Die Hard, James Bond, Captain Kirk and The Doctor: Versions of the Masculine "Action Star"

I'm back, after a long absence! I started writing this blog at the beginning of the summer, and left it unfinished for months as I focused on things like my thesis and Poetry Slam Nationals. But, I'm back with a nice long blog. Enjoy!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I saw the recent Star Trek movie, it got me thinking about concepts of masculinity in media. It’s a subject that, as a man, naturally comes up in my mind a lot. When we think of a “guy movie” we think of explosions, fist fights, big, muscular men and lots of guns and other phallic weaponry. Yet, I’d like to propose an alternate theory to what the concept of a “guy movie,” or, alternately in television, a “guy show,” really is. I would suggest that there’s something else that appeals to male viewers in these types of movies and television shows besides sheer action.

We tend to think of these images of masculinity being projected onto men by the media, creating a stereotype of the typical “male.” I cannot, with a straight face, deny that there is some truth to that notion. What I want to suggest, though, is that there’s also an element of wish fulfillment in these shows and movies. Males in our society are often pressured into the roles of providers, leaders, father figures, etc. The concept of masculinity is often tied to a concept of leadership. Naturally, the feminist movement and other shifts in gender politics are altering these ideas, but much of that concept remains in the minds of males. With a concept of leadership comes the responsibility to be a decision maker. Therefore, I would suggest that these films and shows are a chance for males to live vicariously through characters who exemplify what men are often pressured to be: good leaders and excellent decision makers. Additionally, the main characters of these stories must not only be good leaders and decision makers, but must have the ability to adapt these skills to a number of diverse situations.

This thought first came to me when I was watching the fourth movie in the Die Hard series, the poorly titled Live Free or Die Hard:



This trailer is certainly laden with explosions, but notice Bruce Willis’s dialogue in the trailer. Much of it is about how sure he is of his actions. He acts with the utmost confidence in all of his decisions, including driving a car into a helicopter, which he speaks of with surprising nonchalance. What this trailer fails to show is one of the other main pleasures of the film, which is the adaptability of the John McClane character to an unfamiliar situation. McClane has little knowledge about the Internet or any other new technologies, hence the need for Justin Long’s character, Matt Farrell. Farrell stands in stark contrast to McClane’s confidence as he is often frightened and unconfident in his actions. His main purpose is to provide McClane with the technological information needed to defeat their enemy, Thomas Gabriel. McClane quickly assimilates this information and uses it to adapt his game plan.

Therefore, the primary element of Live Free or Die Hard that makes it a “guy movie” is not so much the action element as the ability for McClane to adapt to new situations. The film is the ultimate fish-out-of-water situation for McClane: he is quickly thrust into a crisis that he did not anticipate in a field which he is not familiar with (technology) and can just as quickly adapt to the threat. It is his superior decision making skills that give him the ability to thwart Thomas Gabriel’s plan with little time to prepare while Gabriel has, potentially, had years to plan. McClane’s masculinity is demonstrated, not merely in his muscle, but in the speed and accuracy with which he moves through the mental processes of assessment, analysis and execution of a plan when he encounters a new and unfamiliar situation.

It brings to my mind the comments made by my good friend’s cousin, who is in his early teens, regarding Martin Campbell’s 2006 James Bond reboot film, Casino Royale: “He’s not James Bond. He makes mistakes.” Daniel Craig’s James Bond in Casino Royale is a young Bond who is still learning and making reckless mistakes. While he can perform the assessment, analysis, execution process with a great deal of speed, his accuracy leaves something to be desired.



This is the chase scene from very early in Casino Royale. If you don’t wish to watch the entire thing, then at least direct your attention to the moment at approximately 4:45 in this clip. While Bond shows great confidence and quick, accurate decision making skills through most of this clip, at this point in the chase scene he hesitates. He shows a lack of confidence in the jump he is about to make, and then fails to make the jump with the same accuracy as the man he’s chasing. This is not the only time in the chase scene when he fails to land on his feet, literally or figuratively. He crashes and falls several times in the chase and, in the end, he diffuses a standoff by setting off an explosion which later creates an international uproar and negative publicity for MI6. Throughout the rest of the movie, we see Bond showing some other poor decisions, failing to read people both at the poker table and in real life, being double crossed more than once and being easily fooled by another poker player who set him up to lose approximately 10 million dollars.

Look at this in contrast to the new Star Trek movie. The movie tells the story of Kirk’s meteoric yet completely impossible rise from the rank of cadet to captain. Kirk, like Daniel Craig’s Bond, is a young and reckless version of a classic, iconic character. Kirk makes rash and bold decisions but, unlike Bond, he shows an inhuman ability to make the right decisions at all times. This is especially odd when he manages to see the connection between a special anomaly encountered by the Enterprise and a similar anomaly that was present in the battle that killed his father, a connection that no sane or logical person would have made.

Kirk bucks authority at almost every turn, especially the authority of the young Spock who becomes the temporary captain of the Enterprise, outranking Kirk. Kirk’s disregard for authority is rewarded instead of punished because he is usually proven to be correct in the end. Even his decision to cheat at the unwinnable test at the academy by reprogramming it is ultimately rewarded as he is rescued from possible expulsion by an impromptu mission, which Kirk becomes the hero of, earning him a commendation instead of an expulsion.

Yet, the examples I’m giving here are all of war-headed tough guys who fit into the archetype of a male action hero. Yet, I’d like to present an example of a less traditional figure of masculinity taken from British television, a pacifist action star of sorts: David Tennant’s portrayal of the Tenth Doctor on the long running series Doctor Who.

For those of you unacquainted with the series, you might benefit from a very quick rundown of the show’s plot. The “Doctor,” the titular character of the series, is an alien of a species known as the Time Lords from a planet called Gallifrey, who travels around time and space in a time machine/space ship known as a TARDIS which is disguised as a police call box (which becomes more and more conspicuous with each passing year since call boxes have disappeared from England) with a constantly rotating series of companions who are usually human. The show started out in the 1960’s and, when the original actor to play The Doctor, William Hartnell, decided to leave the series, the show’s producers didn’t want to end the series, so they wrote in a plot device in which the Doctor is capable of avoiding death by a process of “regeneration” moments before his death. This regeneration, while keeping The Doctor alive, results in a complete change in his appearance, voice and even his personality, allowing for the lead actor to be replaced whenever it is necessary to do so. Because of this, the show has lasted over three decades, albeit non-consecutively, with ten different actors playing The Doctor, and an eleventh already cast for a new season beginning in 2010.

David Tennant, the current actor to play the role, portrays what might be the most pacifist version of the character to date (although, I could be incorrect on this, as I have only ever seen the first, fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth and tenth doctors.) The character’s progression towards a pacifist has been gradual, moving from the violent war veteran Ninth Doctor who inaugurated the revamped series in 2005 to a much more non-violent version of the character by the fourth and most recent season of the new series. The Doctor is often forced to commit violent acts, falling into the classic Star Trek plot device where the hero wishes to be peaceful but a universe full of violent monsters won't let him. This includes acts such as destroying the Sontaran battleship in the two part episode “The Sontaran Stratagem”/”The Poison Sky,” or killing the last of an arachnid-like alien race in the 2007 Christmas special, “The Runaway Bride.” However, in both of these situations, he only kills his enemies to keep them from taking other lives, and, even then, he offers them an opportunity to live if they surrender first.

Yet, despite being such a staunch pacifist, David Tennant’s Tenth Doctor holds many of the same masculine qualities as Captain Kirk, James Bond or even John McClane. The Doctor’s ability to adapt to new situations is unrivaled. Due to his extremely advanced age, there is almost no alien race he is unfamiliar with, no scientific principle that baffles him, and no point in Earth history that he does not have an intimate knowledge of, often having been present or even responsible for these momentous event. He still finds himself surprised from time to time—you could make a drinking game out of the number of times he uses the phrase “It can’t be”—but he quickly and enthusiastically adapts to the surprising situation and finds a solution almost instantaneously, often with an oddly childlike sense of glee.

Take this famous clip from the show’s 2008 Christmas Special “Voyage of the Damned.” In this clip, he just accidentally crashed on a luxury cruise spaceship aptly called The Titanic, and figured out quite quickly that the ship had been sabotaged and was about to be struck by a series of comets while its shields were down. The only reason he failed to stop the collision was due to a series of security guards and robots physically restraining him from warning the passengers and resetting the shields. Yet, even in the wake of this disaster, he spends little time panicking. He quickly asseses the situation, formulates a plan, and takes a leadership role amongst the survivors:



Despite being a man who detests violence and refuses to carry a weapon—instead only carrying a tool called a "sonic screwdriver" that allows him to open doors and fiddle with electronic machinery—his decision making skills and confident swagger make him a classic action star. Thus, we see how big muscles, guns and explosions aren’t the most important ingredient in creating masculine oriented media (although, admittedly, these things are not completely absent from any of the media we’ve looked at).

Whether this is a positive or negative trait of these movies would be the subject of another blog. My purpose here is mainly analysis, not judgement. I could also write a whole separate blog about how this same formula is used to empower women by creating similar female action stars like Buffy in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or The Bride in Kill Bill. However, where these female characters often show their strength by combining their leadership and decision making skills in battle with other important responsibilities in their lives, their male action counterparts allow male fans to fulfill one main role vicariously through them: the role of an unfaltering leader.

"Who died and made you..." by Victor Infante

Normally I post my own writing on this blog. However, after the announcement of a possible Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot movie, I found that I couldn't really think of anything to say that my friend Victor Infante didn't say in a recent entry in his own personal blog. So, with permission from the original author, I bring you the following from the editor-in-chief of the online literary magazine The November 3rd Club, copy editor for the Worcester Telegram, author of City of Insomnia, which is available from Write Bloody Press, and a man of many other accolades, Victor Infante:


I'm pretty sure I've never seen word of a movie get such a sudden and sharp denunciation from its potential audience as the proposed reboot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer¹. Really. It's been staggering². The news was originally broken by The Hollywood Reporter, who also reported that:

The new "Buffy" film, however, would have no connection to the TV series, nor would it use popular supporting characters like Angel, Willow, Xander or Spike. Vertigo and Kuzui are looking to restart the story line without trampling on the beloved existing universe created by [Joss] Whedon, putting the parties in a similar situation faced by Paramount, J.J. Abrams and his crew when relaunching "Star Trek."³

Which, really, it's not the same situation at all. Buffy has been off the air for less than a decade, and still does a brisk business in DVDs and has an ostensibly canonical continuation in comics. Star Trek was a dying franchise of which the principle image in most young viewers minds was either an aging, overweight William Shatner at his hammiest, or worse, the barely interesting TV show Enterprise. It was time to start again. And that time will come for Buffy, too, but this probably isn't it. Or at least, this is probably not the way to do it.

There's two hard realities butting heads here -- one legal and financial, and the other cultural. On the legal side, the movie rights to Buffy are owned by original director Fran Rabel Kuzui along with her husband Ka. According to Newsarama, "Kuzui and Kuzui Enterprises has held on to the rights since Kuzui, 'discovered the "Buffy” script from then-unknown Whedon. She developed the script while her husband put together the financing to make the 1992 movie, which was released by Fox.'"⁴

Characters such as as Willow, Giles, Angel and Spike are all owned by Fox, and it's unlikely Fox would release them. And while Whedon still retains some ownership over the franchise, it likely only extends to royalties, not to actual control. Once the movie rights were sold, that's all she wrote. So if they want to make the movie in the face of an outraged and noisy fandom, that's their prerogative.

However, one thing's become clear to me in this process, though: Buffy's an iconic character, and as such, eventually will pass out of Joss' hands. Probably even while he's still alive, although doubtfully while he's still interested. The character has embedded itself in the cultural matrix, and her story will get retold umpteen million different ways. That's how it goes for the icons. But the key to the success of Buffy's next iteration will be the identification of the fundamental elements of the story.

So what are the fundamental elements of the Buffy story? Well, Buffy Summers, obviously. "One girl in all the world with the strength and skill to fight the vampires, blah, blah, blah." But while the movie was first, it's clear that the TV show is the ruling canon, and the characters introduced there have become part of the meta story. At this point, a Buffy without Willow and Giles is a bit like Superman without Lois Lane or Jimmy Olson, and even Smallville made use of Lex Luthor when it started up, along with Superman characters Lana Lang and Pete Ross. The fan reaction is one thing, but stories -- big stories, anyway, and Buffy's earned its place as a big story -- they work a certain way. And oddly, that way has little to do with faithful retelling, and secondary characters ... they have their place in a mythos.

It's like this: there's a certain power in stories that get retold and reinterpreted. Take Batman for example. The Batman in the comics now (err ... before he died) is not the Batman Bob Kane created, nor the one Frank Miller reinvigorated, nor is he the one in the cartoons or the one Christian Bale plays in the movies. But they're all faithful renditions of the story, even if the details are different: You have the boy who watches his wealthy parents get murdered in Gotham City who returns to fight criminals. You have the Batmobile, you have Jim Gordon and his faithful butler Alfred. In most, you have Robin. Some of these details were added along the way, but once they're locked into the mythos, they're there to stay. I'd argue that Giles, Willow & Xander, Angel and Sunnydale itself have locked themselves into that mythos.

So what happens if the new movie goes a completely different direction, and jettisons the existing mythos? Well, then you have a situation like, say, the Halle Barre Catwoman movie, which had nothing to do with the spirit of the mythos save its name. The reaction to the misstep becomes visceral, because some stories have a weight of their own, and not honoring that shows. For what it's worth, I think J.J. Abrams outdid himself with the new Star Trek, and that you could completely see how Christopher Pine and Zachary Quinto could grow into the more familiar older Kirk and Spock. The spirit was there. Is it too much to suspect already that Buffy's spirit is lacking in the proposed movie? It's way too soon to say that, but there's a bad feeling in my gut about it.




¹ "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER remake without Whedon or anything developed from the TV show... seriously..." Ain't It Cool News. 25 May 2009. 26 May 2009 http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41180.
² "Buffy minus Joss?" Newsarama. 25 May 2009. Imaginova Corp. 26 May 2009 http://blog.newsarama.com/2009/05/25/buffy-minus-joss/.
³ Kit, Boyrs. "'Buffy' in for feature relaunch." Hollywood Reporter. 25 May 2009. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. 26 May 2009 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i666afabc28491e6a5d5861d83ae30855.
⁴ Newsarama.

Buffy vs. Twilight: Depictions of Women in Vampire Stories

So, as a heterosexual male who is almost a quarter of a century old, this is an embarassing thing to admit, but I'll have to say it: tonight, I rented Twilight out of pure curiosity. I wanted to see what the big hubub was over twinkly vampires and restrained sexuality that made all the pre-teen girls turn out to the theaters in droves. I'll admit, I didn't have a bad time watching it. The characters were interesting and sympathetic, and watching all the kids getting ready for prom brought back good memories of my high school days. What struck me as particularly interesting, though, was the fact that young girls across the country were so enthralled by this love story that they didn't notice, or didn't care, that the story was so disempowering for women.

Perhaps it's unfair for me to compare the movie to Buffy, since the two main similarities between them are that they both contain vampires and I've watched both of them recently. Yet, the vampire element does put them in a similar genre, and its interesting to see how the movie Twilight and the TV show Buffy the Vampire Slayer use the same mythology to give distinctly different visions of femininity.

The first thing that struck me in Twilight was the fact that the vampires contain such supernatural speed and strength that humans have no hope of defeating them. When Bella is captured by the vampire, James, she has no way to defend herself other than with the help of the Cullen family. Buffy, on the other hand, shows a world in which the vampires, while stronger than the average human, can be defeated and killed by humans. While the series focuses on the one woman in the world granted the strength to be able to defeat vampires, her friends, who are not blessed with such powers, show themselves capable of defeating vampires, just with a little extra effort.

Thus, when Bella, in Twilight, finds herself inches from death at the hands of a vampire, her only savior is Edward Cullen, and his family who shows up afterwards. To be fair, the Cullen family is not all male, but it is a distincrly patriarchal family (the mission of the Cullen family is often said to be the mission of Carlisle Cullen, the "father") and Edward is the one leading the fight to protect her. Bella esentially becomes the damsel in distress, incapable of defending herself.

Joss Whedon, when he created Buffy, set out to intentionally show a more empowered version of women than what is normally seen in the horror genre. Rather than the blonde, feminine character being seen as the damsel in distress, he wanted to put one such woman in a position of power. In addition to her, there was Willow, who developed magical powers to assist her best friend. Add in Anya, Cordelia, Tara, Dawn, Faith, and the potential slayers in season 7, and you had a female centric team working to defend the world from vampires. The men in the series either served in an advisory capacity (Giles) or, in an interesting gender role reversal, as damsels in distress (Xander).

This is important considering the sexual role Vampirism has always played in fiction, dating back even to the earliest stories about them. The penetrating nature of their attack is distinctly sexual, as is the fact that it's normally a male vampire attacking female victims. The violent and non-consentual nature of the attack means that a vampire attack is usually symbolic of rape. Thus, we're left with two different views of how women are protected from predators in these two stories: in Buffy, we see powerful women protecting other women (although not exclusively, there are plenty of male victims too), in Twilight we see a woman whose only salvation from a predatory attack is a man with the same power and penchant for violence as her attacker.

Admittedly, I've only seen the first Twilight movie, and have not read either that book or any of the subsequent sequels. Perhaps Bella becomes more empowered as the books go on. I certainly hope she does, because I like her as a character and would like to see her become stronger. Still, there seems to be no intention to create a strong, pro-feminist character in the first movie of the series, and that doesn't particularly give me hope for an future installments.