Skip to content 
Shouting from the rooftops, running through an airport, waiting at your ‘spot’, sacrificing your life for theirs. Performance seems to be the cornerstone of many romance films, mainly coming from men in pursuit. While many think this is a new occurrence in cinema, even Old Hollywood embraced a love declaration from men, just in a different way. As culture has changed and supposedly rewards the vulnerable man more than ever before, what is the current perspective on the performative male?
Now when I say performative male, I’m not being negative (in this immediate context). Looking throughout cinema, men have performed, especially in romantic settings, and have gone to great lengths to get what they want, ‘world be damned’. While this has slowly become many people’s crescendo in their dreamscape of an ideal man, it’s a performance nonetheless. Sir, you don’t have to drop everything and make a scene at her big meeting or take the mic at her sister’s wedding – you’ll see her tomorrow. But it’s the immediacy, the need to declare love ASAP. It’s a firework: messy, colourful, hot, leaves debris, a definitive showstopper. How has cinema delivered loud love throughout its lifespan? How has it been performed in film and TV, and what does that mean for society now?
Macho Macho Man
I’ll also make clear early on that there is female performance on screen and it is not a bad thing, but for much of cinema history, there was a stable archetype for a love declaration, and that was the leading man. Hollywood centred male stars as objects of desire defined by aloofness, dominance and romantic authority. A ‘strapping young man’ did wonders on and off the screen, with the term heartthrob being utilised across generations to describe romantic admiration. Think Clark Gable, Rudolph Valentino, Gregory Peck, Rock Hudson. These guys looked like typical ‘men’ – suited and booted, deep voices, come-hither eyes and a swoony smile. The men were symbols of certainty with status, financial security and protection, only to be broken down to mush during the third act of the film to admit their adoration. It usually comes after quite a controlled display from the male lead, until the music swells and the emotional intensity is high. Sometimes the romantic gesture would even be quite inconsistent with the character’s previous standoffishness, but it was needed for the story.
In the 70s, the performance of love continued but romance wasn’t the standout film genre of that time. It was more to supplement the story rather than largely shape it. Considering this was during a film era of exploration of realism and psychological complexity, love stories weren’t as perfect and men were less polished – they experienced anguish and felt more like the everyday man. In ‘Rocky’ , for instance, Rocky was openly flawed and insecure. Performance went beyond romantic gestures – men were the performance itself. In ‘The Godfather’, the James Bond franchise, ‘Star Wars’, ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’, men had to perform to live up to something. And their partners went through all of the ups and downs with them – this, I believe, was the era of the glorification of struggle love. These men were under pressure and showed it through their treatment of their romantic relationships and even though display of romance wasn’t as central, it was still big.
Love is Real and Anything is Possible
Movies were in general, more grand and men had more dimension, even in romantic relations too, making the declarations more meaningful because audiences could really see their struggle for the happy ending – if there was one. To me, romantic love took a side step as something that was more of a juvenile fantasy, with John Hughes having his films ‘Pretty in Pink’ and ‘Sixteen Candles’ as well as ‘The Princess Bride’ being released, romantic performance was still appreciated, but not something that older, serious men would focus on as much – they were too busy fighting, having existential crises, leading crime families etc. One thing that stood out was, they didn’t shy away from tragedy, and this bled into the 90s with films like ‘Titanic’. “There was room for both of them on the door.” Okay then! ‘Titanic’ director, James Cameron said that Jack had to die because the movie was about death and separation. Jack was a poor man who had little but love and gave that love the only way he could in that moment – through sacrifice.
This saviour notion was prevalent in the 90s with ‘While You Were Sleeping’, ‘Notting Hill’ and ‘Pretty Woman’ and on-screen romance was entering its golden age, especially in the late 90s. ‘The Best Man’ , ‘She’s All That’, ’10 Things I Hate About You’, ‘You’ve Got Mail’ etc were an amalgamation of romantic tropes, with romantic performance taking the driver’s seat once again in the hands of a new class of actors. The grand epiphany of being in love paired with a run to stop the girl from leaving was truly birthed in the 90s with movies like ‘Jerry Maguire’ and bled into the 2000s with ‘Love Actually’ or whatever romcom Matthew McConaughey was in. This time in cinema was filled with romance and innovative performances from men in pursuit. The rare times that audiences saw women performing, it was verging on toxic. Yes, Julia Roberts, I’m talking about you and what you did in ‘My Best Friend’s Wedding’ – bad performance, was not received well. It was left to the men to rectify the wrongs and make the first movie – this is the kind of love I grew up watching! A romantic gesture that’s big and loud and life threatening but that’s what makes it romantic. The stakes are high, the stage is yours, everybody’s watching. This is the height of performance.
This new era revealed a softer side to men in love. Men proving themselves through vulnerability became a fad during the 2000s/2010s romcom surge. We welcomed the man with the squishy interior who was quirky and wore cute glasses (only men though, hot women don’t have permission to regularly wear glasses on screen yet). It was all about dropping the persona and revealing who they truly are.
Sure, he’s a player to other people, but he’s real with you!
Male leads showing their genuine emotions and letting their guard down was the main premise of the romance standouts like ‘How To Lose A Guy in 10 Days’, ‘Crazy, Stupid Love’, ‘Think Like A Man’, ‘The Ugly Truth’, ’Hitch’ etc. The cynic-turned-saint trope is one of the reasons I believe that women have the “I can change him” notion, so thank you for ruining lives, 2000s. But it was prevalent! Think of the amount of romantic films that came out where a man changed his entire mindset and revealed a more vulnerable side to a woman. He saw the light and the performance of a hard man was washed away by the tears of realisation of a man in love, revealing a doting partner.
Only Matcha, No Periods
Even though the pivot from the heartbreaker guy to the picking-up-the-pieces boy is nice on the screen, I propose that society has overcorrected. With the revelation of performance being the master key to a woman’s hearts, there was a manipulation of the system, with men adopting the look of the final man at the end of the romance but lacking the substance of one. I don’t know if you’re aware of the performative males of today, the men who carry around tampons just in case, the bell hooks quoters, the tote bag carriers, the wired headphone wearers etc etc. These men are cosplaying the softer, more loving and sensitive product of the first 77 minutes of the movie. While these things aren’t bad, when emulating a certain aesthetic of a vulnerable man, it can seem disingenuous, as if it’s being done solely to gain female attention. It turns men into curated caricatures that are difficult to trust. Do you want to be a good man or just look like one? This has been widely reported, with Performative Male Contests happening all over the world. I’m serious.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8jrzejqjro
The subtitle reads: With sanitary pads in his pockets and a tote bag full of feminist literature, Aiman Kaiden knew he was ready to compete.
Mind you, Aiman only came third. Not enough feminist literature in his man purse, perhaps?
Media wasn’t the sole reason for the rise of the performative male, but it did make an aesthetic more widespread. Even though I believe it was rooted in good intentions, in a crooked world like we live in, it opens the door to manipulation, and men are seen as artificial and risky. But then it speaks to where men stand in society now, which is quite ambiguous. In general, men don’t really stand on solid ground. Screen culture is renegotiating male desirability amid shifting social and aesthetic expectations. Where figures like Clark Gable, Denzel Washington and George Clooney once embodied an ideal of effortless, mysterious charisma, today’s equivalents tend to be more free, emotionally complex and stylistically ambiguous. Who are the contemporary leading men now? Timothee Chalamet? Harry Styles? Josh O’Connor? These men don’t match the typical leading man aesthetic that Hollywood has been churning out since its conception. We’ve gone from ‘tall, dark and handsome’ to ‘hot rodent boyfriends’ (not my words) in a short space of time. In a Saturday Night Live sketch, Josh O’Connor and Ben Marshall play overstimulated strippers who wear cardigans and cry about Supreme Court injustice to the chagrin and pleasure of their female audience. I say this to truly paint a picture that the culture of male desirability no longer has a few signposts. Sure, men can perform, but is it effective anymore? We’re all over the gaff.
What do you want from me?!
From the apparent dreamboat aesthetic being classed as vermin to the balancing act of having emotions but not being too emotional, it’s quite tough for a man. Don’t worry, I’m not going all Andrew Tate and telling you that women have it easy – because we don’t! However, if a softer man is seen as unreal and a harder man more outdated, and yet a man should still be able to lay down the law and provide, what makes a desirable leading man anymore? What’s the balance without going full Wattpad and getting whiplash when the men get into unwise fistfights on your behalf but also paint their nails and listen to Clairo. I understand the sentiment behind this, and all of the book to TV show adaptations that depict this, like ‘Off Campus’ for instance, but it feels too constructed, too much of a performance; but you know what? I think viewers know this. I know that. I know that the chances of me finding a reformed playboy who cutely abbreviates my last name is slim, but the media lets us dream. As long as you’re not pulling the wool over my eyes, perform away! I’m happy to sit in it with open eyes because it’s a fun thing to watch but not rooted in a real man, but rather, the fantasy of the perfectly balanced one.
In a culture that prizes authenticity, what happens when audiences no longer trust the fantasies that movie stars are built to sustain? It makes it harder to determine where society stands on what a desirable man is. Modern men and male protagonists are often caught between competing expectations: emotionally intelligent but not weak, wanted but not intimidating, self-aware but not performative, open but not cringe. Across film and television, male desirability increasingly feels less like a fixed archetype and more like an ongoing negotiation.
Let me be clear, I’m glad that we’re opening the leading man space to vulnerable men, men who aren’t afraid to cry, apologise and admit that they don’t have everything together. But as confusion has entered the culture, we have camps of the incels and the manosphere and the soft boys and the performative males. Now more than ever, people are asking how to properly raise their sons in this world. Maybe that’s why society has taken a break from blockbuster romcoms. Maybe we don’t know where we stand. That’s why we keep adapting Jane Austen works for a love boost instead of trying something new (performance is fine for a period drama, they didn’t know about cringe culture in the 19th century). If I were to pitch something now, I’d propose ‘the everyday lover’. The gestures don’t have to be big, but the small gestures are constant and they add up. I don’t know if that will be as watchable as the suspense of being late to meet someone at the top of the Empire State Building, but it’s real.
And a romcom from the male perspective would be incredibly interesting. Which one of you is going to be brave and write one?
