews. (Lualdi 224). In 1935, the “Nuremberg Laws” were enacted to deny Jewish Germans of their citizenship; this ultimately led Hitler to carry out his “Final Solution,” in which he hoped to fully exterminate the Jewish race from all of Europe (Hunt 864). After gathering the Jews from their “ghettos” and forcing them into concentration camps all across Europe, Hitler and his Nazi advocates began one of the most destructive and horrifying genocides in history, known today as the Holocaust. Only after being introduced to the conditions of these concentration camps, the hatred and abuse put towards the Jewish, and the gruesome lifestyle they were trapped into living can one understand why the Holocaust affected so many as it did. What exactly were the conditions of these camps, and how did a few lucky survivors prevail while their friends and families perished?
Many Americans have watered down the Depiction of Jewish oppression during Nazi reign to swift easy round up into concentration camps. What Quentin Tarantino and the Jewish film community wanted to illustrate through this film is how this is an incorrect overgeneralization. Inglourious Basterds illustrates more realistic Jewish life during Nazi reign and the constant terror they faced. This oppression was far more personal, intimate, and cordial yet brutal altercations invoked through self-defense and hatred. This film illustrates this internal oppression and revolt through schemes, interrogations, threats, and abrupt violence.
Ultimately, The Gender Knot provides explanations regarding misogynistic practices, and the protagonists of “Girl” and “Mona Lisa Smile” demonstrate how damaging these practices are. The caustic effects of the limitation of female sexuality are observed in the multitude of rules for women in “Girl,” and in the prohibition of birth control in “Mona Lisa Smile.” These two works also provide insights into the ways that gender roles constrict the lives of women. Through Johnson’s theories, one can come to a better
Furthermore, globalization in a neoliberal era markets and capital are major aspects. However, in Umuofia the economy does not depend on either. In fact, some success of the market can even be attributed to the power of faith and medicine, shown in the market of Umuike (Achebe 113). Most people in Umuofia do not depend on markets for food, as they grow their own in their farms using their own capital of seeds that were handed down from generations. Indeed, it is needed to mention that there was inequality between genders, which leads to the fact that man, lived in their obi (medicine house) to show he was superior and his multiple wives and children lived in huts. Furthermore, Okonkwo by having 3 wives was able to demonstrate masculinity within
In today’s world, men and women are perceived equally by the society. In the past, authority and control define men while women are given the characteristic of helplessness. Men are able to get hold of high positions while women usually are subservient to them. In movies, we would usually see women portray roles that are degrading due to the stereotypical notions they associate with this gender group. Moulin Rouge, a movie set during the 1900s narrates the story of a courtesan woman, Satine, as she undergoes hardships to earn money, experiences love but unfortunately, due to her irrational choices, faces tragic consequences at the end. Satine is a symbol of how women are being treated by the society during the era before post-feminism, where men have superiority over women. As the plot develops, Satine transforms from a worthless prostitute to someone who is courageous and willing to face her fears in order to attain her aspirations. Psychoanalyst theory and feminist analysis are apparent throughout the film. The male gaze, fantasy and feminism are three topics that will be covered in depth in this essay through relating it to the movie.
Stent, S., 2011, ‘Fetishizing the Feminine: the Surreal Fashion of Elsa Schiaparelli’, Nottingham French Studies, September, 50, 78-87.
Masculinity and femininity are two terms, which have been interpreted differently throughout history. Both the males and the females have responsibilities and duties but these duties differ based on one’s gender. Gender has played a prodigious role in the economy, politics, and the society. Everyone starts making interpretations of the strengths and weaknesses based on one’s gender. These interpretations are not always based on his or her ability but is usually based on his or her gender. Males tend to be judged as extremely strong and unfashionable in terms of appearance. Whereas, females are judged as expensive and very fashionable. Males and females both differ in their abilities and their enjoyments. Fashion, entertainment, and strength are three topics, which are used to define masculinity and femininity in the 21st century.