MODELS OF MASCULINITIES IN TROY: ACHILLES, HECTOR AND THEIR FEMALE PARTNERS Celina Proch and Michael Kleu Introduction – What Does it Mean to Be a Man? Films, as reconstructions and interpretations of reality, provide insights into social constructions of reality.1 They are one of the visual forms in which and with which a contemporary society is portrayed.2 Popular and successful Hollywood cinema productions have therefore proven to be an abundant resource for analyzing gender relations. Films set in the ancient world are no exception. In fact, while they usually employ storylines passed down over many centuries, they often turn out to be especially interesting in the ancient and modern values, moral conceptions, and societal norms they adopt and implement. Our particular focus here is Wolfgang Petersen’s Troy,3 which is “inspired by” Homer’s Iliad and focuses on two male characters – the Greek Achilles, introduced via a text insertion at the beginning of the film as the mighti- est warrior of all times, and his Trojan counterpart Hector, the heir to King Priam’s throne.4 The intention of this study is to analyze the depic- tion of masculinity in the film by examining both the representation of Achilles and Hector and the extent to which the narrative structures and 1 See Rainer Winter, “Film und gesellschaftliche Wirklichkeit. Zur Aktualität der Film- soziologie”, in Jutta Allmendinger et al., eds., Entstaatlichung und soziale Sicherheit. Ver- handlungen des 31. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie (Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 2004) 112. 2 Norman K. Denzin, “Reading Film – Filme und Videos als sozialwissenschaftliches Erfahrungsmaterial”, in Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardorff und Ines Steinke, eds., Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch. (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rohwolt, 2000) 416–428. 3 For reference, we are using the 2007 director’s cut. For Troy in film, see Anja Wieber, “Vor Troja nichts Neues? Moderne Kinogeschichten zu Homers Ilias,” in Martin Lindner, Drehbuch Geschichte: Die antike Welt im Film (Münster: LIT, 2005) 137–162; Martin M. Winkler, ed., Troy: from Homer’s Iliad to Hollywood Epic (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007); Wolfgang Kofler and Florian Schaffenrath, “Petersens epische Technik: Troja und seine Homerische Vorlage,” in Stefan Neuhaus, ed., Literatur im Film: Beispiele einer Medienbezie- hung (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2008) 313–330. 4 Most film adaptions focus on Helen and the conquest of Troy, so Achilles is usually disregarded or plays a minor role. Cf. Susanne Gödde, “Achilleus,” in Der Neue Pauly, suppl. 5 (2008) 13. The same applies to Hector. © Celina Proch and Michael Kleu, 2013 | doi:10.1163/9789004241923_011 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NCCelina 4.0 license. Proch and Michael Kleu - 9789004241923 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 07:01:48PM via free access 176 celina proch and michael kleu the staged manliness contain references to values and standards in the real world. In our title we have deliberately chosen to employ the term “masculini- ties” in its plural form following the assumption of a diversity of masculinities that form the basis of Raewyn Connell’s influential sociological research widely promulgated in her 1995 book of that title.5 Connell’s conclusions provide the groundwork for our typology of the forms of masculinity. But before we commence with the analysis of manhood in Troy’s Achilles and Hector, we have to delineate several aspects of gender. We define gender as a social and cultural construction. Different designs of gender can be found in diverse cultures and historical epochs. The disparity between them is determined by not only the cultural and historical environment but also the local social context in which an individual dwells. Within a school, neighborhood, or work place, one can identify different constructs of masculinity as well as various patterns of behavior and ways of dealing with the male body. This spectrum of masculinities is shown to the audience of Troy in the form of personified characters. The filmmakers present a variety of mas- culinity types which portray the genre’s binary oppositions – good and evil.6 According to Connell’s model of social gender structure, masculinity is always conceived in relation to various masculinities as well as in rela- tion to women, whereby the relations are characterized by a difference in access to power. This hierarchy is topped by the so-called hegemonic masculinity. At the bottom of the hierarchy is where one finds women; in between the two are the other forms of masculinity. The latter are char- acterized by subordination, complicity, or marginalization. Hegemonic masculinities are the most important pillars of patriarchy, perpetuat- ing the existing social system by persistently reproducing the relations of power. Marginalized masculinities have access to fewer resources of power than the hegemonic. Characteristically included in this lower cat- 5 Originally published in 1995 by Allen & Unwin, now in a second edition: Raewyn Connell, Masculinities (Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 2005). We have employed the German translation by Christian Stahl: Robert W. Connell, Der gemachte Mann. Konstruktion und Krise von Männlichkeiten (Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 1999). 6 Following predominantly Martin Lindner, Rom und seine Kaiser im Historienfilm (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Antike, 2007) 98–103, 180f., and 214, we employ the term “film- makers,” because in addition to the director Wolfgang Petersen, the producers, scriptwrit- ers, artistic designers, and not at least the actors have an influence on the final presentation of the movie as well. Celina Proch and Michael Kleu - 9789004241923 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 07:01:48PM via free access models of masculinities in troy 177 egory are homosexuals and heterosexuals with female attributes.7 But masculinities can also be marginalized if their status is lowered because of their ethnicity, class membership, or social status. Complicity as a form of manhood covers those masculinities that do not match the hegemonic ones but nonetheless benefit from their status and thereby participate in the patriarchal dividend. These variations of classification make clear that Connell’s model is a dynamic one in which it is not always possible to separate the attributes clearly. And, lastly, the relations of power can be changed at any time, and the occurrence of an attribute can express itself differently from individual to individual. In Troy the diversity of masculinities is illustrated by means of different social and hierarchic positions – kings and armies, leaders and subordi- nates. Even within the army there are warriors with a particular prestige. In the Thessalian army, for example, Boagrius immediately captures the audi- ence’s attention by his impressive body height and muscle mass. According to Connell, there was and still is no field more important for the construc- tion of masculinities in the Western world than the military.8 Watching a film about the Trojan War, the audience finds itself taken into an ancient- type world of particularly masculine dominance, and here Achilles and Hector quite obviously represent hegemonic masculinities. Both are mili- tary leaders, highly appreciated by their soldiers, each of them playing the role of the mightiest warrior in their respective armies.9 To a lesser extent Achilles and Hector also fulfill the criteria for com- plicity. Hector supports his father Priam in order to keep alive the latter’s hegemony from which he benefits directly as the heir to the throne and successor to the position of paterfamilias. Achilles condemns Agamem- non, but he needs to fight in the king’s war in order to win the immortal glory he longs for so badly. Although reluctant to serve under Agamem- non, early on in the film we see that he is willing to accept this relation- dependence.10 7 In Troy one can identify Paris as a representative of this type of masculinity because of his traditionally female characteristics. For example, his actions are motivated by emo- tions and he acts cowardly in battle. 8 Robert W. Connell, “Arms and the Men: Using the New Research on Masculinity to Understand Violence and Promote Peace in the Contemporary World,” in Ingeborg Breines, Raewyn Connell, and Ingrid Eide, eds., Male Roles, Masculinities and Violence: A Culture of Peace Perspective (Paris: UNESCO, 2000) 21–31. 9 Connell describes military leaders as prime examples for hegemonic masculinity. Cf. Connell, Der gemachte Mann, 98. 10 At the same time Agamemnon is dependent on Achilles without whom he cannot win the war. But ultimately Agamemnon and not Achilles is the commander-in-chief of the Greeks. Celina Proch and Michael Kleu - 9789004241923 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 07:01:48PM via free access 178 celina proch and michael kleu Insofar as subordination is concerned, there is a significant differ- ence between Achilles and Hector. Hector obeys his father’s commands because he benefits from the latter’s reign, and he also represents the ideal son who honors his father’s word, even if he might entirely disagree with him.11 Achilles does not obey Agamemnon, and he makes it clear that he does not consider Agamemnon to be his king. He listens only to people he trusts – like Odysseus. Their circumstances differ somewhat: Hector subordinates himself to some kind of ideal king, while Achilles refuses to obey a demonstrably poor ruler.12 In this regard, subordination is not a useful criterion for analyzing the different representations of manliness illustrated by Achilles and Hector. Achilles and Hector therefore both represent a hegemonic masculinity combined with some elements of complicity. On the other hand, although Achilles and Hector both conform to Connell’s typology in these ways, their characters differ considerably from one another’s. We will discuss this aspect of their characterization insofar as it pertains to their relations with their female partners, but only after we have focused our analysis on several physical aspects of the performances by the actors portraying our heroes.