The Application of Gender Theory to Boys Dont Cry Film - Research Paper Example

Women and Film The 1999 American romantic drama Boys Don’t Cry was co-written by Andy Bienen and Kimberly Peirce under the direction of Pierce. The film centers on the real-life events of Brandon Teena’s life. While Brandon was biologically born a female, she felt like a man. The story examines the representation of gender in the society, showing the extent to which such representation bolsters a patriarchal ideology (Blessing and Tudico 110). Brandon seeks a relationship with a young woman, and this leads to her being beaten, raped, and subsequently murdered by her male friends after the friends realized that Brandon was anatomically female. Boys Don’t Cry explores a number of themes including identity, empowerment, freedom, and courage. However, gender representation underpins all these themes. This paper will examine the representation of gender in Boys Don’t Cry, describing the key aspects of gender representation both in society and in the film. Representation of gender in the film adds force to the patriarchal norms held by the society. Discussions of the topic of gender in film owe their origins to conventional feminist film theorists who considered films as male-dominated and immensely guilty of gender stereotyping. In this examination of Boys Don’t Cry, the popular gender theory becomes highly applicable to determine the degree to which gender representation supports stereotypes. The Jacques Lacan and Sigmund Freud developed the psychoanalytical theory that profoundly influenced the early feminist film theory (Herz 51). However, the psychoanalytic theory had substantive problems such as its phallic-centric basis. This led to the development of alternative discussion mechanisms such as the cultural studies mechanism. In this analysis of Boys Don’t Cry, I will utilize both approaches to cover the entire scope of gender representation. The psychoanalytic theory has a propensity for perceiving males as active and females as passive. For instance, in the film, males control the look, often referred to as the male gaze, while women are often the object of such gaze (Blessing and Tudico 73). In the film, Brandon and John steer the story forward by dictating the occurrence of the narrative, while female characters like Lana and Candace are largely resigned to the background. Male characters define women by their appearances; for instance, during the bar scene, Candace is the object of the male gaze owing to her attractiveness; then later, the facade changes to that of a mother. Lana, on the other hand, is the object of both Brandon and John’s voyeuristic or sexual gaze. This essentially means that men consider women as sex objects placed in the world for their pleasure. In contrast, men in the film are far too active to become the focus of a sexual gaze. According to Mulvey (37), this phenomenon is essential because of men’s fear to acknowledge homoerotic desires. In addition, it is only acceptable for a man to be represented as a spectacle if such representation unites with the narrative to place emphasis on the man’s active role in the storyline. This exemplifies the stereotype of gender roles where males are subjective beings and females are objective, the objects of males’ desires. Distinctively, the character of Brandon, nonetheless, appears to be at odds with this perception. This is because several scenes in Boys Don’t Cry focus primarily on Brandon’s sexual appearance. Notably, Brandon’s appearance becomes central to the narrative without the element of action. This warrants the question if a similar tactics would apply if Brandon were a male. If Brandon were, in reality, a male, this would raise questions of homoeroticism, but since he is perceived as a female, this suggestion becomes inapplicable. In addition, Brandon’s attention to detail as she creates her male persona echoes the contemporary views on image construction, in which the female body is highly industrialized – for instance, for a woman to attain femininity, she must use make-up, wear seductive clothes and underwear, and maintain a visibly sexual existence in the society. This is the sexist conceptualization of women in the modern world. Apparently, regardless of Brandon’s efforts to move towards a masculine appearance, the same effort taken to sculpt a feminine image still applies to her, since she is a woman. Furthermore, Boys Don’t Cry brings to mind Freud’s castration complex theory. Films depict women as inadequate because they lack a penis, further exemplifying Freud’s theory. A female’s lack of a penis implies the threat of difference between herself and her male counterparts, raising male anxieties of castration. Ideally, the male reaction to threat is twofold: either the denial of the fear of castration and replacing such fear with a fetish object by perceiving a woman as a fetish object; or the man attempts to illuminate the object of his anxiety (the woman) by punishing or forgiving the guilty object (the woman) through sexual pleasure or sadism (Herz 66). However, Boys Don’t Cry uses the second reaction, which occurs in three parts as exemplified through John’s actions. These parts are recognizable through John’s exploration of the truth, the assertion of physical control, which begins in the bathroom scene, and the use of rape as a sadistic punishment, which is a reaction of John’s fear of difference. This fear of difference simply means that John would rather punish Brandon through rape than forgive her for lying about her true anatomy (Blessing and Tudico 84). This is because John is afraid of being associated with Brandon despite their former friendship when John thought Brandon was a man. There is currently sufficient evidence in contemporary media to prove that society reduces women through a fragmented element in their anatomy, which brings pleasure through observation and touch. This view emanates from the perception of women as different. Social conditioning continues to reinforce the assumption that it is typically acceptable to downgrade women to the status of mere objects. The film wrongfully portrays male characters as being inherently sadistic, or that masochism is inherently a feminine trait. However, this could be as a result of social conditioning that men pursue violence to confirm their masculinity. The greatest problem feminists experience with the psychoanalytic approach is the fact that the approach emphasizes the penis as a symbol of power (Nelmes 59). In the film, Brandon seems to gain power and recognition under the disguise of a man; nonetheless, this power is lost as soon as her lack of a penis is revealed. While Brandon still remains a key character in the film, she no longer has any direct control over the narrative, which is presented through her physical deficiency of control within the plot. Throughout the film, other female characters also showcase this lack of control. Lana’s mother is possibly the best case in point of such deficiency. This is because she seeks recognition through exhibitionism and is largely unable to challenge John’s authority. The gun-phallus symbolism, shown towards the end of the film, shows John holding a gun to Brandon’s head. This is a further demonstration of the essence of dominant male power (Blessing and Tudico 68). According to Nelmes (87), the representation of gender in films often reflects the anxieties and concerns in the society, especially with regard to the question of what constitutes human beings. Since films represent current societal ideologies, then the response of the society to Brandon’s identity brings to light the homophobic attitudes still widespread across the globe. While a psychoanalytical approach identifies males and females as binary opposites, the cultural studies approach implies that gender is adaptable and, therefore, highly complex. Nelmes argues that femininity and masculinity are complex compositions, but since men are seen as the norm, their masculinity becomes difficult to recognize. The approach used in Boys Don’t Cry is quite stereotypical, since it attributes traits of sadism and voyeurism to male characters, while at the same time classifying female characters as passive spectacles. The sadism showcased by male characters is a manner of initiation or a rite of passage that proves the person’s right to be a man. In the bumper-skiing scene, Tom tests Brandon’s bravery because the stereotype requires men to show no fear (Herz 85). On the other hand, when Tom offers Brandon a knife to harm himself, Brandon’s refusal symbolizes her rejection of masochism as well as her rejection by her male friends. Stereotypes suggest that the male body should receive some form of injury as evidence of masculinity. This is particularly evident in the aforementioned action scenes, as well as Brandon’s application of bindings to her breasts to realize her male look. In choosing to live as a man, Brandon chooses to endure pain constantly to sustain that choice. In conclusion, the application of gender theory to Boys Don’t Cry highlights some serious concerns between the stereotypical representation of male and female power in film. While the plot has substantial complexities, the description of male and female attributes is quite clear. The film is, therefore, of vital merit in terms of identifying gender in films, especially when it comes to the representation of gender roles. The film exemplifies several stereotypical norms. These include the view that men are innately more powerful than women and male gender is supreme as shown by Brandon’s shift to a male. However, the film’s greatest stereotype seems to lie in its title, which assumes that boys do not cry, meaning that they are impervious to pain or have the capacity to deal with pain internally, compared to girls whose coping mechanism entails crying (Blessing and Tudico 77). Works Cited Blessing, K. A., and P. J. Tudico. Movies and the Meaning of Life: Philosophers Take on Hollywood. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 2005. Print. Herz, K. The Pressure to Conform to the "Correct" Gender in 'Boys Don't Cry' and 'Brokeback Mountain'. California: GRIN Verlag Publishers, 2007. Print. Mulvey, L. Visual and Other Pleasures (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Print. Nelmes, J. Introduction to Film Studies. (4th ed.). Oxford: Routledge, 2007. Print. Read More