Blurring the Lines or Re-enforcing Labels?

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?

A Second Opinion of Boys Don't Cry

In her introduction to her essay on Boys Don’t Cry, Brenda Cooper wrote that the film offered its viewers “narratives that challenge and confront societal boundaries related to gender and sexuality” (45). In last week’s reading, however, John Sloop criticized the ending of Boys Don’t Cry, noting that the ending is yet another example of reinforced heteronormativity in gender troubling cases. While the film does challenge some aspects of gender and sexuality, I have to agree with Sloop. Some aspects of Boys Don’t Cry, particularly the ending, reinforce heteronormativity rather than challenge gender binaries. Through its final love scenes and its portrayal of Brandon’s killers, the film seems quite closed-minded.  

Kimberly Pierce, the director of Boys Don’t Cry, adds small details to the story of Brandon Teena that imply that he (and arguably Lana) is a true lesbian by the end of the film. After Brandon is exposed as a biological female, Lana and Brandon have their first honest sexual encounter as two women. Pierce added this scene to the film despite Brandon’s friends and family’s insistence that Brandon was disgusted by lesbianism and considered himself a heterosexual male. He would never have had sex with Lana as a woman. The final sex scene implies that Brandon is ready to live a life as a lesbian, as he and Lana are prepared to run away together. This scene shatters Brandon’s ambiguous gender identity and reveals him to be a lesbian female, which would also allow him to perform female masculinity without punishment. Problem solved.

As Sloop wrote in Disciplining Gender: Rhetorics of Sex Identity in Contemporary U.S. Culture (2004), Lana and Brandon’s final sex scene “clearly opens an interpretive door that allows reading the two as now occupying a lesbian relationship. Such an interpretation both refigures Brandon’s life ‘as a man’ as fear of her own homosexuality and maintains a gender-as-genitalia equation” (72). To a mainstream heteronormative audience, Cooper’s more liberal interpretation that Brandon and Lana’s fluid sexuality challenges the dominant heteronormative ideology does not matter. Audiences will choose the interpretation that sticks to the status quo and does not challenge their worldviews.

Pierce’s portrayal of Brandon’s killers is also troubling. While I absolutely agree with Cooper that the film de-mythologizes the American heartland, I have trouble accepting other claims. Cooper noted that the film also problematized heterosexuality through its portrayal of Brandon’s killers, John Lotter and Tom Nissen. Cooper explained, “Heteromasculinity as exhibited through the characters of John and Tom, therefore, seems not only unnatural, strange, and lacking in virtue, but also a serious threat to society” (51). Indeed, John and Tom, the only significant heterosexual male characters in the film, are monsters; however, I believe that this portrayal oversimplifies the Brandon Teena case. John and Tom are portrayed as undeniably unhinged and dangerous. Tom self-mutilates and tries to convince Brandon to cut himself, too. John encourages Brandon to outrun the police and then throws everyone but Lana out of the car after Brandon receives a speeding ticket, even though it is not his car. John has a weird sexual obsession with Lana (whom we are told wrote letters to John as a child while John was in jail) and her mother. John and Tom are clearly mentally unstable, so it is no surprise that they kill Brandon. The film loses an opportunity to have its killers wrestle with moral complexity. The audience cannot identify with the killers and has no reason to think about why John and Tom feel Brandon has to die-- John and Tom are just insane. They never debate whether or not to kill Brandon. They never explain why they feel Brandon needs to die. The film could have directly confronted America’s discomfort with gender and sexual ambiguity with a well-placed monologue, but instead the killers simply kill Brandon because they are crazy. The end.

 While in many ways, Boys Don’t Cry and the Brandon Teena story complicate gender binaries as well as heteronormativity, the film also reinforces the dominant ideology by arguably turning Brandon and Lana into a lesbian couple and by coding Brandon’s killers as simply crazy. By refusing to stick to Brandon’s self-perceived heterosexuality, the film allowed the audience to interpret Brandon as a lesbian, simplifying his gender and sexual identity. Additionally, by making Brandon’s killers psychotic, the filmmaker sacrificed the opportunity to explore John and Tom’s discomfort with Brandon and perhaps turn a mirror on the America as a whole. Audiences could not identify with the killers, and thus, did not have to confront their own homophobia. I viewed the film as an enormous missed opportunity.

Threats to Masculinity

Amy Yount

The two articles for this week (Domesticating Patriarchy: Hegemonic Masculinity and Television’s “Mr. Mom” and Boys Don’t Cry and Female Masculinity: Reclaiming a Life & Dismantling the Politics of Normative Heterosexuality) contained a common theme and that was the fact that men feel threatened by a lack of heteronormativity. In the first article, the stay at home fathers can almost be seen as a threat to masculinity because these “Mr. Moms” are not conforming to the typical gender norms of working hard and ‘bring home the bacon.’

Mr. Mom refers to “the inversion of traditional heterosexual family roles such that the husband stays a home to care for the children while his spouse is employed outside the home to earn the family’s income” (p. 355). However, this inversion of traditional gender norms represent a straying away from the ideal nuclear family where either both parents work outside the home, or the father works outside the home while the mother stays at home to rear the children. And even more interestingly, in order to explain away this “threat” the media explains this decision for the father to stay home as a “choice.” Even if the father was laid off from work and that is why he is staying home, it is still a choice, a decision. However, if it was the mother who was staying home with the children, these same types of explanations would not have to be offered. It would be a much more logical and common decision to come to.

In the second article, the boys who murdered Brandon Teena were threatened by Brandon’s new brand of masculinity. Brandon was sensitive, and shy, and “different” from other men. That is why women fell for him, because he could offer them something different. However, this was a complete and total threat to the men in that city. Brandon felt he had to conform to the traditional ideals of masculinity, such as being aggressive and tough. When he acted just like the other men, he was accepted, even admired. However, when he strayed away from the aggressive behaviors of the other men, his gender was called into question. Because how could a man possibly dare to not act like a “man?” When he stopped acting like the other men, more women began to notice him, especially Lana. And when Lana started to notice him, the other men became jealous, because Brandon was different, and was taking their women from them.

It wasn’t just the individuals in each of these stories who felt threatened by these challenges to traditional masculinity, but it was also the media who felt threatened. This can be seen in the portrayal of Michael Keeton’s character (in the movie, Mr. Mom) as a incapable, almost humorous fool trying to do the laundry and take care of the children. This is almost the media’s way of saying, “see, it’s not natural.” The media couldn’t possibly portray this gender norm inversion as anything other than awkward and abnormal. And even more obviously this can be seen in the coverage of the Brandon Teena case. As we saw last week in John Sloop’s book, Brandon was portrayed as sinister and deceitful, trying to fool the poor innocent Midwesterners. The media has to convince the public that these cases are not normal, and are a threat to traditional masculinity. Unfortunately, mainstream America might seem to still agree with this view, but hopefully that will change someday.

Playing Gay is Not Okay, But Not Playing Straight is Worse

“In short, the truthful lesbian is far less troubling than someone who challenges bi-gender semiotics and whose objects of desire are unknown” (Sloop, p. 85).

Gossip undeniably shapes celebrity culture and has become a powerful industry in itself. Blogger Perez Hilton was considered a major celebrity cameo when he appeared on The Voice earlier this season to cheer on one of his friends. Perhaps nothing sets the gossip community abuzz more quickly than celebrities’ love lives. It is common to give celebrity couples cutesy nicknames before they have officially come out as a couple. As any celebrity who has ever played gay or any actor who has appeared on Broadway can attest, gossip sites love to speculate about celebrities’ sexual orientations; however, nothing seems to frustrate gossip sites more than a sexually ambiguous performer.

Sadly, even in 2012, it is hard for actors to play gay characters without immediately being questioned about their sexuality. Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal were both questioned about their heterosexuality while starring in Brokeback Mountain, and while Ledger was absolved after having a baby with his female costar, Gyllehaal’s true sexuality is still debated fairly regularly. That said, actors who play coy about their sexual orientation are widely criticized.

As John Sloop notes in his book, Disciplining Gender: Rhetorics of Sex Identity in Contemporary U.S. Culture, “Although ours is no doubt a heteronormative culture, it is also a culture that insists on a clear delimitation between male and female as separate genders, on heterosexual and homosexual as distinctly separate spheres of desire. It is a culture, then, in which knowing where to place someone in the matrix of gender and desire is valued over confusion” (pp. 84-85).  Sean Hayes, who played the flamboyant Jack on Will and Grace, was criticized for years for refusing to comment on his sexual orientation. When he finally came out in 2010, Hayes criticized gay media publications such as The Advocate for pressuring him to come out. Even this year, White Collar star Matthew Bomer was criticized for not publicly addressing his sexuality (i.e. confirming the long-standing rumors that he is gay). He officially came out of the closet last month.

While Hayes and Bomer have both confirmed their sexuality, stars like Jodie Foster and Queen Latifah, both reported lesbians, continue to aggravate the media. Both stars refuse to comment on their love lives, and when either speaks about her personal life, the internet lights up. In fact, Googling either celebrity alongside the word “sexuality” brings up several different blogs claiming to confirm that she has “finally” opened up about her sexual orientation or is showing off her girlfriend.

It is unfortunate that in 2012, the media does not afford sexually ambiguous performers more privacy. Even more unfortunately, these performers do not directly threaten heterosexuality. They do not lead outwardly homosexual lives, but they do not lead outwardly heterosexual lives. Why not allow the Jodie Fosters, Oprahs, Sean Hayes, and Taylor Lautners of the world to challenge sexuality binaries? Does it really affect our lives and our relationships, or is it, as one Newsweek columnist wrote in 2010, “the big, pink elephant in the room?”

P.S. I agree with Scarlett’s post. J Watching Boys Don’t Cry made my confusion worse.