flying and driving in circles: a comparison of cycles of masculinity in kite runner and a streetcar named desire
trigger warning for violence, SA, death, and abuse mentions
tennessee williams and khaled hosseini both demonstrate how men’s relationships with one another form cycles that reinforce one specific view on masculinity: that aggression and stoicism should be praised and vulnerability should be shamed; ‘fathers weren’t supposed to cry.’ a streetcar named desire and the kite runner show how the ways men present themselves have changed very little across time or culture. from williams’ portrayal of the american south in the 1950s to hosseini’s depiction of 1980s afghanistan, the most valued form of masculinity remains what robert bray describes in his commentary of a streetcar named desire as ‘king of the apes.’
the existence of an ‘idol’ is hugely significant in the presentation of masculinity within these texts. having a man who epitomises the most desirable male traits present in the social sphere means that the rest of the sphere has someone to model themselves on, but also someone who is dominant over them. the poker scene is contextualised by the presence of ‘a picture of van gogh’s of a billiard-parlour at night.’ on the wall. this is an example of williams’ expressionism. he uses all aspects of the stage, including the set, to shape meaning; the painting is known as ‘the night cafe’ from 1888, the post-impressionist period. it is van gogh’s self-proclaimed ‘ugliest painting’ and depicts a cafe as ‘a place where one can ruin oneself, go mad or commit a crime…’ it’s presence in the kitchen creates a parallel between the scene in the painting and the scene involving the play’s characters. this paints stella’s home to be similar, as a place for drunks and unwanted population, and characterises the nature of the social sphere as uninhibited and vulgar. the social sphere is shown to be inhabited by men, in this case, stanley, steve, mitch and pablo. williams uses this painting to hint at the more primal aspects of masculinity. in the absence of women and the presence of other men, men are shown to regress or almost devolve to a more animalistic, playful state. this is particularly relevant to stanley and his ability to be both easy-going and intimidating. the setting involves ‘raw colours of the childhood spectrum’, both in terms of the kitchen itself and the men’s clothes. these characters are described as being ‘at the peak of their physical manhood, as coarse and direct and powerful as the primary colours.’ these colours not only set up a new presentation of masculinity but also work to further separate male and female spheres. serving as yet another example of plastic theatre, the separation is shown through contrasts in colour and lighting. the brightly lit kitchen appears vivid and fun in comparison to the bedroom, which is ‘relatively dim.’
the poker scene is vital in williams’ characterisation of masculinity, particularly in terms of how each individual’s sense of masculine identity is shaped by the social contexts they experience with other men. stanley’s language in this scene is hugely contrasted with mitch’s, painting him as far more visceral and commanding. much of his body language is animalised in this scene; williams describes him as ‘lurching...impatient...gives a loud whack of his hand…animal joy...’ ben foster , who starred as stanley in st anne’s warehouse 2016 production of the play, described stanley as an ‘alpha dog. men who act on base desires, typically those that are sexual, are often described in modern dialogue as ‘dogs.’ saeed suggests that in this context, ‘the word dog is used to describe behaviour, rather than to name a species. this idea is further reiterated in the context of the poker game; it is established that the social sphere belongs to men, and games often serve as an extended metaphor for male bonding, similar to the playfulness of animals. just as stanley is the head of the bowling team, williams allows the poker game to be played in stanley’s own home, giving him the opportunity to both control the sphere and assert his dominance over the other players.
his dismissal of mitch’s concern over his mother carries an aggressive, exasperated tone, suggesting that mitch’s display of love for his mother is pathetic and should be mocked: ‘shut up...aw, for god’s sake, go home then!’ stanley’s harsh response to a display of care or vulnerability arguably prompts the rest of the men to ignore mitch entirely and continue the game; within the conversation, stanley, pablo and steve can be heard intermittently discussing the game, ‘give me three...what’ve you got?...spade flush...seven-card stud….’ the insistent repetition here exemplifies both stanley’s influence over them, and the extent to which men will shun and avoid showing weakness or emotion. he also directly references the game when insulting his friends; ‘what do you two think you are? a pair of queens?’ he emasculates them in order to assert himself as the most masculine of the group. poker itself is presented as a specifically manly game, as harris suggests there is some ‘phallic symbolism of a game in which ‘one-eyed jacks are wild.’
hosseini uses similar techniques to show the importance of assef as an idol in the kite runner, but in a slightly more dangerous manner. assef is a prime example of how class can feed male aggression and boost their power. as a pashtun, his assumed political ‘superiority’ over hassan, a hazara, gives him the security to not face any punishment for his treatment of him, further incentivising him to abuse his physical dominance over the boy. this bears resemblance to how stanley’s ability to avoid consequence for his actions reinforces the cycle of shaming and praising certain male characteristics. in fact, class is the main reason for assef’s abuse of hassan in the first place: ‘his people pollute our homeland, our watan. they dirty our blood.’ assef attacks hassan for his ‘impurity’ but does not do so alone: kamal and wali are introduced as is ‘obeying servants’ and hosseini states that assef’s ‘word was law.’ this shows the extent of his influence on other men. he uses them to aid his abuse: ‘all i want you weaklings to do is hold him down. can you manage that?’ by referring to the boys as ‘weaklings’ and patronising them, it clearly shows how assef’s hold on them relies upon their fear of rejection or emasculation: rather than the men around him wanting to emulate his behaviour like the men in a streetcar named desire wish to imitate stanley, they obey him and mimic his actions out of fear. literary articles suggest that it’s ‘almost as if his early upbringing prepares him for his later violent behaviours’. which addresses the impact of class on his attitude to others. unlike stanley, assef is mainly a threat to the men around him rather than women. stanely is amicable and idolisable to other men, and poses the biggest threat to the women in his life such as stella, exemplified by the incident of domestic pviolence against her, and blanche: while he threatens and mocks her throughout the play, the most significant example of stanley being dangerous would be his rape of blanche. this treatment of her was a prime example of the nightmarish complexity of stanley. in comparing assef and stanely, we see two similar but significantly separate forms of masculinity. both men use their physical power to express themselves, but while assef’s abusive actions are for the purpose of ‘teaching hassan a lesson’ and displaying his own perceived superiority, stanley’s abuse appears to stem from some insecurity. he finds the radio irritating as it serves as a loud reminder of blanche’s presence, and throws it from the window in a rage, hitting stella as she attempts to calm him down. these two expressions of masculinity demonstrate, in the case of both authors, the force with which men will attack someone, regardless of their intention behind it. should a man have the support of other men that he deems lesser, such as kamal and wali or steve, pablo and mitch, he becomes entirely dangerous and far less likely to regulate his anger in a non-violent manner.
one display of emotion by an idol that stands out is that of baba’s in hosseini’s text. similar to how stanley’s outburst is triggered by the threat of being left by his wife, baba becomes emotional when told that ali and hassan are going to leave. he begins with the default, masculine response of anger. ‘“i forbid you to do this!” baba bellowed.’ as the reality of being left sets in, he reverts to a blatant expression of sadness instead. amir’s portrayal of this emphasises its rarity and importance: ‘then i saw baba do something i had never seen him do before: he cried. it scared me a little, seeing a grown man sob. fathers weren’t supposed to cry.’ amir’s expectation for his father to remain stoic promotes this cycle that prioritises rationale over feeling, which appears to exist in both afghan and american culture, spanning both texts. hower reiterates this, suggesting that ‘baba personifies all that is courageous.’
whilst stanley’s sobbing can arguably be interpreted as emotional manipulation, to maintain his relationship with stella, baba appears to simply be devastated at ali and hassan’s departure, with no ulterior motive. here the authors display two different sides to stereotypical, idealistic masculinity. baba’s distress could also partly be due to the family-centric afghan culture he lives in, where family and your connections with your community are some of the most important aspects of one’s life. this concern for family is differently reflected in baba’s reactions to amir’s emotion: he is openly disappointed in his young son crying at the sight of a man being trampled by horses, giving him a ‘disgusted look’ and telling a friend ‘“there’s something missing in that boy...i’d never believe he’s my son.”’ he almost appears to disown him here, highlighting the pressure to uphold masculine ideals for the sake of family honour that men must face. he buys into the afghan ideals for masculinity, particularly stoicism, as he is described as a ‘towering pashtun specimen’ himself.
both authors also demonstrate the other side of this cycle, where those not given the privilege of being an ‘idol’ are shamed to extreme lengths. often these men lack the physical characteristics of a typically strong or intimidating man, and in a streetcar named desire it becomes clear that a man’s sexual desire is also key in defining his power. while this is partly shown through the contrasts between stanley and mitch in their approaches to women, the most prominent example of this is allan. the cruel treatment of him by blanche is entirely based upon his lack of sexual attraction to women: ‘i know! i know! you disgust me…’ such comments result in his suicide only moments later: ‘he’d stuck the revolver into his mouth, and fired - so that the back of his head had been - blown away!’ the abruptness of blanche’s delivery here is reminiscent of how swiftly those who do not fit into classic male stereotypes are dismissed - she describes allan’s ‘nervousness, a tenderness’ as a trait ‘which wasn’t like a man’s’. similarly, bertens references the ‘traditional representations of homosexuality, in which maleness and masculinity are uncoupled. interestingly, this is an example of a woman, blanche, reinforcing this cycle amongst men rather than a man, exposing how ingrained this was in the american south, particularly during the 1950s. bertens continues, discussing how the ‘binary oppositions [between masculine and feminine genderings, are] pervasively present in the way we think about nature, emotion, science, action (or non-action), art, and so on. the treatment of homosexuality in this play is likely a result of williams’ ambivalence towards his own sexuality. having grown up and lived in missouri, where homosexuality was illegal, he was often treated as an outsider which likely influenced his presentation of similar characters. additionally, the shocking and sudden description of allan’s suicide is consistent with williams’ writing style, as he said he ‘[tried] to remember two things about the audience; not to deceive them and not to bore them.’ while williams favours expressionism, the more relevant aspects of the social commentary he provides are often made blatant rather than subtle to avoid misinterpretation, also shown through stanley’s onstage abuse of blanche.
in contrast, hosseini appears to be the only author of the two who presents this male violence in situations where it is justified. baba’s charge on karim does exemplify once again how aggression is often the immediate response to conflict, but the presentation of baba both throughout the text and during this scene makes it clear that he acts this way out of desperation and a desire to protect his family. amir introduces the attack as ‘the next thing i saw’, emphasising the speed of baba’s reaction. baba fills the role in afghan culture of the father as the protector of the family. it is his role to forcefully and actively safeguard his kin, and the circumstances in which he attacks karim are dire, as they seek to escape their country for safety. roberts describes what hosseini does here as ‘[putting] a face on the painful history of afghanistan.’ this is particularly effective as amir’s experience with his country’s conflict and immigration is similar to that of hosseini himself; his family was granted asylum in the united states in 1980, due to the communist overthrow of the afghan government.
this conflict is presented as unfolding very similarly to stanley’s attacks on both stella and blanche in williams’ text. stella and stanley’s conflict towards the end of the third scene escalates rapidly into physical conflict, as shown by williams’ fast-paced stage directions: ‘stanley stalks fiercely through to portieres into the bedroom. he crosses to the small white radio and snatches it off the table. with a shouted oath, he tosses the instrument out of the window…[brief dialogue]...there is the sound of a blow. stella cries out.’ in the 1951 film adaptation of the play, this scene progresses from calm to chaotically violent in under 30 seconds, illustrating how stanley’s brutality is his first impulsive reaction when he wants to assert himself. stanley’s intentions differ hugely from baba’s, as he acts this way not out of protection for anyone but for his own control over the household. kupfer argues that film, and by extension plays and scripts, aesthetically frame violence in three ways: symbolically, structurally, and as a narrative essential. stanley’s violence in streetcar’s film adaptation, and in many stage adaptations, meets these three criteria; symbolically, it is a representation of both his desire to control the household and his classic, brutal male traits, as well as a symbol for blanche’s deterioration. williams utilises the musical motif of the ‘blue piano’ and ‘varsouviana’ whenever stanley is physically or mentally violent towards blanche. structurally, his violence, both in this instance and throughout the play as a whole, increases in severity and comes to disrupt any moment of peace felt by blanche. it equally functions as a narrative essential as stanley’s savagery worsens her mental state and drives the plot onwards. williams uses the structure of a play and his concept of ‘plastic theatre’ to frame male violence as a central aspect of one’s masculinity.
his rape of blanche plays out slightly differently, as it is not immediate, and not provoked by one single event. throughout the play, stanley makes multiple non-violent bids to chase blanche away from his home; even upon her arrival he subtly points out her alcoholism, making it clear from the start that he can see through her confident facade. as the narrative progresses, he questions her financial status to stella, asking her to ‘open your eyes to this stuff! you think she got them out of a teacher’s pay?’ he asks blanche for ‘legal papers. connected with the plantation’ under the guise of the ‘napoleonic code’, and when made to feel ‘somewhat sheepish’ by her reaction, reveals stella’s pregnancy to her as punishment. this triggers the ‘blue piano’, a recurring musical motif, to play, signifying the emotional toll this information has on blanche, as stanley likely intended. yet another emotional blow from stanley later in the play triggers a similar motif; by gifting her a bus ticket ‘back to laurel! on the greyhound! tuesday!’ in a blunt last-ditch effort to drive blanche away, he causes the ‘varsouviana’ to begin playing softly. williams uses these recurring musical themes to emphasise the impact stanley’s actions have on blanche, as is a trope of what he coined ‘plastic theatre.’ esther merle jackson explains this as ‘not confined to visual structures. its sensuous symbol also embraces sound patterns: words, music, and aural effects.’ often throughout the play, lighting is used to highlight key themes such as the division between male and female spheres, using lighter tones for characters like blanche and warmer tones when men are gathered together such as the poker scene. blanche’s musical motifs are used to blur the lines between reality and unreality, and become more frequent after every emotional blow she takes from stanley. this is used to show the extent of stanley’s effects on blanche’s deteriorating mental state.
while all these efforts to be rid of his sister-in-law are cruel, they are definitely not as overtly violent, but instead more physically intimidating. in the penultimate scene, stanley’s final act of cruelty towards blanche does turn to a physical attack on her, the impact of which is marked by the ‘hot trumpet and drums from the four deuces’. j.m. mcglinn argues that stanley ‘wishes to destroy [blanche’s] composure to make her recognise that she is the same as he is, a sexual animal.’ elements of this argument for stanley’s motivation surface in the pair’s conflict just prior to his attack on her. through the play, his dislike of her has partly stemmed from a hatred of her facade, as he constantly works to disprove the lies she tells regarding her financial status or her relationship with shep huntleigh. he tells her, ‘i’ve been onto you from the start! not once did you pull any wool over this boy’s eyes!’
it can be argued that the idolisation of stoic, aggressive, physically intimidating men in this ‘new america’ results in a culture that only responds to assertion through violence. none of stanley’s previous endeavours have successfully encouraged blanche to leave, but this assault results in her being mentally disturbed to the point of being sectioned. mitch openly blames blanche’s hospitalisation on stanley, shouting ‘you! you done this, all o’ your god damn interfering with things you-’ and he eventually ‘collapses at the table, sobbing.’ stanley predictably brushes off this display of emotion with contempt, as he literally ‘pushes him aside’ and tells him to ‘quit the blubber!’, further reinforcing the cycle where emotional or ‘unmasculine’ men are dismissed or mocked. this moment highlights stanley’s true brutality as his comments contrast the sombre tragedy of the situation.
stanley appears to take advantage of this situation that he has caused, comforting stella with incredibly sexual overtones. as he soothes her ‘voluptuously’, and as he does so, ‘his fingers find the opening of her blouse.’ stella’s sobbing is referred to as ‘luxurious...the sensual murmur.’ her husband’s violence and kindness are equally motivated by sexual desire. his abuse of blanche serves as his effort to reassert himself and reestablish his home’s original dynamic through sexual domination. as appears to be his nature, this leads to him eventually taking advantage of stella. while williams may be using stanley as an example of the most extreme side of the spectrum of masculinity, he almost seems like a different species altogether. as said by crandell , ‘the radicalised discourse spoken by stella and blanche serves to define stanley as other, a sexual, cultural, and my implication, racial alien. this would heavily imply that his character represents an idealised version of masculinity in the post-colonial american south rather than an accurate representation of men during this period. the existence of stanley serves to be the ideal that men strive for, maintaining the cycle of dismissing those who do not meet the high standard that people like stanely set. while earlier audiences may have idolised stanley and not necessarily have been aware of the fact that williams uses his character as a vehicle for criticisms of brutal masculinity, contemporary western audiences tend to view masculinity through a more critical lens and are therefore less at risk of mistakenly looking up to what stanley represents.
ultimately, williams and hosseini both explore presentations of masculinity through the societal reactions to the different ways men express themselves. both 1950s american and 1980s afghan culture define masculinity through notions of aggression, physical dominance, heterosexuality and class, however afghan men’s roles within traditional family structures are more heavily emphasised. the texts mainly differ when it comes to political context: while the soviet-afghan war from the late 1970s onwards reinforces ideas of classism and pushes characters to rely on violence and hostility to survive, williams’ post-civil war characters carry outdated southern masculine ideals over into the ‘new america.’ additionally, the form of each text influences how differently we understand its meaning. the stage format of a streetcar named desire means that we as an audience see different events but not through any particular lens or point of view, and thus williams uses expressionism so that the costume, set, lighting, etc, all contribute to the play’s messages about masculinity; how it is characterised by aggression and reinforced by mens’ interpersonal relationships. hosseini instead gives the reader a first-person account of the story’s events through amir’s narration. this gives us a direct insight into this trauma, guilt, and evolving views on masculinity. as we see his views evolve, we can identify the incidents that have influenced him and more clearly follow his thoughts. it is likely that these differing styles are, in part, affected by each author’s intention.
however, the authors converge on the fundamental notions of what makes a man, and the importance of class or social standing in excusing overtly violent and abusive behaviour. both tennessee williams and khaled hosseini highlight how men’s relationships with one another form society-wide opinions on certain expressions of masculinity. they portray environments where stoic, hostile, physically intimidating men are praised and idolised, as are their interests; typically games, sport, cars and sexually available women. this environment damns those who do not conform to these traits and interests, encouraging and maintaining the cycle of giving dangerous men the most social power.
bray, robert. review of williams: a streetcar named desire. comparative drama, vol. 35 no. 2, 2001, p. 234-237. project muse
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/05/ben-foster-on-his-middle-management-stanley-kowalski
https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijsell/v4-i3/4.pdf
https://www.pokernews.com/news/2017/03/poker-pop-culture-043-men-vs-women-streetcar-named-desire-27299.htm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lsqndtmkvql1drsghorprkrh2gs4wd4r0_yhongupto/edit
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/03/books/the-servant.html
literary theory: the basics, hans bertens (2001)
a streetcar named desire, dir. elia kazan
aesthetic violence and women in film: kill bill with flying daggers, joseph h kupfer
“the sculptural drama”: tennessee williams’s plastic theatre, richard e kramer,http://www.tennesseewilliamsstudies.org/journal/work.php?id=45
http://www.cercles.com/n10/bak.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26432076?seq=1
