Current Forum: Session 11: Action/Adventure and Sexuality	Read 7 times 	
Date: 02-Apr-2001 13:26:41	
Author: SIMMONS, JOHN A. <jas7625@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>	
Subject: Bullets and Tears! 	
 [Remove]	
		
       Lethal Weapon does a good job of presenting “traditional masculinity” as outlined in Cooper Thompson’s article. However, it presents a striking alteration to the notion that it is “feminine” to cry. I will suggest that masculinity within the film is not challenged by the emotional scenes but is rather developed to include all aspects of the human condition. 
       Thompson defines traditional masculinity as being emotionally distant, physically aggressive, competitive, and both homophobic and misogynistic. Sergeant Riggs fulfills this 
definition to a tea except for the area of misogynistic. The film portrays Riggs as almost being envious of Murtaugh’s familial situation. He comments, “You’ve got a hell of a nice family. . .” after he spends the evening eating and socializing with what he so noticeably does not have. Likewise, the love that Riggs displays for his dead wife demonstrates that he cherishes the “feminine” within a woman that Thompson so adamantly denies is possible for the truly masculine man. 
       However, an exception to this notion of Riggs being anti-misogynistic is found in his relationship to the psychiatrist Dr. Stephanie Woods. Her diagnosis recommending that he be 
removed from duty is viewed by Riggs as being simply, for lack of a better term, wimpy. The only thing that allows him to continue going is, as he tells Murtaugh, “. . . the job, doin’ the 
job . . . ” Despite the lack of misogyny within the character of Riggs, he fulfills the remainder of Thompson’s definition to a tee. The most striking example of this is the deal that Murtaugh makes with Riggs in order to give him his trust, i.e., “if you can go all day tomorrow without killing somebody, then I will trust you.” Throughout the film, Murtaugh is presented as a type of foil for the violence loving Riggs. 
       Examples include that Murtaugh shoots the suspect in the leg, Riggs shoots him in the chest; Murtaugh is happy with a dead on shot in the range, whereas Riggs has to make it almost a joke by shooting a “happy face;” Murtaugh would negotiate down the suicidal man, Riggs jumps with him and after they reach the ground proceeds to say, “let’s go again.” The cinematography also supports this division along the lines of violence in how the characters are shot. The shooting range scene is a perfect illustration: Riggs is shown in medium-close up with the camera looking directly at him firing the gun; the camera becomes the target. When Murtaugh is firing the camera presents him in a slightly low-angle medium shot from the side. This difference although slight demonstrates the intimidation exuded by Riggs, which Murtaugh lacks. 
       Accompanying the split in violence between Riggs and Murtaugh is also the split in wit. Riggs throughout the film displays a type of “film noir,” tough guy verbal one-liners, i.e., after shooting the happy face he says, “have a nice day;” after killing the guy in the pool, he simply says, “whoops;” after almost shooting himself in the head on the prodding by Murtaugh he responds, “I am hungry, I’m gonna go get somthin’ to eat.” His constant verbal wit meets a wall of difference in the intellectually witty Murtaugh. This split in verbal/intellectual wit is
demonstrated in simply the costuming that the characters wear. Murtaugh is in suits complete with tie and suspenders, whereas Riggs, like something out of a Dr. Pepper commercial, is always in boots, jeans, and a white t-shirt.
       The striking problem with labeling Riggs as simply the traditional masculine man is that fact that early in the film he sits alone in his room watching cartoons and contemplating suicide. The troubled and despairing man full of anxiety is a far cry from the “on top of his game” always in control imaginary man in Thompson’s text. However, even this would not present a problem to the definition if Riggs had the stamina and guts to kill his worst enemy, himself. The true “feminine” aspect is demonstrated in the fact that not only can he not kill himself, he then cries over the loss of his wife. The extreme close-ups on the gun barrel, bullet, and Riggs’ fingers seem to indicate the intensity of the situation, but then the camera pulls back to frame him clutching a picture of his dead wife and covering up his tears. However, the feminine moment is 
dispelled by the return of his masculine wit, “I’ll see ya later.” Oddly enough even after saying such a manly man statement, the camera continues to observe him in his anguish before fading to black. 
       According to Thompson, this emotional display should be read as a sign of weakness to the traditional man. That is not the case here. The emotional display here, and also in his heart-wrenching story to Murtaugh about having to find an excuse every day not to eat a bullet, are not signs of weakness and femininity, but rather distinguish Riggs as a human being. Riggs’ main counterpart in the film is the figure of Mr. Joshua. A former special forces assassin just like 
Riggs, their characters are both capable of withstanding intense pain and torture, i.e., Joshua enduring the lighter, Riggs enduring the water torture. The final battle between them is set up as a final question of who is tougher. Amazingly enough, the fact that Riggs wins the fight is not what labels him as the champion. Rather, it is the fact that Mr. Joshua never cries, never shows the emotional side of himself, and now at the end, Riggs’ victory is only complete by collapsing into the arms of Murtaugh. The thing that separates Riggs and Joshua is the very thing that should class Joshua as the more masculine: i.e., displays of emotion. However, the film concludes with exactly the opposite reading. The true man is one who is able to withstand pain, torture, loss, grief, and also find strength in friendship, love, and emotional attachment with another.