But is this homoeroticism or actually men, straight and queer, developing deep, meaningful relationships with each other that we, as a wider culture, cannot accept as emotionally healthy and free of the very toxic masculinity we spend so much time denouncing today?
Thank you. Tangential but the "hahaha they're gay" shitty takes about Frodo and Sam in LOTR it drove me up the wall
Yeah, the Frodo/Sam thing in LOTR always strikes me as incredibly insecure men saying, "No way two dudes could love each other that much without being gay for each other." Tells me a lot about the commenter; reveals very little about the film.
Great essay. It strikes me that Top Gun is in good company with all sorts of other movies that were intended to dunk male toxicity but ended up being posters for those who actually revel in that culture. Others include Wall Street (greed is good, never mind the author's intended message), and Glengarry Glen Ross (always be closing, never mind the author's intended message), also all sorts of sports movies like Any Given Sunday. Love all of those movies (and Top Gun) but figure I didn't get the message the Director/Writers might have been going for, haha.
There's an essay to be written (maybe by me) about how art's meaning is so often changed by society. My John Wayne essay, which I think you've read, touched on this, but didn't go all in. What you're describing is very much that. I mean, just look at the song "Born in the USA".
Hah. Funny you should mention that song. I'm not American but I remember hearing that song when it was first released. I had no idea it was a commentary on culture until I read an essay recently on the subject (I guess it was the anniversary of the album or song?).
Which makes me wonder how much of the meaning is driven by an audience who has it framed on a first pass and never goes back to re-evaluate the "true" meaning of the thing. I saw Top Gun when it was released in the 80s. My impression of the movie is as a 13 year old watching with friends and feeling that adrenaline soaked theme park excitement.
I'm older now (much older, ahaha) but I wouldn't have revisited the meaning of the movie without your essay. And I read your essays because, among other reasons, I'm acutely aware of how superficially I consume "culture" and thought I should try and maybe remedy that by digging in a bit deeper.
Still, first impressions may be lasting impressions, especially when consumed by an impressionable immature mind. Haha.
As someone who's interested in telling stories but also has a greater social agenda of body diversity, feminism, etc. I'm compelled by this take but I am curious: do you think it matters from a representational standpoint? I.e., we're still watching a bunch of white cis dudes model toxic behavior even if to deconstruct it.
See, I'm not so sure they are demonstrating toxic male behavior, as I tried to explain (but maybe failed to succeed in doing). Every other character in the film thinks Maverick is the bad guy. They all want him to work as part of a team, to put others first, to stop being such a toxic bro. These are men who are all emotionally taking care of each other. Maverick stands apart from that, and that's what makes him *their* villain to survive. All this said, I don't know how conscious all this is as a deconstruction. But I believe the filmmakers inadvertently succeeded at doing exactly that. It's worth considering that Tony Scott was British. American jingoism was something he exploited and reveled in, but he also came at it from a really thoughtful place. His brother, Ridley, similarly interrogates themes in his films.
That's a fun take, but I don't quite buy it (though I recognize my memories of the film are distant and fragmented, so I mostly remember the pop culture impressions of the film, which may just prove your point).
I think you're correct that Maverick is a threat. I'm not sure that I'd call him a villain, but I'm more skeptical of the claims that (a) there wasn't much competition, (b) that the movie suggests that the proper response to a threat is offering emotional support or (c) that it makes sense to see it as targeting a female gaze. I would be happy to be convinced, but I'm not sure the film supports that idea.
Just as one example, I remember reading that Val Kilmer and Tom Cruise mostly didn't talk to each other on set because the filmmakers encouraged the _actors_ to split into two separate cliques to maintain an edge to their interatcions.
When was the last time you watched it, Nick? I just did, for the third time in five years, and this stuff is pretty surface. The other characters plead with Maverick, they set him apart, they ultimately make him feel utterly isolated when Goose dies because they suspect he was to blame. As for the female gaze of it, that's pretty well established elsewhere; it's far from just my take. I should add, I don't need to convince you otherwise. I just write these things for people to rethink films. I don't argue my position is the right one. That would defeat the purpose of art.
It's been ages -- and I believe you're on much firmer grounding that I am when talking about the film.
I was thinking about it recently because I had a back and forth on substack about the song "Danger Zone"* which prompted me to read a couple of articles about the film.
Just to be clear, I like your take. My skepticism is less, "I don't think this is true" and more, "you're taking this in a direction that I'm sympathetic to, and I don't want to go along just because I would like it to be true." I believe that everything you're saying about the movie describes what actually happens.
[Edited To Add]. I was thinking about the "female gaze" question and, really, I have no doubt that the filmmakers intended the shots of shirtless men to appeal to women. I think the questions about homoeroticism are partially in response to what's seen as a campy/exaggerated image of masculinity.
* I initially thought of it as schlocky and not that good and came around to thinking that it's schlocky and really pretty good. Incidentally part of what helped me rethink it was learning that it was written by Giorgio Moroder and thinking of it as drawing on Disco.
** See, for example: https://www.vogue.com/article/katie-holmes-5-things-you-didnt-know "Tom Cruise was Holmes’s teenage crush. While growing up in Toledo, Ohio, Holmes decorated the walls of her bedroom with posters of some of her favorite heartthrobs, including the Top Gun star. "
Speaking from the perspective of my 11 or 12 year old self, I can personally verify Tom Cruise’s pin-up status in the aftermath of this film. I’m not sure I agree with it resonating more with a male audience though. I think at its heart is a very emotional story of platonic love and loss which speaks to all genders alike.
I love this reading of the film. I’ve watched it many times, but not for a few years. I’m keen to go back for another look.
But is this homoeroticism or actually men, straight and queer, developing deep, meaningful relationships with each other that we, as a wider culture, cannot accept as emotionally healthy and free of the very toxic masculinity we spend so much time denouncing today?
Thank you. Tangential but the "hahaha they're gay" shitty takes about Frodo and Sam in LOTR it drove me up the wall
Yeah, the Frodo/Sam thing in LOTR always strikes me as incredibly insecure men saying, "No way two dudes could love each other that much without being gay for each other." Tells me a lot about the commenter; reveals very little about the film.
Just imagine Sam Jackson saying exact-o-mundo in Pulp Fiction for my reply :p
Great essay. It strikes me that Top Gun is in good company with all sorts of other movies that were intended to dunk male toxicity but ended up being posters for those who actually revel in that culture. Others include Wall Street (greed is good, never mind the author's intended message), and Glengarry Glen Ross (always be closing, never mind the author's intended message), also all sorts of sports movies like Any Given Sunday. Love all of those movies (and Top Gun) but figure I didn't get the message the Director/Writers might have been going for, haha.
There's an essay to be written (maybe by me) about how art's meaning is so often changed by society. My John Wayne essay, which I think you've read, touched on this, but didn't go all in. What you're describing is very much that. I mean, just look at the song "Born in the USA".
Hah. Funny you should mention that song. I'm not American but I remember hearing that song when it was first released. I had no idea it was a commentary on culture until I read an essay recently on the subject (I guess it was the anniversary of the album or song?).
Which makes me wonder how much of the meaning is driven by an audience who has it framed on a first pass and never goes back to re-evaluate the "true" meaning of the thing. I saw Top Gun when it was released in the 80s. My impression of the movie is as a 13 year old watching with friends and feeling that adrenaline soaked theme park excitement.
I'm older now (much older, ahaha) but I wouldn't have revisited the meaning of the movie without your essay. And I read your essays because, among other reasons, I'm acutely aware of how superficially I consume "culture" and thought I should try and maybe remedy that by digging in a bit deeper.
Still, first impressions may be lasting impressions, especially when consumed by an impressionable immature mind. Haha.
As someone who's interested in telling stories but also has a greater social agenda of body diversity, feminism, etc. I'm compelled by this take but I am curious: do you think it matters from a representational standpoint? I.e., we're still watching a bunch of white cis dudes model toxic behavior even if to deconstruct it.
See, I'm not so sure they are demonstrating toxic male behavior, as I tried to explain (but maybe failed to succeed in doing). Every other character in the film thinks Maverick is the bad guy. They all want him to work as part of a team, to put others first, to stop being such a toxic bro. These are men who are all emotionally taking care of each other. Maverick stands apart from that, and that's what makes him *their* villain to survive. All this said, I don't know how conscious all this is as a deconstruction. But I believe the filmmakers inadvertently succeeded at doing exactly that. It's worth considering that Tony Scott was British. American jingoism was something he exploited and reveled in, but he also came at it from a really thoughtful place. His brother, Ridley, similarly interrogates themes in his films.
That's a fun take, but I don't quite buy it (though I recognize my memories of the film are distant and fragmented, so I mostly remember the pop culture impressions of the film, which may just prove your point).
I think you're correct that Maverick is a threat. I'm not sure that I'd call him a villain, but I'm more skeptical of the claims that (a) there wasn't much competition, (b) that the movie suggests that the proper response to a threat is offering emotional support or (c) that it makes sense to see it as targeting a female gaze. I would be happy to be convinced, but I'm not sure the film supports that idea.
Just as one example, I remember reading that Val Kilmer and Tom Cruise mostly didn't talk to each other on set because the filmmakers encouraged the _actors_ to split into two separate cliques to maintain an edge to their interatcions.
When was the last time you watched it, Nick? I just did, for the third time in five years, and this stuff is pretty surface. The other characters plead with Maverick, they set him apart, they ultimately make him feel utterly isolated when Goose dies because they suspect he was to blame. As for the female gaze of it, that's pretty well established elsewhere; it's far from just my take. I should add, I don't need to convince you otherwise. I just write these things for people to rethink films. I don't argue my position is the right one. That would defeat the purpose of art.
It's been ages -- and I believe you're on much firmer grounding that I am when talking about the film.
I was thinking about it recently because I had a back and forth on substack about the song "Danger Zone"* which prompted me to read a couple of articles about the film.
Just to be clear, I like your take. My skepticism is less, "I don't think this is true" and more, "you're taking this in a direction that I'm sympathetic to, and I don't want to go along just because I would like it to be true." I believe that everything you're saying about the movie describes what actually happens.
I will say, in terms of the female gaze, that (a) I definitely remember Tom Cruise pin-up posters being a thing** and (b) I think of Top Gun as resonating more with a male audience than a female audience (unlike Thelma and Loise -- speaking of the female gaze: https://www.avclub.com/ridley-scott-misted-brad-pitt-s-abs-with-evian-before-t-1844729061 )
[Edited To Add]. I was thinking about the "female gaze" question and, really, I have no doubt that the filmmakers intended the shots of shirtless men to appeal to women. I think the questions about homoeroticism are partially in response to what's seen as a campy/exaggerated image of masculinity.
* I initially thought of it as schlocky and not that good and came around to thinking that it's schlocky and really pretty good. Incidentally part of what helped me rethink it was learning that it was written by Giorgio Moroder and thinking of it as drawing on Disco.
** See, for example: https://www.vogue.com/article/katie-holmes-5-things-you-didnt-know "Tom Cruise was Holmes’s teenage crush. While growing up in Toledo, Ohio, Holmes decorated the walls of her bedroom with posters of some of her favorite heartthrobs, including the Top Gun star. "
Speaking from the perspective of my 11 or 12 year old self, I can personally verify Tom Cruise’s pin-up status in the aftermath of this film. I’m not sure I agree with it resonating more with a male audience though. I think at its heart is a very emotional story of platonic love and loss which speaks to all genders alike.
Suddenly, "I feel the need- the need for speed" takes on an entirely new meaning...