The last of the book reviews! Actual content shall commence forthwith!
Ecce Homo: The Male-Body-In-Pain As Redemptive Figure is Gender Theory. It has that trait Gender Theory generally has, where about half the time you’re glaring at it going “okay, what the fuck are you even talking about, that makes no sense whatsoever” and half the time you have to make off with their ideas and mate them with other people’s and end up coming up with a horrific idea hybrid no one involved would actually recognize.
Also, fair warning: there is Freud. Honestly, fuck Freud. People who are generally sensible discuss Freud and instantly become idiots; people who are already somewhat disconnected from reality become completely incoherent. I kind of skipped over the Freud chapter, but as far as I can tell it was about Oedipal complexes and castration and sadomasochism and fetishism, although it seems to me Freud ought to have consulted some actual sadomasochists or fetishists before he came up with unwarranted and inaccurate generalizations about our experiences. (Raise your hand, shoe fetishists, if you like shoes because you’re freaked out that cis women don’t have penises! Thought so.)
You know, if Freud was right re: the whole men freaked out that most women have vaginas thing, you’d think that you’d see trans women being considered as universally the most sexysex and all those frat boys instead of making stupid “trap” jokes would be like “fuck yeah! It is a woman, AND I don’t have to cope with my castration anxiety!”
Anyway! This is not a review of Freud, mostly because I would refuse to read that book, because Freud sucks. Seriously, I have dropped classes because Freud was on the syllabus.
The recurring motif of the book is the theme of the crucifixion and different perspectives on Jesus’s sacrifice. Hence the title: Ecce Homo, or Behold the Man, is the Latin translation of Pontius Pilate’s words when he presented Jesus, scourged and crowned with thorns, to the crowd. The author’s thesis is, as far as I can tell, that the male-body-in-pain, as depicted in art and myth, serves as an almost religious, erotic sacrifice that elevates the viewer. Throughout the book, they negotiate the complications of eroticism, sacrifice, and transcendence in discussing All Of The Art.
My favorite bit of the book was the first chapter, which discussed the action movie (and The Passion of the Christ, which it argues fairly convincingly is an action movie in structure). Their thesis is that the action movie lingers over the conventionally attractive male body– arms and legs and zero-body-fat chests, youth and hairlessness and muscles, muscles, muscles. Certainly, action movie heroes quite often tend to lose their shirts; the plotlines generally highlight the male body’s ability to cope with pain, suffering, and violence. The overarching question of most action movies is “will the hero prove his manhood by surviving?”– that is, through his ability to endure pain.
Male pain in the action movie is also fundamentally redemptive: the men endure pain, which enables them not only to defeat the villains but to take revenge on them. In exchange for surviving an increasingly ludicrous number of henchpeople, robots, explosions, and mysteriously nuclear-bomb-proof fridges, the action hero is able to mow down his enemies, thus not simply winning but also destroying the root of evil in the fictional world. (Or at least until the sequel, anyway.)
I think a weakness in this section is that it ignores the reality of female desire. I mean, Hugh Jackman’s propensity to lose his shirt is pretty clearly directed at the heterosexual female demographic. A lot of more modern action movies are fairly clearly directed at the female gaze; in fact, I was a little uncomfortable at some points in (say) X-Men First Class, because of how obviously the film was made out of Fangirl Id. (Look, even that asshole Freud made up some good words sometimes.) I think there’s a somewhat distressing tendency to assume that shirtless men are necessarily homoerotic, which just isn’t true.
Speaking of homoeroticism, my other favorite chapter was about the works of Robert Mapplethorpe, a photographer who concentrated heavily on gay male BDSM. I’m a fan of Mapplethorpe, even if I usually think of him as That Dude Patti Smith Was In Love With Once: his pictures of kinky men are well-shot, well-composed, often hot, and quite human; the people in them strike me as real people, and not objectified kinky people who are OMG SO TRANSGRESSIVE. (You can see a very, very NSFW sample of his works here.)
The author theorizes that Mapplethorpe’s big thing is being honest: a fuckton of Great Art is masochistic and erotic (ask any Catholic teenager who got off on St. Sebastian), Mapplethorpe is just the one who is willing not to draw a veil over it. He confronts the viewer by depicting the male body as attractive (which is extremely challenging to the male gaze and the Myth of Men Not Being Hot) and pain as being pleasurable (which is challenging to pretty much everyone except masochists, and even us sometimes). His artwork exaggerates to the point of parody racial and gender fantasies and shows that they are, well, fantasies. Through the emphasized masculinity and emphasized pain of his subjects, Mapplethorpe points out that masculinity is fundamentally artificial.
The male-body-in-pain challenges ideas of hegemonic masculinity: where hegemonic masculinity requires that a man eternally have power, the male-body-in-pain is, by definition, weak. Paradoxically, that’s the source of its strength. Ecce Homo examines how various artworks negotiate the male-body-in-pain and cope with both making it masculine and highlighting the fundamental unmasculinity of it all. It’s cool. If you like gender theory and don’t mind Freud, check it out.
By all means fuck Freud in the real world as anything more than a chapter in the history of psychology, BUT.
Freud’s ideas make for completely kickass literary metaphors. Want to spice up your storyscape? Plunk in a pair of characters personifying Ego and Id, and watch the sparks fly.
@Jo, “I think the semi-naked men in action movies are MUCH more of a male power fantasy thing than a “female gaze” thing. Action movies being famously targeted at men, and all.” Romantic movies, among other media genres, are targeted at women. The women featured there can be quite perfect in every way, but that’s how the girls watching would like to see themselves, if only for the span of 90 minutes. I suppose you see no problem in the way women in female-targeted in media are depicted? Movies that cater to a specific group will cater to their fantasies.… Read more »
@DaisyDeadhead:
Clapton rocks. I like Sunshine Of Your Love, and his version of I Shot The Sheriff.
Most of the music in my collection is from before I was even born, much of that due to recommendations from people who were around when music wasn’t all drum machines and singers screaming their throats raw over looping guitar riffs.
I think she was talking about the film.
@Daisy:
I love Cream. The band, not the dairy product. Don’t be ageist.
Strange Brew
Does this refer to the song by Cream or to Bob and Doug McKenzie? I can’t imagine people here knowing about either, so I have to ask.
@Ozy: Oh, def. That movie was an absolute snorefest and I only saw it the one time. In fact, I’m surprised I remembered as much as I did from seeing it the one time. @Jo: 1. You asserted that the female gaze doesn’t exist. Period. You never specified that it doesn’t exist within a certain genre of a certain medium, you never specified that it had to meet some kind of convoluted requirements that make it a pink carbon-copy of the male version, so I responded. Female gaze exists, and I would know. I’m kind of a female and I… Read more »
Re: Freud – the poor old bugger does tend to get a bit of a hard time, doesn’t he? Being the subject of a cult of personality is rarely forgiving after your death – it kind of means everyone who wants to do their own thinking needs to “murder” you first. I think it’s worth looking at Freud for the same reason it’s worth knowing a bit about the Bible – if someone was wrong in many ways, but still very very influential, it’s still worth knowing what they were on about. Especially if (like Freud) they came to some… Read more »
I have to agree with Jo wrt Thor. There’s only one shirtless scene, and it’s fairly brief.
Thor never goes into moderation though.
To be fair, Thor is also total shit. 🙂
People who are generally sensible discuss Freud and instantly become idiots; Gee thanks. ((scribbling hasty notes, suddenly figures out why the college kids have always dissed me))) Do I have to explain Freud’s influence on the 20th century? (Is this a passe argument now, or do you really not know?) I bet you anything, most people have heard of Freud and not Mapplethorpe. (But then, they aren’t trendy folks, so fuck them.) WE: but that doesn’t mean it’s worth the time to read his ridiculous body of work Well, for some of us, that was how we first became educated… Read more »
“@Schala: If you deny the existence of patriarchy in Western society, there’s no way I can realistically have a productive discussion with you, as we can’t establish a common ground. We most certainly do live in a patriarchy, and it definitely Hurts Men Too, but it inarguably Hurts Women More. Hence feminism.” You do know that saying women are hurt more/worse, and denying that men are hurt AT ALL, is also part of this society you call patriarchal and this DESPITE the evidence. VAWA will pass like butter, because “Let’s protect women!” is a good patriarchy motto. “Let’s protect men… Read more »
Hahahaha, what? No, really, what? I’m “denying the existence of half of the creative works of women that have ever been made ever” because… nope, don’t follow at all. And how patronising of you that you assert that half of all “creative works” by women are examples of the (assumed heterosexual) “female gaze” – that half of all *creative works* (not just mainstream action films, no sirree!) by women sexualise and objectify men. WTF? Please can I reiterate that we’re discussing mainstream action films here? Quoting myself: “In fact, I find the very term “female gaze” pretty ridiculous and redundant,… Read more »
“But you’re right that it does showcase the physical beauty of its male leads – and just look at the vitriol it received as a result from every corner of the nerdiverse, while a soaped-up Megan Fox washing a car in Transformers is completely unremarkable…”
There are plenty of feminists who are willing to criticise the objectification of women. If you compare the number of people who criticise one thing with the number of those same people who critizise something else then of course the former will be the bigger group, but it isn’t an honest comparison
@Jo: I read that Shakesville article a way long time ago, and my point still stands. Granted, there are probably some guys out there was would have loved to have been Thor in that movie, just as there are actually tons of women who would have loved to have been Baby Doll from Suckerpunch, but I didn’t get any of the vibes from it that you did. The male character doesn’t have to be reduced to an object of desire in order for it to be female-friendly. Natalie Portman’s character (whatever the hell her name was) doesn’t have to be… Read more »
Addendum/correction to the above: Having not seen “Transformers”, I mixed up the story about Megan Fox washing Michael Bay’s Ferrari to audition for the role with a scene from the film. Apologies – although jeeeez what a skeezy thing for him to make her do. Washing a car – what a test of her acting abilities. So instead of Megan Fox washing a car, please replace with Jennifer Garner in “Elektra” (and her oh-so-practical outfits – a silk bustier which provides no protection whatsoever!), Erika Eleniak emerging from the cake in “Under Siege”, Jessica Biel in the shower in “Blade:… Read more »
@Schala: If you deny the existence of patriarchy in Western society, there’s no way I can realistically have a productive discussion with you, as we can’t establish a common ground. We most certainly do live in a patriarchy, and it definitely Hurts Men Too, but it inarguably Hurts Women More. Hence feminism. (And you’re wrong about men in rom coms, too; they’re treated with respect, allowed independence, and given agency, unlike the “love interests” in your typical action flick, who are there as ‘rewards’ for the male protagonist.) @Peter: Twilight isn’t exactly an action film! 🙂 I only saw bits… Read more »
“In the economy of the typical action film, female-coded bodies are objects of exchange passed around between the male protagonists. ” In the economy of the typical romance film, male-coded bodies are objects of providership to be passed around between the female protagonists. Wee, can we play some more? We don’t live in a patriarchy, or if we do, it’s not actually beneficial to most men. Unless you count getting trampled by the system *and being told you should like it dammit* or else you’re a pansy…well I don’t see that as a positive. NO ONE cares about violence against… Read more »
@Jo: Twilight, ’nuff said 😉
I’d generally agree though that men aren’t objectified in terms of nekkid bodies. Where men are objects of the female gaze in films they’re usually buying something (Pretty Woman).
@L Well, from what I remember of Thor (which is a bit fuzzy ‘cos we drank rather a lot of beer while watching it because jaysus that was a terrible film!), I’d say – still – any benefits to the “female gaze” accruing from that film were still, totally, a side effect of Thor being a male power fantasy. In fact, I find the very term “female gaze” pretty ridiculous and redundant, given the power differentials between men and women which exist in patriarchal culture, and which are reinforced a million million times a day by the mainstream media. Action… Read more »
@Matthew Swank
“…but the goal is to dominate and protect.”
Well, yes, those are the goals that the ‘ideal’ male endures pain in order to achieve. In fact, that’s pretty much the prototypical action movie: a man, despite suffering pain, perseveres to dominate and protect. But the pain, and the appropriately masculine response to the pain, is very much a part of the ideal.
I have abandoned thousands of “‘re”s in my abuse of the English language.
“male-body-in-pain” full stop isn’t the masuline ideal. If your looking at stoicism, enduring pain is part of being virtuous i.e. manly, but the goal is to dominate and protect. Also, our ideas about the kind of bodies straight men in the West should have is heavily influenced by cultures and artists that also found male bodies erotic. You can almost always satisfy the female gaze and the male power fantasy at the same time. The tension is in how blatant you want to make the homoeroticism. One tool you have is to make the male hyperdominant.
@Jo: I think the Marvel movies are actually pretty damn female-gaze friendly. I dare you to say with a straight face that Thor was made for hetero men and no one else. I dare you.
I think the semi-naked men in action movies are MUCH more of a male power fantasy thing than a “female gaze” thing. Action movies being famously targeted at men, and all. Sure, the whole “shirtless Hugh Jackman” bit is a *bonus* for women who find men attractive (which is a much wider category than just the “heterosexual female demographic”!); but I’d say it’s more a side effect than the central concern of the filmmakers. http://thegamesofchance.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/feature-sexism-in-character-design.html <– a pretty good article on male power fantasies in videogame character design. Illustrates the point nicely. As an exercise, try and imagine what a… Read more »