Stereotyping in the Film the Birdcage (1996)

Marketing, education, suggestion and propaganda both subtly influence the opinions and portion a companys members hold. All too often, we build no clear idea how we came to hold the opinions we develop over the course of our lifetimes. From the earliest days of the accept industrys rise at the stem of the twentieth century, pick out has had an enormous impact in shaping human race views and ideas about e trulything from what it means to be a good citizen to what roles be congenial and proper in a civilized golf club.With the riddance of academics and serious students in claim or cultural studies, near movie-goers regard the viewing of films (with the exception sometimes of documentaries) as simply an enclosetainment activity when, very often, underlying to the view is the swallowing of messages that the creators of the film wish to advance. Since films argon often very dearly-won to produce, the films that find financial backing must also meet with the flattery of a societys elite, m wholenessyed class.It is more or less often the case, then, that pernicious messages and affirmations about the political, affectionate and personal norms the dominant class wishes to endorse and discipline are embedded in films that reach a wide fragment of the population. Richard Dyer, Professor of Film Studies at Kings College London, in his essay Stereotyping (1), argues that one of the most common methods by which the dominant economic class attempts to reinforce the worldview it wishes to have embraced by the people, is the employment of bosss, which are often one-dimensional, noneffervescent characterizations of people in various social roles or members of classes of people.These stereotypes range from the flattering depiction of wiz or Faithful Servant, for example, to the c fine artoonish, demonic or depraved portraits of a regular member of a group of people whose behavior or determine the dominant class finds antithetical to their interest s. Dyer argues that learning to recognize the habit of stereotypes in films is provides some self-defense against being oblivious to the attempt to influence ones thinking and opinions.One such(prenominal) group which has long been the target of such propaganda via stereotyping in films is the homosexual community. It was with the rise of capitalism that quirk began to be elaten as leading to lifestyles that were not conducive to the provision of good, stable, obedient workers.One of the most important frameworks for analysis of human relations and the evolution of social norms and political structures from the belatedly 19th century through with(predicate) the present has been Marxist analysis, establish on the works of Karl Marx (1818-1883). Dyer employs Marxist analysis, with a nod to sociological terminology (role, individual, type, member) to ornament that stereotyping in film can occur through the phthisis of iconography Iconography is a kind of short-handit places a c haracter quickly and economically.P. 32), structurally (. by the modus operandi of the character in the films structure whether these be static structures, such as the way the films world is shown to be organized, materially and ideologically, or dynamic ones, such as plot of ground. P. 33, and through typing the opposite of individuation of characters, sooner ascribing of attri andes to a person based on the idea they are a certain type, and we can deduce all we need to know about them by being familiar with that type.While we, generally, think of stereotyping in a negative light, one consideration intelligibly of great importance to Dyer is the idea that some aspect of typing until now as the typing reflects the positive attributes of braw people should not be discarded finishedly, since the acknowledgement for the listening, of some level of commonality in the experience of being laughable will serve to illuminate for attestors the struggles set about and the oppre ssion experienced, hope intacty leading to more support in the large society for improved status and equal civil rights for gay people.In analyzing the use of stereotypes in The Birdcage (Mike Nichols, 1996), I will argue that, fleck the use of stereotypes by the filmmakers was clearly done with the intention of exposing the stupidity of so many of societys prejudices, the film does not entirely succeed in loss the audience with anything close to real motivation for re-thinking approval for the established social idea that gays are somehow other and, at best, sympathetic clowns. The audience simply gets its laughs and goes crustal plate.A remake of the French film La Cage aux Folles (Jean Poiret and Francis Veber, 1978), Birdcage is set in drag auberge called The Birdcage in South Beach, Florida. We learn very early in the movie that Armand Goldman, vie by Robin Williams, owns the club and his partner, Albert, played by Nathan Lane, appears regularly as Starina, the shows star drag sprite. The plot of the movie develops when Armands son Val becomes engaged to Barbara Keeley, the daughter of the hypocritical, ultraconservative republican Ohio Senator Kevin Keeley, who is seeking re-election as the co-founder of the Coalition for Moral Order. In light of the engagement, the childly couple decides that it is finally time for the two families to meet. However, Val requests that Armand and Albert must conceal their homosexuality for this meeting. Stereotyping is not just busy in presenting the characters in Birdcage the sets also are highly stereotyped and function almost as additional characters. The film opens with the camera panning around from the outside the club, and the viewer gets a quick looking at at the outside environment.They see bright lights in the night, palm trees, and pedestrians move about the streets or waiting in line, all in scarcely clad outfits and bathing suits. Sequences similar to this occur legion(predicate) times end-to-en d the movie when showing the outside environment. Whether theyre at the beach or in the streets, day or night, the surrounding people are spruced up in insufficient clothing, small bikinis, or Speedos. This aspect of the environment is accentuate when the senator and his family are stuck in traffic right outside of the club, approximately seventy-five transactions into the film.While all the cars are stuck in traffic, people are chaotically climbing in and out of open-roofed cars or roller-skating by. Women and men in skimpy and brightly colored bikinis, thongs, and Speedos continuously pass the senators idled car season the family stares, aghast, and Mrs. Keely states, This is less like Palm Beach than I imagined. Despite the detail that no indication is given that there is any special joint being celebrated in South Beach, the carnival-like atmosphere and setting depicts the gay generated environment in a one-dimensional, stereotyped manner.While the sexual orientations o f the pedestrians is not findd, these sequences are stereotypical cues that the sultry, brightly colored, free-wheeling Florida locale surrounding the drag club, an environment where all the citizens present themselves flamboyantly and provocatively through their dress is to be seen as the typical environment for such a club, a gay paradise. The home of Armand and Albert, located above The Birdcage, is abundantly interior designated with stereotypically gay ornamentation. Every obtainable surface is purposefully adorned with lit candles, decadent glass cuttings, flouncy lamps, poufed pillows and homosexual artwork.The walls are either bright yellow or covered in obnoxious, loud, jungle-themed wallpaper. The significance of the iconographically gay character of the setting is emphasized when Val makes clear that the decor poses as big a pitfall for the senators visit, as does the front man of drag queen, Albert. Approximately thirty-six minutes into the film, Val insists that they redecorate prior to the Keeleys arrival. Armand does not understand what is wrong with the decor, and Val points out to a nude sculpture of Neptune, a portrait of a man in drag without his wig, numerous primitive sculptures depicting exaggerated male erections.At first, an offended Armand replies But this is art and casually turns the erect sculptures around to face the wall, but eventually, out of do it for his son, he gives in and clears his home of the many gay signaling items he possesses, completely redesigning it into a setting similar to a Catholic monastery (Armand is Jewish. ). The most ridiculously, screamingly stereotyped character in Birdcage of Armands spouse, the drag queen star, Albert.It is no accident that the character, Albert, is the embodiment, not only of the drag queen type, but also of the worst stereotyped version of a woman shrill, melodramatic, self-absorbed, vain, besides emotional, and prone to hysterics, suspicion and jealousy. The viewer is intr oduced to him five minutes into the film while he is in a fit of hysterics. Albert, suddenly devastated by the recognition that he is no longer young and beautiful, and convinced Armand is losing interest in him, is extremely upset and refuses to prepare for his nightly stage performance.The audience like a shot sees that Albert is overreacting by the melodramatic way he behaves in this scene. As Armand attempts to enter the dressing room, Albert, who was previously hiding under some sheets, wailing and wailful his sorrows to the couples housekeeper Agador, squeals and barricades the door because he doesnt want Armand to see him in his hideous, hideous, fat and hideous state. Even in the chaos of Armand assay to break into the room, Alberts shrieks are completely audible over the ruckus. in one case Armand enters the room, Albert begins to make melodramatic claim after melodramatic claim Im in such painItll never pass I hate my life. Never mind about me feelings. Dont use that tone to methat sarcastic, contemptuous tone that means you know everything because you are a man, and I know nothing because I was a woman, I was adorable once, young and full of hope and now look at me Im this short, fat, insecure middle-aged little thing such behavior and sentiments are typically attributed to the stereotypical, emotionally unstable and utterly mutualist woman, Alberts character embodies the classically drawn stereotype of a melodramatic, likewise emotional, ridiculous gay man who might as well be considered a woman.While Alberts raging hysterics, melodramatic behavior and prissiness was on full display in this particular scene, his diva-like self-absorption and hysterical reactions are carried throughout the entire film, with the exceptional surprise when he rises to the occasion and saves the day, later in the film Fifty minutes into the film, in an attempt to win the favor of Barbaras parents, Armand tries to teach Albert how to portray himself as a straigh t man. This attempt, however, is completely unsuccessful.No number how hard he tries, Albert cannot walk without swishing his hips while holding out the palms of his hands, his strong suit is too upright, and the register of his voice is too high. The fact that Albert is incapable of affect not to be a flamboyant, over-the-top, and extremely distaff person tells the viewer that his gay-ness is what completely defines his entire personality and every aspect of his behavior, and further sets the stereotype in stone.Structurally, the characterization of the relationship between Armand and Albert is reduced by its exposition as reflecting a cartoonish parody of the stereotypical traditionally defined roles played by husband and wife. While it is clear that the Albert has a more feminine personality than Armand, the film also depicts Albert as the mother and caretaker of the household.For example, twenty minutes into the film, Armand is silently reading the newspaper and drinking c offee in the kitchen, Albert is feverishly folding the laundry, babbling about matters such as how ratty Vals shirt is and how he got a pork roast for dinner instead of fillet minion. This scene and many others show how this movie depicts the roles of a gay relationship as being identical to the stereotypical gender roles of a heterosexual couple. There is no question that the creators of this film intentionally employed thoroughly stereotyped characters.There is little to no individual character training whatsoever. However, since these stereotypes are so over-the-top and blatant, there must have been a conscious effort on the part of the filmmakers to feed into such stereotypes. This film is merely a lighthearted nod towards the ridiculous stereotypes that much of society today believes to be completely realistic depictions of homosexuals. Therefore, such obvious stereotyping does not outweigh the comedy or the quality of the film, but rather define it.