Cooper,
B. (2002). Boys Don't Cry and female
masculinity: Reclaiming a life & dismantling the
politics of
normative heterosexuality. Critical
Studies in Media Communication, 19, 44-63.
In previous discussions surrounding
the media and the portrayal of the transgendered community, there has been a
lot of negative discourse. Often the
media attempts to spin transgenderism in a way to justify it and make it fit
into the heteronormative values of our society.
A common theme that surrounds this discourse is the portrayal of
masculinity, both female and male. A
film that has sought to break those boundaries and cause disturbance in
America’s view of masculine heteronormativity is Kimberly Peirce’s version of
the Brandon Teena murder in Boys Don’t
Cry. In her article, Brenda Cooper
seeks to expose how Pierce’s depiction of Brandon Teena broke down boundaries
and fought against the heteroideology surrounding masculinity that plagues our
society. Cooper presents four main
points in her essay: to dismantle the myth of “America’s heartland,”
problematize heteromasculinity, center on female masculinity, and the blur the
boundaries of female masculinity.
In her attempt to dismantle the myth of
“America’s heartland,” Cooper discusses how the Falls City that was portrayed
from Peirce’s perspective seeks to shatter the idea of the pre-established
American dream. Instead of seeing happy
heteronormative family units behind white picket fences with 2.5 children and a
dog, viewers of Boys Don’t Cry are
exposed to the darker side of living in the Midwest. Lana’s mother is neglectful and a drunk who
has befriended two ex-convicts. Candace
is a single mother who also drinks too much and works at a bar. Lana is a young woman who is wasting away at
a blue-collar job working in a factory.
“In Peirce’s view, Falls City is not a place where good-hearted people
are content to live their lives; it’s a place where most are desperate to leave
but fear they never will” (p. 50).
Cooper discusses how this portrayal of Falls City helps to break the
notion that Brandon Teena was the dark and deceptive cloud that fell on a
wholesome and happy-go-lucky town. This
portrayal also helps to fight against the heteronormative family unit that is
so often depicted in the media.
Cooper’s second point, to
problematize heteromasculinity, discusses how in the film, John Lotter and Tom
Nissen are to serve as the picture of masculinity; however Peirce shows a
darker side of the men. They are both
ex-convicts with short tempers and who use self-mutilation to help quell their
inner rage. They are alcoholics and
abuse drugs. John is a single father of
a young daughter, but is depicted as being negligent and ultimately a bad
father. He becomes upset when his
daughter wets herself and soils his pants and he also attempts to give her
beer. Lotter and Nissen assert their
masculinity through “committing acts of violence as their natural birthright”
(p. 52). Instead of portraying Lotter
and Nissen’s masculinity in archetypal ways that the media typically defaults
to, Peirce takes a darker turn, again to expose viewers to the dark side of
masculinity. Cooper states that Peirce
chose to depict Lotter and Nissen in this light to make “it more difficult to
see their response to Brandon’s ‘deception’ as some kind of ‘panic’ and thus
somehow ‘defensible,’ or to condemn Brandon’s masculine performance as ‘sick,’
which has typically been the case when individuals refuse to occupy their
biologically assigned gender” (52-53).
Instead of excusing Lotter and Nissen’s actions as a response to being
deceived like other media outlets have, Peirce is challenging viewers to
sympathize with Brandon and not his killers.
Cooper centers on female masculinity
by juxtaposing Brandon’s interpretation of heteromasculinity to the masculinity
that was performed by Lotter and Nissen.
Cooper discusses how Brandon first idolized the two criminals and was
delighted to be considered one of the guys in their motley crew, however once
he became infatuated with Lana, he realized that he would have to put his own
spin on the masculine traits he was mimicking.
“…when Brandon is interacting with women, it is with shy sensitivity and
tenderness that helps redefine what it means to be a man. As Brandon pursues a relationship with Lana,
he exhibits a new form of masculinity—he’s the boyfriend young women dream
about” (p. 54). The fact that Brandon is
able to connect with Lana on a different level eventually gets him into
trouble. Lotter, who is extremely
territorial of the young woman, begins to question Lana and what she seems in
Brandon, which ultimately leads to his exposure as a transgender male. However, despite this exposure, Brandon had
successfully convinced his friends in Falls City that he was a man’s man, and
that he was man enough to get the girl, all while biologically being
female. Ultimately this ability to
perform heteromasculinity as a female is what disturbs and confused Lotter and
Nissen and pushes them to their breaking point.
The analysis of female masculinity
ultimately leads to the blurring of boundaries that Cooper claims Peirce does
successfully in this film. Cooper argues
that because Brandon’s sexuality and gender were so ambiguous in the film and
because Lana refused to acknowledge that Brandon was biologically a female but
identified as male, the lines between gender and heteromasculinity became
blurred for the viewer. She specifically
focuses on the last love scene between Brandon and Lana, which is a scene that
has undergone scrutiny from critics.
Cooper claims, “I would argue that this scene is liberatory precisely
because it refuses to conform to heteronormativity’s categorization of gender
as exclusively male or female. The
ambiguity of Lana’s attraction to Brandon as a man on one hand, and her
acknowledgement and acceptance of his biological sex on the other hand, subvert
heteroideology and its inherent oppression of sexual difference” (p. 56). The combination of Brandon’s confusion and
Lana’s refusal to accept that Brandon was confused and love him regardless of
how he identified, helps to make Brandon’s identity a little less confusing in
the sense that Lana saw him as a person, male or female. This confusion breaks the ideals that
surround a heteronormative couple, making their relationship confusing to those
who need to transfix upon the heteroideology that dominates our society.
While Cooper presents two solid
critiques in her first points of dismantling the myth of “America’s heartland”
and problematizing heteromasculinity, her arguments surrounds female
masculinity are rather limited. Cooper’s
referral to Brandon blurring the lines of female and male masculinity is
problematic because Brandon did not identify as female, he saw himself as a
male. Cooper praises the last love scene
between Brandon and Lana; however it could also be viewed as a cop-out on
Peirce’s part. Peirce and Cooper may
view this scene as blurring the line between female and male masculinity and heteronormativity,
but some scholars may view the scene as limiting. Brandon in real life hated being classified
as a lesbian and detested everything that came with being female. If this was truly how he saw himself, it is
hard to believe that he would be willing to allow Lana to view him fully as a
woman and be vulnerable to the point to experience pleasure like a woman. So while Cooper is praising Peirce one should
question if instead of liberating Brandon did Peirce just place him into
another category? Were the lines really
blurred or as demonstrated in Sloop’s book, did Peirce add that scene because
as a society, we are just too uncomfortable to let Brandon just be Brandon,
regardless of label?
No comments:
Post a Comment