Stereotyping in the Film the Birdcage (1996)

Marketing, education, suggestion and propaganda solely subtly influence the opinions and values a societys members hold. All too often, we mother no clear idea how we came to hold the opinions we develop over the course of our lifetimes. From the earliest days of the film industrys rise at the kickoff of the twentieth century, film has had an enormous impact in shaping public views and ideas about anything from what it substance to be a good citizen to what roles are acceptable and seemly in a civilized society.With the exception of academics and serious students in film or cultural studies, most movie-goers regard the viewing of films (with the exception whatsoevertimes of documentaries) as simply an entertainment activity when, very often, central to the experience is the swallowing of messages that the creators of the film wish to advance. Since films are often very expensive to produce, the films that find financial clientele must also meet with the approval of a societ ys elite, moneyed class.It is most often the case, then, that subtle messages and affirmations about the political, social and personal norms the plethoric class wishes to endorse and inculcate are embedded in films that reach a wide segment of the population. Richard Dyer, Professor of Film Studies at Kings College London, in his prove Stereo type (1), argues that one of the most common methods by which the dominant economic class attempts to reinforce the populaceview it wishes to have embraced by the mess, is the employment of stereotypes, which are often one-dimensional, static characterizations of people in various social roles or members of classes of people.These stereotypes range from the flattering depiction of Hero or Faithful Servant, for example, to the cartoonish, demonic or depraved portraits of a true member of a group of people whose behavior or values the dominant class finds antithetical to their interests. Dyer argues that learning to recognize the use of ste reotypes in films is provides some self-defense against being oblivious to the attempt to influence ones retrieveing and opinions.One much(prenominal) group which has long been the target of such propaganda via stereotyping in films is the pederastic community. It was with the rise of capitalism that homosexuality began to be seen as leading to lifestyles that were not conducive to the provision of good, stable, obedient workers.One of the most influential frameworks for analysis of human dealings and the evolution of social norms and political structures from the late 19th century through the present has been Marxist analysis, establish on the works of Karl Marx (1818-1883). Dyer employs Marxist analysis, with a gesticulate to sociological terminology (role, individual, type, member) to illustrate that stereotyping in film can occur through the use of iconography Iconography is a kind of short-handit places a character quickly and economically.P. 32), structurally (. by the fu nction 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. P. 33, and through typing the opposite of individuation of characters, instead ascribing of attributes to a person based on the idea they are a certain type, and we can understand all we need to k right away about them by being familiar with that type.While we, generally, think of stereotyping in a negative light, one consideration clearly of great importance to Dyer is the idea that some aspect of typing insofar as the typing reflects the positive attributes of gay people should not be discarded entirely, since the recognition for the audience, of some level of commonality in the experience of being gay give serve to illuminate for stunners the struggles faced and the oppression experienced, hopefully leading to more support in the larger society for improved status and peer civ il rights for gay people.In analyzing the use of stereotypes in The Birdcage (Mike Nichols, 1996), I will argue that, while 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 leaving the audience with anything close to real motivation for re-thinking approval for the naturalised social idea that gays are somehow other and, at best, sympathetic clowns. The audience simply gets its laughs and goes family.A remake of the French film La Cage aux Folles (Jean Poiret and Francis Veber, 1978), Birdcage is roofy in drag club called The Birdcage in South Beach, Florida. We learn very early in the movie that Armand Goldman, contend by Robin Williams, owns the club and his partner, Albert, played by Nathan Lane, appears regularly as Starina, the shows star drag queen. 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 young agree 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 active in presenting the characters in Birdcage the sets also are highly uninspired 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 look at the outside environment.They see bright lights in the night, palm trees, and pedestrians milling about the streets or waiting in line, all in scantily clad outfits and bathing suits. Sequences similar to this occur numerous times throughout the movie when showing the outside environment. Whether theyre at the coast or in the streets, day or night, the surround people a re dressed in skimpy clothing, small bikinis, or Speedos. This aspect of the environment is accent when the senator and his family are stuck in traffic right outside of the club, approximately seventy-five minutes into the film.While all the cars are stuck in traffic, people are chaotically mounting 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 while the family stares, aghast, and Mrs. Keely states, This is less worry Palm Beach than I imagined. Despite the fact that no indication is given that there is any special occasion 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 of the pedestrians is not defined, 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 decorationated with stereotypically gay ornamentation. Every available surface is purposefully adorned with lit candles, decadent spyglass sculptures, flouncy lamps, poufed pillows and homoerotic 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 presence 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 delineation 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 love 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, overly emotional, and prone to hysterics, suspicion and jealousy. The viewer is introduced 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 instantaneously 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 lamenting 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 trying to break into the room, Alberts shrieks are completely audible over the ruckus. Once 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 o nce, 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 abruptly dependent woman, Alberts character embodies the classically drawn stereotype of a melodramatic, overly 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 give himself as a straight man. This attempt, however, is completely unsuccessful.No matter how hard he tries, Albert cannot walk without swishing his hips while holding out the palms o f his hands, his posture is too upright, and the register of his persona is too high. The fact that Albert is incapable of pretending not to be a flamboyant, over-the-top, and extremely feminine 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 family relationship between Armand and Albert is reduced by its definition 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, xx minutes into the film, Armand is silently reading the newspaper and drinking coffee 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 dinne r 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 development 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 possible depictions of homosexuals. Therefore, such obvious stereotyping does not outweigh the comedy or the quality of the film, but rather define it.