The Changing Image Of The British Male: A Critical Analysis

The Changing Image Of The British Male:

A Critical Analysis

In the last forty years, the image of the typical male has changed dramatically. In the sixties/seventies the media appealed to a less sophisticated audience. Generally aimed at the working class the male had a breadwinner image, earning and living for the family.

The class system was significant in its simplicity, unlike our time where the class system seems to have disappeared.

During the nineties men had a laddish culture and image. The idea of ‘men behaving badly’ and doing what they want was often portrayed in the media.

In present day we are moving away from the laddish culture, but it is still there. The ‘new age’ man of today is seen as sensitive, family orientated and successful. The idea that men have to be physically strong and attractive is also still there. All through time the male has seen to be strong but in today’s materialistic and sophisticated world, looks are becoming more and more important – and so is image.

However, the audience in present day has become much broader and the media have compensated for this. Men are now portrayed very badly in some cases. They are seen as weak, vacillating and disloyal following base instincts. Good examples of this are women’s magazines and soap operas where men have very few redeeming features. Although, it must be remembered that the majority of audiences, both in terms of soap operas and magazines, are women. Advertisements are another area in which men are depicted in a bad light. They are usually seen as stupid and ineffectual, and are the object of female ridicule and scorn.

But is the image the media portrays an accurate model of the man of the millennium?

I will now go on to analysing two Guinness adverts, the first one was made and circulated in 1960.

Class was far more significant in the 1960s that it is now and this ad is aimed at the working class. I have reached this conclusion from analysing the clothes, which seem quite ordinary and the fact he’s bending a metal girder, which would suggest he works in a factory of some sort. It is aimed at an adult male audience, thus the idea of a hard days work and Guinness.

There are media devices used that date the advertisement. The structure is simple and ordered. The use of the iron bar in quite a simple way suggests strength – if you drink Guinness.

The imagery in the ad is very simple when compared to adverts in present day, which tend to be more ponderous. The lettering is big, bold and unsophisticated. In fact the advert itself is unsophisticated but this is probably deliberate. The market in the 1960s was considerably less sophisticated than it is now and less educated. Therefore the designer of the advert would have to convey the message Guinness wanted to get across while being sympathetic to the market of the time.

The fact that it is aimed at a class dates the ad to pre Thatcher years. In our day the audience is much broader and products aren’t limited to just one class and it is arguable as to whether classes exist anymore.

Men in the 1960s would aspire to be like the man in the advert, to be a breadwinner who exists to earn a wage for the family, as this was the image the male had. The idea was that men would come home, put their feet up and unwind after a hard day at work, hopefully with ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

However in the last 40 years the male market has changed significantly, and Guinness has compensated for this by changing its image of the typical male with what’s accepted at the time. During the 1990s the consumer power of the 30 – 40 year olds became apparent and the idea of ‘men behaving badly’ was often shown in the media and in Guinness too as is shown by “Dancing” Joe Mckinney adverts. I will now analyse a Guinness advert made in 1994.

The advert is far more complex in terms of style and structure than the 1960s advert; even the font used for the slogan is more complicated. It is very informal and there is no order to where things are placed. The clothes that Joe wears are informal too, and there is no hint of it being aimed at a particular class. It shows Joe dancing about, looking as though he’s having a good time and a laugh.

The slogan suggests that there’s nothing better than to drink Guinness and be merry. Drinking Guinness is something to look forward to; relaxation and socialising have become serious pastimes. The advert is aimed males in their 20s and 30s, you can partly tell this by looking at Joe and the fact that the advert is clearly aimed at the ‘men behaving badly’ culture which affects men in their 20s and 30s the most.

The audience for the advert is much broader than it was in 1960; it is no longer restricted by class or peoples backgrounds. In fact the only thing that restricts the adverts audience is that it’s aimed at males.

Guinness is a fairly old beer in comparison to some of the others you find in pubs today. The 90s was a time where Guinness had to compete with a huge alcohol market. They had to persuade people to buy their product and not all the new stuff that was coming out. To do this they had to appeal to the younger generation who haven’t grown up on Guinness, obviously this meant that the image of Guinness had to change significantly to meet the new market of ‘men behaving badly’.

In the latest TV advertisements for Guinness, we’re going back to nostalgia suggesting the market has grown up again, living to earn for the family etc. But the advertisements are far more complex and sophisticated now than they ever have been before.

In conclusion, nearly every product aimed at males has had to change over the past forty years. The products have to adapt to the male image otherwise they will not sell. This is clearly proven by the changing Guinness adverts.

While Guinness has survived by changing it’s image of the typical male with what society sees as acceptable, James Bond has survived by essentially staying the same. Since Bond started in the 1960s the films have stuck to the same formula with only a few subtle changes in his character as time goes on.

Bond is always seen as suave, confident, well dressed, exceptional, successful and self-assured. He is a womaniser who uses his witty charm to his advantage. His character is that of a risk taker who really doesn’t care about much, apart from maintaining his rather outrageous and ridiculous image, which many men aspire to and are jealous of.

To prove that the ingredients for Bond have remained the same, I will compare Goldfinger (1964) with The World Is Not Enough (1999),

Goldfinger opens with Bond swimming to shore with a duck on his head. This is typical British Humour. He then knocks out a guard and plants a bomb. It goes to an exotic bar where we see Bond womanising and there is a fight sequence, he uses innuendos such as “shocking” and humour to make it all lighthearted and less serious than it really is. It then goes to Miami, very glamorous with Big Band music playing and lots of women in bikinis. We are introduced to the Villain. There is a fade out from Miami to London – music picks up. Bond flirts with Moneypenny and there is a very lengthy briefing scene explaining everything at once. The meeting is crafted for people who don’t know what the plot is, it is formal and darker shots are used. English accents are used in the meeting. It then goes to the gadget scene with Q.

The World Is Not Enough starts in an exotic location with Bond eyeing up an attractive woman. From the beginning we see that the gadgets Bond uses are far more advanced than those in Goldfinger. Bond uses humour in a nasty situation and escapes. There is a formal meeting in MI6 headquarters as in Goldfinger but it is not as long and drawn out. It then goes on to a mythical action sequence that lasts a very long time and shows expense. The opening sequence in World Is Not Enough is 14 minutes long.

The Opening sequences in both films follow a traditional pattern. Starting in an exotic location with an action sequence, going on to the briefing at MI6 headquarters and the gadget scene with Q. It is also in the opening sequence that we are introduced to the main villain or a bad guy of some kind.

There are differences in the two opening sequences. The pace is much quicker in The World Is Not Enough, the technology is more sophisticated, the scenes are shorter and informative and the fashions (clothing) are different. These are all however, differences to do with cinematic techniques of the time, technology and what’s in fashion at the time of filming. They are nothing to do with the character or image of Bond, and the ingredients for both the opening sequences are the same.

It is in the action sequences that we see the most significant changes between Goldfinger and The World Is Not Enough. Goldfinger is a thriller in terms of action sequences. It relies on the tension of the plot as the film is very much plot driven. The pace is slow and the cameras often show the faces of the villain and bond and mostly close up shots. There aren’t many camera angles in the action sequences either. The cinematic techniques date the film quite a lot. From the action sequences in Goldfinger you can tell the Bond likes to be in control, for example winning the golf game and sabotaging the villain’s card game.

In The World Is Not Enough the action sequences are very superior. They are fast and furious and full of danger. Bond is seen as very impulsive, instinctive and seems to enjoy the risk and goes after the villains. All the guns and explosions do not intimidate him. There are hundreds of camera angles, a lot of them are taken far away and some are close up. The camera angle also changes to show danger in the action sequences. The buzz track is dramatic and is complementary to the plot, for example when Bond is skiing the music is light and grand. The music also suggests threat and helps to create tension. You can’t really compare the action sequences of The World Is Not Enough and Goldfinger because the technology and cinematic techniques are so much better now than they were in the 1960s. But Goldfinger is primitive in comparison.

The leading ladies in Bond have also remained predictable and formulaic like the opening sequence. Bond likes women who are exceptional physically and mentally. In Goldfinger the leading lady is called Pussy Galore who is a very good pilot (so she says). Her name is smutty and comical and is characteristic of the more obvious and cruder innuendos used in the earlier Bond films. She rejects Bond at first and stays loyal to her job; it shows she is strong, confident and independent. Bond puts on the charm and is very direct towards her but she is immune to it. Eventually she falls for him and helps him to save the day.

“My name is Pussy Galore”, “I must be dreaming”. This is one of Bonds more cruder and famous innuendos, but he soon puts on the charm. There are single camera shots – talking heads in this scene. There is an abrupt sharpness in her voice: “I’m a damn good pilot, period.” Talking heads shows she is equal to Bond.

In the early Bond films Bond did not show any emotional attachment to women and was rather disrespectful in his manner towards them. However, in The World Is Not Enough Bonds attitude towards Electra King (the leading lady) is a lot more respectful. Electra is smart and intelligent. On the computer screen she appears vulnerable; there are talking head shots when Bond is looking at her on the screen that shows she is equal to Bond. Bond shows emotion towards her, he touches his mouth like he is troubled and appears to show sensitivity, which was not seen, in the earlier Bond movies. The female equivalent of Bond is Christmas Jones who is highly intelligent, like Pussy Galore. She rejects him at first, his charm doesn’t work on her, but like Pussy she falls for him.

Both the leading ladies are the female equivalent to Bond, but they are also both linked to the villains. They are exceptional in their own field and independent. However Pussy Galore does not show weakness when courting with Bond, Electra seems a lot more vulnerable, weak and emotional and Bond responds to this.

It is when Bond is around women that we really see his character come out. He uses far more innuendos and puns than he normally would when not around women and the tone tends to be more humorous and light-hearted.

Despite the changes in the male image over the past forty years, bond has survived without changing. The male image has become so much more complex yet the new Bond movie is currently in production and will no doubt be a huge box office success.

In conclusion I would say that the Bond movies are so successful because males dream of being Bond and females dream of being with Bond.

Obviously there are other reasons for Bonds success. The films are always the cutting edge in terms of adventure films with innovative action sequences and original story lines. And the sometimes-hilarious British sense of humour that seeps through in the films helps to keep the films interesting and fun to watch, even if they are 40 years old.

He is an exceptional character who lives a dangerous and exciting life that is never boring. The world that Bond lives in seems care free and unproblematic in terms of what we have to deal with e.g. financial problems and I think that we all dream about living in it. Bond follows base instinct and he is the kind of person who wouldn’t fit in at present day but for some reason men aspire to be like him and women are attracted to him. I think it is because James Bond is exceptional; he is the perfect male who doesn’t have to worry about anything apart from staying alive – which we all have to worry about. If you are Bond or are with Bond you’re promised an action packed and care free life.

By Jack Higgs 10K