Beauty (Re)Discovers the Male Body by Susan Bordo
http://wendtenglish201f10.wikispaces.com/file/view/Wendt.Beauty+(Re)discovers+the+Male+Body1.pdf
As I started to read Susan Bordo's article, I
immediately thought of the classical Greek art that showcased the male body,
either in the nude or semi-nude. It
appears as the centuries passed, and as noted in the article around the 14th
century, that a specific style of dress emerged concerning and reflecting the
roles of men and women. In the royal courts
both sexes dress to impress, and compete, albeit as much as their wealth can
sustain such extravagance. Afterwards,
as the middle class gained prominence, the style of dress adhered to the social
norms of a given time period. Men were
the breadwinner, and as such their style exuded a quite power, of a man who can
get things done, he just happens to look good even he considered function over
form. From the stock broker in his press
suits, to the construction worker in his overalls and hard hat, a sense of
"get 'er done" is felt in the style of dress. If that was what one needed for the job at
hand, so be it and he wore it. The
article then goes on to detail the liberation of the male body as a subject to
be look at and admired; what is under the clothes mattered as much, if not more
so, than what covered it. Clothes do not
make the man (but considering the ads, some articles of clothing do make the
man sexy). I found it interesting when
Bordo discusses the gender biases inherent when scrutinizing a scantily clad
form, be it male or female. The female
is expected to vain, and consider form or function. The woman seen preening, looking in the
mirror, and, whether conscious of the fact or not, is expecting to be looked
at. So the woman goes to great pains to
be good looking, or a "looker".
She may not like or condone such a label, but she knows how to use the
tools she is given to make her way in the world. Now we come to the (re)discovering of the
male body. I do feel it is a
rediscovering, while, judging from the reactions of a few critics in the
article, it may have seemed at the time something foreign and taboo. Society's belief about the male form, at that
time, could be attributed a number of reasons: the social norm, the idea of the
male as a stoic, the role of the male to be active, or as noted in the article,
to act. The male form was to be
acknowledged, but not ogled. Making what
was old new again, the underwear ads displaying a semi-nude (or sometimes nude)
brought sexuality to the otherwise believed not-so-fair sex, revealing that the
male form can be both strong and sensual, both passive and participant, and both rousing as well as arousing.
I, for one, have never played the God of War series,
but the breakdown of the storytelling can be understood by those
uninitiated. From what I got from the
video, the first God of War was a critical success both story wise as well as
play wise. Maybe it was not, at first,
considered a trilogy, so the game designer and writers perhaps put more into
the story to give it a tragic end (where Kratos throws himself in the sea after
his labors are completed). This is seen
a lot in films. I like the reference to
the Star Wars films. The original, episodes
2, 3, 4 started that way because the backstory drew the viewer in: who is this
Darth Vader? what is the Force? When
episodes 1, 2, 3 were released, the viewer was subjected to the knowledge the
Vader is Luke's father, as well as midi-chlorians as the reason for the
Force. Sometimes telling too much is
worse than telling enough. Now, if the
episodes are watched in order, gone is the shocking revelation of Luke's true
parentage, gone is the mystical nature of the force and is its place a
paramecium. There are numerous sequels
where the protagonist, as we are
reintroduced to him in the sequel, is far removed from the success in the end
of the prior movie. I am reminded of the
Die Hard series, where McClane and his wife have reconciled their differences
at the end of the first movie. Then,
sequel after sequel, McClane is separated from his wife to finally divorced
with a daughter that despises him. The
writers, thinking that viewers won't feel sympathy or empathy towards the
character, gave McClane more faults and woes to outdo the previous faults and
woes. Many may not have noticed this,
but I did. And I thought, "What the
hell?" How can so many things
happen to one person, and how can he get to rock bottom each time after saving
the day?
The fascination with Lara Croft stems from the fact
the she is a female in an otherwise predominately (at the time) male role,
catering to mostly male video game players.
Here is a female lead character, whose short shorts were higher than the
bottoms of the holsters of her gun, blasting and killing while looking sexy at
the same time. Of course, her anatomy
was exaggerated, what with the pixilated bullet bra and wasp-like waist. And she couldn't be weighed-down with even
the slightest of body armor, not if it would get in the way of sex appeal. I played the first Tomb Raider, which was my
first 3-D game that I remembered playing.
Although it was fun staring at Lara's butt as I explored the landscape
and ruins, after awhile it grew tiresome and I just wanted to raid some tombs.
