This summer's unleash of comic book heroes on the big screens prompted Tribune newspapers writer Rebecca Keegan to pen "Flex time" in which she questioned the merit of so much cinematic muscular action on male audiences. Her cornerstone concern: Muscular summer actions have swaggered back into style [as opposed to the prima donna pretty boys, anti-heroes, and boyish action stars like Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider Man] but what are they saying to male audiences?
My beef with this 'concern' is why isn't it ever asked aloud regarding the chorus line of effete, scrawny, unmanly and queer characters ubiquitous on television (cable and network) and popping up all over movies? Seems to be that influence warrants an obvious "Hmmm?" But it's not asked in the Tribune newspapers or Newsweek or sophisticated style magazines - Esquire, GQ, Vanity Fair - because that would come off as, oh, intolerant...small-minded...homophobic...male chauvinistic.
 |
| Jason Momoa as Conan |
All these manly muscle men leave some experts, according to Keegan, to "tempt men both in and outside of show business to consider using illicit products to keep up" because, hey, "steroid use still occurs in Hollywood." There are also dozens of fitness centers and body transformers ("gym" is oh so Neanderthal) and real live models all over L.A. fueling the billion dollar fitness industry. It is possible for boys and men to improve self-esteem via building muscle and to go at it naturally and sanely. The question isn't what influence behemoth action characters have on men - that's obvious - but why male audiences still prefer said characters? But, then again, that's obvious too --it's just a thorn in some academics' sides.
 |
| Original Muscle Beach in Venice Beach, CA |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment