The "Impotent" Male in mid-1970s American Movies

First, I'll explain what I mean by "impotent."
It does not refer to the sexual potency of the male lead. It's a a term I thought of myself years ago to describe the inability of the male protagonist in certain American films of the mid-1970s to resolve the main issue(s) in the film. The term has been in my head for some years, and having just re-watched Francis Ford Coppola's 1974 The Conversation on TCM a couple of nights ago, it came back to me. So I thought I'd do a piece on my blog to share this idea.

Briefly, in The Conversation, Harry Caul (a masterful performance by Gene Hackman) is a surveillance expert assigned by a faceless businessman to tape a certain conversation. Already wracked by guilt over a murder committed as a result of an earlier job, he realizes that this assignment may end similarly, but is unable to prevent it. In the end, he is powerless against, well, the powerful.

There are many more examples of this in films of this time. In Arthur Penn's 1975 Night Moves, Hackman again portrays a man, in this case a detective, who cannot solve the case he's taken on. In John Boorman's earlier Deliverance, it's Mother Nature herself, in the form of vicious rapids, and, er, vicious hillbillies, that defeats the would-be macho men (Jon Voight, Burt Reynolds, Ronny Cox, Ned Beatty) who think they can take on any challenge. In Alan J. Pakula's 1974 The Parallax View, the protagonist (Warren Beatty) cannot defeat the eponymous mega-corporation.
I'm sure there are lots more examples that come to the mind of anyone reading this.

The big daddy of them all, though, may be Roman Polanski's 1974 neo-noir, Chinatown. Once again, a detective, this time in 1930s Los Angeles (Jack Nicholson) is up against men of wealth and power, and even though he solves the case, he is powerless to make a difference.
This is a pretty common theme in Polanski's films, which is why I set him apart. From The Tenant right up to Frantic, the male lead (played by Polanski and Harrison Ford, respectively) is decidedly not the victor.


The reasons for this trend? I've thought of a couple:
First, these films came out around the time of the end of the Vietnam War. Veterans had already been coming home to less-than-enthusiastic welcomes for some years, and with the Watergate scandal showing that politicians were as corrupt and cynical as any movie villain, a malaise crept into Hollywood scripts and productions.
I won't be the first (or last) to point out how Hollywood tends to reflect the zeitgeist of American society, and present it back to their audience in movie form.
A similar phenomenon occurred at the end of World War II, with the rise of film noir. These were not the popular genre that they are now - they were low-budget, "B" movies that, with only a few exceptions (The Postman Alway Rings Twice or Double Indemnity, for instance), were not mainstream entertainment. But they did reflect the sometimes helpless or defeated reality of the returning war veteran, just as the films above did for the Vietnam vet. WWII vets were welcomed as heroes, of course. but that didn't make their personal (mental or physical) struggles any the less difficult.

Another influence was certainly the newfound popularity of foreign films in North America at this time. Mainstream theatres were running films by Bertolucci (Last Tango In Paris) or Fellini (Casanova). The "UCLA Film School" bunch, of Coppola, Spielberg, Lucas, etc., would have studied European or Asian films as part of their courses, and you can see their influence in some of their earliest films (Coppola's The Rain People; Lucas' THX 1138 - or the heavy influence of Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress on Star Wars; Speilberg's Sugarland Express, to name a few). Polanski, of course, came from Europe already.
The male protagonists in these films were often not heroic, but flawed, or even villainous themselves. This would have worked its way into the movies of these writers and directors, along with, as mentioned above, the post-war angst and political cynicism of the times.


So, no, these characters are not sexually impotent. In the course of Chinatown, The Conversation, or Night Moves, the male leads all hook up, as the kids say. They are impotent, or powerless, though, to overcome their personal or professional issues, and the film often ends without "resolution."

I've always been fascinated by these types of movies; they represent more realistic, life-like situations to me. I admit, sometimes, I come away from them a little depressed, but maybe I've invested a little too much emotion in the character or situation. I always hope for a "happy ending," in movies or in real life - that's just how I am.

The Olympics and the Media - Some (Wry) Observations

Well, another Olympic Games has come and gone.

Despite the near-panic in the media that the Rio Olympics would be a poop-covered, Zika-infested fiasco, they went off pretty much without a hitch - drunk, "over-exaggerating" swimmers and whiny soccer goalies notwithstanding.

It made me think of the doom-and-gloom scenarios that preceded the PanAm Games here in Toronto last year: "They've gone over-budget! Run for the hills!"  "High-occupancy vehicle lanes! The horror! The horror!" Sheesh. The Games were a huge success, and together with the NBA All-Star Game, and the terrific seasons the Blue Jays and the Raptors had, the 6ix is the sports town to watch.

No one in the media would question that a good part of the reason for Penny Oleksiak's amazing success in the swimming competitions was because there is now an Olympics-standard pool in this town (not to mention the velodrome in  Milton that our medal-winning cyclists used), and that's thanks to the PanAm Games

So, it really comes down to a case of "they'll do it every time," as long as it's deemed "newsworthy," whatever that means this week.

I did watch my fair share of the Rio Olympics (handy that they were only one time zone ahead), and so I'd like to share some of my observations (and frustrations) with how they were covered.

There was the usual share of bias for the home country from which the broadcast originated (CBC, NBC, and various sports specialty channels; I'm not such a completist that I watched online - maybe in the future), but that's to be expected - not that it's any the less annoying, mind you.

First, I had to chuckle over some of the commentators' massacring of athletes' names. I know their job isn't easy - they have to learn a lot of names in a very short time - but surely they know someone who can help them with the pronunciation of Eastern European or Asian names? You would think there might even be a published guide to help them out. I mean, I'm no expert myself, but when what you read on the screen and what the commentator says are so different (eliding over or transposing syllables, for instance), it does make you wonder.

I enjoyed the British commentators, too, though for different reasons.

I've never heard the phrase "my goodness me" so many times in a two-week period! During the broadcast of the Dressage event, for example, after one of the horses shied away from a hurdle, the commentator couldn't help imagining what must be going through its - that's the horse's - mind during an Olympic event! "Oh, my goodness me, what am I doing here?" was the gist of what he thought the horse must be thinking. I'm not making that up.

Something new this Olympics was the "challenge," which I mostly saw in volleyball or badminton, where a coach challenged a referee's call as to whether a ball/shuttlecock ended up in or out of bounds. Amusingly, this would result in the showing of an almost Looney Tunes-style cartoon of the ball bouncing, leaving a grey shadow to show where it landed. I kept expecting some kind of "boinngg!" sound effect, that, sadly, never came.

Next, I wish, I wish, they would have less of those "inspiring" shorts about an athlete's trials and tribulations on their way to the Olympics, and more actual events. I know - crazy, right?

This maudlin, tear-jerking tripe is even worming its way into sponsors' commercials. Thank you, interchangeable bank/oil company, what a good little corporate citizen you are! But we know athletes work their butts off, get up at 4 every day, make work/family/school sacrifices - that's why they're here. Do you happen to have a product I might be interested in? Yes? No? If not, I would really like to see more fencing, martial arts, weightlifting, sailing, steeplechase, etc., etc. - if you don't mind.

Finally, I know it's spitting into the wind to ask this, but can we pleeeease stop sticking microphones and cameras into the heartbroken, tear-streaked faces of athletes who've fallen/injured themselves/come in fourth, and asking them how they feel? Huh? Can we? Here, I'll give you a hint, there, Edward R. Murrow - they feel like CRAP!!

After lovely Perdita Felicien's fall at the hurdles a few Olympics back, I felt positively dirty watching her weep, and - yes - apologize for her misfortune.  What a heartless, unnecessary thing to do to someone who is very likely at the very nadir of their existence (perhaps it was by way of atonement that CBC would go on to make Perdita into the knowledgeable and capable commentator she herself has become).

This practise isn't going to stop any time soon, I guess. As long as "good TV" outweighs the natural drama that's unfolding before your eyes already, we will continue to see cameras shoved in the faces (and sometimes, literally, the butts) of winners and losers alike. Well, you can always change the channel - and nothing makes me reach for the remote faster than this exploitative nonsense.

Whew! That felt good!

Perhaps I got spoiled, having seen some of the events at the PanAm Games in person last year, and realizing that there is as much drama in watching an athlete (or several of them, as in the gymnastics circuits) give their all, without the manufactured hysterics on the part of TV people. You do get closeups or instant replay on giant screens at the venue - just no one faking sympathy, or empathy, with the athlete.

It just seemed so over-the-top this time, and I don't guess my two cents will change anyone's mind who makes these decisions. But maybe if enough people feel this way, there will be a realization that there is a more human(e) way to do this.

(By the way, I'm planning to watch as much of the Paralympic Games as I can this time around. I was completely blown away by the sheer grit of the athletes at the ParaPanAm Games last year - and I only saw them on TV! If you read this, do check them out, especially Wheelchair Rugby or Basketball - those guys are made of iron!)