What year did Machismo in dramas go out of style in Hollywood? - General Discussion Discussion

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78562) 5 years ago

Not yet, never will

reply

[–] Kowalski (79077) 5 years ago

💪🏾👊🏾🦵🏾🤛🏾

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78562) 5 years ago

Dolemite!
Super Macho

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 5 years ago

Have a have I disagree.

Hollywood hasn't had a Charlton Heston type of actor in quite a while.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Russell Crowe

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 5 years ago

There's one! haven't seen him in a movie in awhile.

The character he played in LA Confidential (1997)just isn't seen today.

The reason I posted this was a odd comment that someone posted about The Treasure of Sierra Madre (1948) that he(she?) was turned off by the machismo of the characters....Really? I thought they were just men and didn't strike me as overly machismo.

Then I thought there is a whole generation that might think this watching older movies, machismo has been out of style for so long.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

Another example: Gerard Butler.

You don't see him around, though. He has his own B action movies and that's it. You don't see him in the usual Hollywood productions.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

I think it's 1999. The Matrix was the culprit.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 5 years ago

Franchise sci Fi and Superhero action movies..... killed it.

Good answer.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Yeah, but not that simple. See, The Matrix was revolutionary (pun not intended) in many ways... one of them was that it shows relatively small statured men and women can be THE strongest people on Earth by just FREEING THEIR MIND.

This is important. Previously, many movies already depicted relatively small persons defeating their larger counterparts. In fact, David and Goliath is one of the oldest and most popular trope of this kind. However, they mostly won because of exceptional wit or unparalleled skills whether it's fictional or not. Spider-Man for example, he's strong because the author said he's strong. Period.

Neo in The Matrix however, is just a regular guy (his not ordinary regular guy since he's the One, but you know what I mean.) He's strong not because he just is, but because a process explicitly shown in the movie itself, unlike Spider-Man's strenght which was defined OUTSIDE of the story.

Neo was strong because he believes so. Not because of physical training, he did not recieve special serum or adamantium injection, he was not an experimental military super weapon. He just freed his mind.

This is a spectacular concept. Something that has never been done before in a mega blockbuster movie ever. It makes us think. It makes us believe that we CAN kick ass and be strong by simply THINK and BELIEVE that we can. No physical constraint whatsoever. No matter how small you are, masculine or feminine, no training in gym for hours a day every day, nor need for dieting too.

Women who were asskicking in movies like Michelle Yeoh or Charlie's Angels were depicted as highly trained special agents. No wonder they can kick ass. They're not us, ordinary people non MI6 agents. Neo were different. He is us. This, I think, was the catalyst that opened our eyes, challenged our way of thinking, disrupted our views. And changed "The Way of Hollywood" forever, for better or worse.

The Matrix is a masterpiece.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

The Matrix was revolutionary (pun not intended) in many ways... one of them was that it shows relatively small statured men and women can be...

Keanu Reeves is 1.85 (6'1")
Laurence Fishburne is 1.83 (6')

Neo was strong because he believes so. He did not train his physics, he did not recieve special serum or adamantium injection, he was not an experimental military super weapon. He just freed his mind. This is a spectacular concept.

That "spectacular concept" is basically pre-80s movies. The "make actors go to the gym" is a modern thing. If something, Matrix was quite conservative there, using a hero that didn't spend a few months doing workouts in a gym... which is what movies used to do until the 80s!

Women who were asskicking in movies like Michelle Yeoh or Charlie's Angels were depicted as highly trained special agents. No wonder they can kick ass. They're not us, ordinary people, not MI6 agents. Neo were not. He is us. This, I think, was the catalyst that opened our eyes, challenged our way of thinking, disrupted our views. And changed "The Way of Hollywood" forever, for better or worse.

Again, the Matrix here is going pre-80s movies.

The "super-empowered" is a modern thing. Pre-80s, heros used their intelligence and every trick in the book to solve problems. Here you have the old 70s Charlie's Angels beating the bad guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXouegjpnng

They don't need to be super-physically-empowered. They were just clever. The Matrix, again, is not changing anything, it's actually being quite conservative and going the pre-80s way.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Height of the actor isn't important in movies. But it was CLEARLY can be seen that Neo was a relatively small statured guy, obviously not depicted like Arnold, Stallone, Seagal or even Van Damme were in their movies. If you don't see this I have nothing to say no more.

Pre-80s, heros used their intelligence and every trick in the book to solve problems.

This is exactly what I was saying. Neo didn't use tricks, nor any physical advantages. He just FREE HIS MIND. This is the concept that I said was new that was never been done before.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

Height of the actor isn't important in movies. But it was CLEARLY can be seen that Neo was a relatively small statured guy, obviously not Arnold, Stallone, Seagal or even Van Damme

Keanu Reeves is 1.85 (6'1)
Van Damme is 1.74 (5'8)
Stallone is 1.72 (5'8)

Just saying... 🤪

This is exactly what I was saying. Neo didn't use tricks, nor any physical advantages. He just FREE HIS MIND. This is the concept that I said was new that was never been done before.

Yeap, but the problem is... that was exactly how it was done before the 80s.

After the 80s, heros are supposed to be physically powerful. That has gone to the point that even women in modern movies show a level of strength which is absurd (even more when you realize the tiny diameter of their arms). But that's the modern thing.

That side, Matrix wasn't a revolution. If something, it was an involution, because it went back to the 70s.

Neo was the same characters that 70s' Luke Skywalker, included the not-being physically powerful and the free-your-mind training. Don't get me wrong, I'm a bit bored of the macho-men from the 90s and the macho-women from modern movies. The Matrix is one of my favorite movies, and that's perhaps one of the reasons.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Keanu Reeves is 1.85 (6'1)
Van Damme is 1.74 (5'8)
Stallone is 1.72 (5'8)

Just saying...

Which is EXACTLY why I said the actor's height doesn't matter in movies. Looks like you either don't understand what I'm saying or you don't want to understand.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 5 years ago

Insightful!

To bolster your theory, just a few years prior 'The Fifth Element' (1997) starring a very macho Bruce Willis whose character was the Medal of Honor winner... that type of character is mostly out of style after Matrix.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

The Matrix influenced a lot of subsequent movies, usually only stylistically... cool sunglasses, wire-fu, slow motion, bullet time, etc.

It's conceptual influences were relatively very slow to be adopted. And many filmmakers, even to this day, mostly failed to understand what makes The Matrix so good. Which is understandable, becuse the Wachowskis themselves seemingly also don't.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 5 years ago

It was a great mellon twister of a story.... truely original.

reply

[–] captainbucky (15252) 5 years ago

Razor Ramon

reply

[–] Kowalski (79077) 5 years ago

DOINK THE CLOWN

reply

[–] ODB82 (2055) 5 years ago

Oozin, mayne...

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Robert Downey Jr, Dwayne the Rock Johnson, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth and Will Smith are all some of the highest paid male actors in Hollywood.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 5 years ago

My bad, I should have specified my observation. Machismo a DRAMA roll is very out of style.

Think Russell Crowe character in LA Confidential (1997) or Burt Lancaster in The Train (1964), even Burt Reynolds in Smokey and the Bandit (1977).

That type of role, a whole new generation of movie goers has not been accustomed to.

I think this might be in part due to social engineering in Hollywood.

Storng woman ethos is in, Strong man ethos is out.

reply

[–] Kowalski (79077) 5 years ago

RUSSELL CROWE IN THE NICE GUYS...RYAN GOSLING IN DRIVE...VINCE VAUGHN IN BRAWL IN CELL BLOCK 99...SAM ELIOTT IN THE MAN WHO KILLED HITLER AND THEN BIGFOOT...BRAD PITT IN ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD...

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 5 years ago

Action movies also don't count.

The Brad Pitt character was definitely a throwback type. (Reminded me of a role Steve McQueen would play)

Once upon a time could be classified as a drama.

Need to see Drive

reply

[–] Kowalski (79077) 5 years ago

JUST FOR CLARITY...NONE OF THE FILMS I LISTED WERE ACTION...I KEPT YOUR PARAMETERS INMIND WHEN THINKING OF THE TITLES.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 5 years ago

👍 people can give numerous examples, but the overall trend is way off compared to the past.

The one guy who commented that drama and strong men were not a good fit is incredibly disturbing to me the more I think about it.

I wonder if that is common thinking among the new generations.

reply

[–] davodikum (6212) 5 years ago

I was going to bring up the nice guys. One of my favourite movies of the last ten years. Seen it a butload of times already.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Well I see your point, the traditional “tough guy” role has largely vanished from contemporary cinema.

I’d say it’s more of a generational thing than any social engineering though. Most of those rough and tumble leading men are either dead or in their 70s and 80s now.

reply

[–] L1 (1316) 5 years ago

This would have been created during the pandemic that we are going through.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Machismo is totally in fashion, in superhero and action films! As long as action films are made, machismo will never totally be out of style.

But yeah, Machismo has never been a good fit with dramatic films. A macho man does not examine his life, rethink his priorities, or share his feelings, that would be unmanly. And dramatic films do tend to be about examining one's life, rethinking priorities, sharing feelings, all that girly crap.

reply

[–] KD637 (488) 5 years ago

A macho man does not examine his life, rethink his priorities, or share his feelings, that would be unmanly

Ever seen Rambo (First Blood)? He literally does all of the above, having a mental breakdown and crying at the end. Nobody considered him unmanly for this.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

No, I haven't seen it, it never sounded like my cup of tea. And didn't the same character go on to make several more shoot-em-up films? Not much rethinking of priorities then!

But one way to fit the kind of macho man who never rethinks things into a dramatic film is as in "The Searchers", where we see the effect of John Wayne's unthinking single-mindedness and self-righteousness on other characters. Okay, maybe there's a bit of a change of heart towards the end, but nothing is ever said out loud. Saying anything would have been un-John-Wayne.

reply

[–] KD637 (488) 5 years ago

There's a reason why The First Blood is so highly rated compared to forced sequels. I don't think they ever planned a sequel. But you know what your problem is? You simply equate machismo with everything bad and toxic about masculinity, as if defining trait of a masculine man is being a dumb, emotionally stunted brute. So how can we even have this conversation if we have a completely different conception of what we're talking about?

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

Another example: Total Recall, one of the most popular movies from Schwartzenegger, where the main character examining his life and rethinking his priorities is a big part of the plot.

Another similar example: Blade Runner, with Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer.

Another similar example: Outland, with Sean Connery. Rethinking priorities was a big part of 80s scifi plots.

Another example about the importance of rethinking priorities in 80s plots: Mad Max 2 and Mad Max 3, with Mel Gibson.

Another example about examining their own life and rethinking priorities which is not scifi, The Rock, with Sean Connery and Ed Harris.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

"You simply equate machismo with everything bad and toxic about masculinity"

That's a lot to read into a few sentences!

But yeah, I suppose I think that the definition of "machismo" vs. "masculinity" is that there's more personal pride and willingness to fight in machismo than in standard masculinity. Really, the code of machismo is a bit similar to the medieval concept of knightly honor, and is probably based on it. I do consider masculinity to be a positive force, but machismo... less so.

reply

[–] Moonglum9 (11340) 5 years ago

I think it was after Karate Kid 2 in 1986. He wasn't that good in part 3.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 5 years ago

I'm getting strong deja vu !
Was it you started the "This is a manly mans film for manly mans men " on some board or other?

I note your writing off action movies. Then you elaborate some later on ...
My bad, I should have specified my observation. Machismo a DRAMA roll is very out of style.
Think Russell Crowe character in LA Confidential (1997) or Burt Lancaster in The Train (1964), even Burt Reynolds in Smokey and the Bandit (1977).

I've only seen the last one, can you give some more examples?
meanwhile i give you:
The Revenant
Green Book
Hacksaw Ridge
The Martian
SouthPaw
Bad Boys3
The Magnificent Seven (2016)
The Equalizer 2 (2018)

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 5 years ago

Well done! The Revenant was a great film.

But these handful of examples is a small drop in the bucket to the overwhelming tide.

I have a fear that Hollywood is anti-strong men. Sometimes I notice this when a young poster is critial men's behavior in dramas of the past (one calling men's behavior in 'The Treasure of Sierra Madre' (1947) machismo which started me on this thread)

I think that using social engineering, Hollywood has, to some extent de- nutted men.

Now millennials and Gen Z might not understand this or fail to recognize it, because to them this has always been so, they haven't lived the change.

Do me a favor, watch Burt Lancaster in 'The Train' (1964), to see what I am talking about. Or better yet one of my favorites 'Seven Days in May'(1964). He was the epitome of manhood during that time.

Many men young and old took cues from these movies on how to behave in real life, how to be a man.

We have a softer Tom Hanks version now.

Someone posted that strong men in dramas are 'not a good fit'.

That statement furthers my case for social engineering in Hollywood.

reply