The Legacy of the Hollywood Muscle Guys
Dear Andrew: I'm interested in what's changed in men's fitness in the last
50 years. I feel like we're in a strange place in that the ideal man we are holding up on the pedestal in magazines and television is thin, chiseled, and photoshopped, whereas the muscle men of yesteryear were more diverse: broad in the belly, not as cut in the muscles. We've always had bodybuilders, but I'm comparing the beefcake on TV these days with older physiques, such as, Sean Connery's (in his James Bond years), Brando's in his tight t-shirt days, 1960s Kirk Douglas and the like. --Charlie
I'm going to speculate wildly here and place the blame squarely on the shoulders of two very particular actors who became box-office stars in the '80's: Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Men of my generation--guys who, as teens, flocked to theaters when Sly and Arnold were at their peak--are pretty much responsible for the fact that, to this day, from April to September, all you ever see in movie theaters is Things Getting Blown up.
Yes, you have us to thank for that. Save your hate mail, I feel bad enough about it already.
Stallone was an actor first, and gave some good performances in his time: in ROCKY, of course, but I think he also did good work in FIRST BLOOD ("You just can't turn it off!"), which at the time of its release was considered an ultraviolent blood-fest but today would probably show up uncut on the History Channel. As time went on, the scripts Stallone chose got worse and worse (STOP! OR MY MOM WILL SHOOT, anyone?), but worldwide, it didn't matter: people kept going to his movies.
Schwarzenegger never really carried a good movie; he just rolled through each one like a tank, reading his lines with the same oft-imitated Teutonic non-inflection in movie after movie, and teenage boys (like me) ate it up until we reached our early 20's and either got girlfriends or just got sick of him. His implacable single-mindedness was put to best use in THE TERMINATOR, a role that pretty much summed the man up, on and off-screen: as the embodiment of unshakable--and unstoppable--will.
But the fact that Stallone became less concerned with his diction and more with his delts, and Arnold never really learned to act at all, meant that the focus of both men's films fell squarely on their physiques. How could it not? The characters they played weren't intelligent, romantic, sexy, resourceful, witty ("I'll be back" was the best Arnold could do), or, indeed, posessed of any of the characteristics you'd associate with male movie stars before or since.
They didn't have to be--there was hardly a woman in sight! Rambo or Matrix or Conan or Kaminski could never abide a feminine form competing with them for the audience's gaze. A woman would require them to emerge, dazed and choking, from their solipsistic, narcissistic haze, and put their attention somewhere else--and neither man seemed capable of that, which is why they always seemed to be acting by themselves. As actors, Sly and Arnold were only their bodies.
Whatever the reason--Reagan and his tough-guy, movie-inspired rhetoric, the end of the Cold War stand-off, backlash against a '70's-era androgyny and wussiness (was it a coincidence that both men were die-hard Republicans?)--the 80's were the era of the mesomorphic movie star. Jean-Claude Van Damme, Mr. T, The Barbarian Brothers, and Hulk Hogan all made modest successes of themselves in this era as well, while bona fide stars like Harrison Ford, Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson, and Sean Penn started becoming beefier versions of their former selves whenever they showed up onscreen.
Interestingly, though, we don't remember those guys primarily as beefy: we remember Ford as roguish; Eastwood as wry; Gibson as mischievous; Penn as mysterious. Their bodies, pumped up in one movie, wiry in the next, were still part of their performances. For Stallone and Schwarzenegger, their bodies were their performances.
And that's what did it: the big guys with almost nothing to say--the anything-but-meek--were inheriting the Earth. The message was that muscles--not brains, charm, or any real skill to speak of--could literally save the world.
It was, of course, a fantasy, but I and many others bought it, at least for two hours every few months, and thus are not only responsible for two decades of dismal summer movies but for the fact that a perfectly respectable actor like Robert Downey, Jr. has to pump serious iron and eat soybean curd for six months in order to play...a military industrial tycoon.
I've come to find it funny that every man who takes his shirt off in a movie now has to be pumped and ripped: the English professor! The computer nerd! The quadrapeligic! All of them jacked at 5% body fat. It's the same with actresses: I watched THE BREAK-UP a while back (don't ask why) and wondered why there was no explanation for the fact that Jennifer Aniston, playing an ostensibly corporate type, also happened to be built like Cory Everson.
Perhaps even more maddening--for actors, anyway--is the fact that truly athletic actors often don't make the grade as onscreen athletes in Hollywood: shortly after he graduated from Harvard, where he played football, Tommy Lee Jones was told he was too small to play an Ivy-League football player. Will Ferrell has made a career out of showing off his plush physique to comic effect, but in real life is an accomplished triathlete. True athletes come in all shapes and sizes (check out this blog entry for more on that), but in Hollywood, they all look the same.
The legacy of Sly and Arnold is that if you don't look like a bodybuilder, you aren't athletic. And if you take your shirt off on screen and haven't been dieting, pumping, plucking, and waxing, you better be doing it for laughs.
And of course, all that media hype finds its way from Hollywood, the city of insecuroids, onto the cover of Men's Health, and right into the sad, reptilian brains of guys like you and me, Charlie, who just want a decent job and maybe an occasional date with the girl in accounting once in a while.
An unfortunate series of events, to be sure, but what guys are experiencing these days is really just a tiny fragment of the pressure women have felt about their looks since the dawn of time. Maybe for that one small blessing, and the tiny flicker of compassion it affords guys who usually laugh at women's obsession with "looking fat in this," women can at last be grateful to the muscle guys.
Who, ironically, they almost all find repulsive.
0 recs |
9 comments
|
Comments
No hate mail?
No hate mail? No hate mail, when your generation is responsible for the dearth of quality summer movies? You know, like Steel Magnolias? Just thinking about it has me beside myself. I had to wipe my tears on my apron. (Heavy sigh.)
Hal Johnson
by HalJ on Oct 29, 2008 7:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
“An unfortunate series of events, to be sure, but what guys are experiencing these days is really just a tiny fragment of the pressure women have felt about their looks since the dawn of time.”
This is probably only a situation that will get worse as well. The inundating images that flow from magazine covers and movies has exponentially increased the pressure to look a certain way. I really wonder at the long term effects of feeling like you can “never measure up” to a certain physique.
by azruavatar on Oct 29, 2008 8:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Defending Arnold and Sly
Hi, Andrew — I would actually take issue with a couple of the points you make here. First, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to say that Arnold and Sly don’t have any acting chops. I once saw “The Jayne Mansfield Story,” in which Arnold played Mickey Hargitay, a real-life bodybuilder from Hungary who was married to to Jayne Mansfield (and who is the father of the present Law & Order actress.) Arnold/Mickey truly loved Jayne, who treated him terribly and broke his heart. I thought Arnold did a surprisingly good job with this role, which, other than the fact that he was playing a bodybuilder, definitely was not his usual fare.
As for Sly, I think looking back at the original “Rocky,” you had a character whose vulnerability clearly showed through despite his being inarticulate and physically tough. And then there’s “Copland,” where Sly put on weight and dropped his usual bravado. I think both these men can definitely act when they put their minds to it and choose scripts with some depth.
As for the whole new-wave of fit actors, I think we’re forgetting the influence of female movie-goers. My wife has commented many times that “it’s about time women get to see ‘sexy guys’ with their shirts off when for years it was only the men who were treated to seeing female nudity.”
It’s true that today’s fittest stars look more like cover models from Men’s Health than from Flex. I think that’s also a reflection of the tastes of women in the audience. I’d guess that most women prefer say, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine or Daniel Craig’ as Bond over Arnold as Conan. Fortunately for us guys, the physiques of the former two are much more attainable.
by BobParr on Oct 29, 2008 9:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with Bob – Stallone was surprisingly awesome in Copland.
What’s weird to me about all this is that most of the women I know – like most of the men I know – actually like a huge range of physical types, with a fair degree of tolerance for, you know. One extreme or the other.
My preferences in men run the gamut, and I’m equally happy drooling over the fabulous beanpole Belgian, Michael Gandolfi (http://img1.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/b/3/18/881/18881092_1203950338_x_4052e1c4.jpg) as I am David Beckham (http://spectacle.provocateuse.com/images/spectacles/david_beckham_01.jpg) or yeah, Bob, I probably wouldn’t kick Jackman out of bed for eating crackers either. I’m also still enormously fond of Rutger Hauer, (http://www.timboylesphotography.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/rutgerhauerid.jpg.w300h451.jpg) who has put on progressively more girth over the years and is still drop dead hot. I know I’m not the only one who thinks so either.
So what I want to know is why, if most of us really can enjoy a range of body types and even admit to it, why Hollywood’s range is so narrow and inflexible?
by maenad on Oct 29, 2008 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hollywood muscle guys
Not sure I agree with what you wrote entirely. I have always felt in real life, we all live with our imperfections with our selves or our jobs or family and friends. For me, I like to escape, yet I have never felt pressure from any movie or magazine to look or act a certain way. I now what I want for myself and I work toward that everyday. I hear this (what was posted) from lots of people; they use it as an excuse. that still irks me. So many people like the way the stars look on screen, that they try themselves to emulate to a degree than when they lack the focus or the drive, they blame magazines and the very people that inspired them. I guess its just one of the many imperfections of being human. So many of the general public do not have a clue as to what it takes to stay “in shape.” Then they look for people to blame when they fall short. And as far as women not being intersted in guys with great bodies? yeah, ok. How many “king of queens” do you know that have a wife who is smoking hot?( that may be a shallow way to look at it, yet it is a fact). yes , i know lots of attractive people who have dated/married “above/below” what others might consider good looking. but so many people i have talked with over the years said that if they didnt have to put the work into it, if there was a magic pill, they would prefer to be married to the better looking, ripped body of those that stayed in great shape. thats what they would prefer. I think we all realize that is not a reality. no problem. I just hate when people blame pop culture for how they want to look. its not a magazines fault you are not where you want to be. I always have felt we were all flawed jems in the crown of life. but so many americans are greedy, we always want more. I do however agree with most of what you said. being a stallone friend/fan, its not always easy to hear less than perfection about him. but you have great points.
Things Ain't All Bad If Ya Still Breathin'.....
by Adnuk68 on Oct 29, 2008 10:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good comments...
I agree that Sly nailed COPLAND. I remember hoping at the time that it would signal a return to his character-driven ROCKY roots…but no such luck.
by Andrew Heffernan on Oct 29, 2008 2:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And yet...
I get just as much tail when I’m a little fat and out of shape. So I disagree with your conclusion about men feeling the same pressure that women feel about their looks. Also, most women (those outside the fitness world, lifestyle, etc.) equate “fit” to “thin” and it has nothing to do with Hollywood or magazines. If you ask them about it, its largely a product of their family members and friends reinforcing it. Most male gymrats, misguided though they are, believe they are accomplishing some semblance of fitness in addition to aesthetic qualities. I honestly can’t say the same for most female gym-goers. The exception seems to be athletes. Whether male or female, athletes have more structure and better results in the gym. And feel less pressure to conform to useless and ridiculous “fitness” stereotypes.
by Joe in DC on Oct 29, 2008 4:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm...
I think the media is feeding both men and women a load of clams about what the opposite sex wants them to look like. Most guys think the female starlet du jour is too skinny just as most women think that the 80’s-era Arnold / Sly physiques were too big.
by Andrew Heffernan on Oct 29, 2008 5:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What's fit?
Yay, you printed my letter! Good write-up, Andrew. I agree with many of your points. The important takeaway for me is that I want to look at myself differently. You’re right – we are getting an ounce of what women have been getting for years? Doesn’t help when our peers can get absolutely ripped with the same amount of effort we’re giving.
by charliekkendo on Nov 5, 2008 3:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 












