Male Intimacy in Bromantic Slapstick: A Critical Look at Daddy’s Home 2
be a man!
I spent a lot of time in my undergrad communications classes talking about pop culture and tying things back to my niche interests (almost always by allegedly bastardizing Theory).
The below is adapted from my 2019 Cinema & Society final paper. As for the Get Out intro? I believe we had to tie all our final papers to that film, which we watched in class...
Jordan Peele’s Get Out gained fame and critical acclaim with its genre blending thriller that served as both a horror film and as a damning look at racial relations in a post-racial, liberal America. The film tells the story of Chris as he goes on a weekend trip to meet his white girlfriend’s parents- the Armitage's. As the weekend progresses, Chris begins to suspect that all is not what it seems. His friend Rod only reinforces his suspicions and encourages him to leave. Throughout Jordan Peele’s Get Out, the friendship between Chris and Rod serves as the comedic relief and as a source of exposition for the audience as clues to the Armitage’s true nature is revealed. Peele’s background in comedy adds to the witticisms in Rod’s dialogue, making him one of the more quotable characters in the film.
The friendship between the two characters is a small detail in the greater picture of the horror blockbuster. However, its existence reinforces tropes of male intimacy, thematic portrayal of friendship in film, and heteronormative relationships with women. These three elements are often at their most genuine and socially digestible when seen in American slapstick comedy. Get Out isn’t a comedy but the friendship between Rod and Chris is played off in a comedic way. It is male friendship that ends up saving Chris and it is heteronormative romance that gets Chris into his horror situation in the first place.
While Get Out opened to critical acclaim, most films do not. Screwball comedies and formulaic genre films are an easy example of this. But these bad films get released irregardless and can be watched in theaters, planes, or at home. Formulaic screwball comedies with recognizable talent are still important since they draw audiences in and tend to be pushed out by studios to fill in scheduling gaps between more ambitious projects. Bad films are still a part of the film world canon. Many bad films take the form of screwball, slapstick, or are male relationship centered. In this essay, I will argue that critically panned slapstick “bromances” like Daddy’s Home 2, can still reinforce the tropes of traditional masculinity and push the ball forward in challenging mainstream depictions of male intimacy.
The portrayal of male intimacy serves different purposes both socially and creatively but should not be discounted solely because of the genre. Prime examples of a newfound male intimacy are seen almost exclusively in comedies. So much so that the “bromance” film has become its own genre, racking up star talent with each feature release. Bromantic comedies aren’t just funny but seek to explore new dimensions of male intimacy without the pressures of a drama genre. The literature on the subject points to comedy being the strongest afront to traditional masculinity’s hold on cultural consciousness.
Bromance films became a more notable genre in the late 1990s and stretching into the 2000s. Bromance films find their origins in “the buddy film”, which saw an emergence in the 1960s and 70s with the decline in Westerns, long held as the standard of masculinity depictions in film. But where Westerns had focused on the solitude of its male protagonists, the new buddy film genre’s sole focus (and what drives the plot) is the relationship between two men. Film studies have analyzed numerous aspects of the films using feminist theory, queer theory, critiques on masculinity, and more. All these analyses cut through the top layer of superficial depictions to find the actual gold.
In Ciasullo’s “This is what I’ve always wanted”, an article on the depiction of male intimacy in the film, 21 Jump Street, the “bromance” film is broken down into its main components of an oddball pairing, some conflict or tension, and bonding through shared interests (Ciasullo 2015, 307) to name a few. Ciasullo writes- “The rise of the bromance corresponds precisely to a shift in twenty-first century masculinities not only towards renewed fraternal connection but also towards a more open emotional intimacy that is also often tentative, uncomfortable, unfamiliar and even, as we will discuss later, queer.” (306) This change in attitudes is reflected across different film types and Ciasullo even propones that comedy is now “the privileged genre” for the exploration of male intimacy (306). Unpacking the relationships between men in these types of film can uncover cultural attitudes and offer a representation of male intimacy that’s not widely depicted in film or mass media.
Heterodoxy is defined by Heather Brook as “unorthodox, transgressive, or subversive ways of doing heterosexuality” (Brook 2015, 250), which can encapsulate male intimacy, a dynamic dictated by heteronormative and patriarchal norms. In her article, she proceeds to analyze how traditional structures of masculinity and heteronormativity are challenged in three “bromance” films- The Hangover, Wedding Crashers, and I Love You, Man. Brooks notes the distinctions between “lad flicks”, “homme coms”, and “bromance”. The three overlap but are not identical (Brook 253) “Lad flicks” are films in which masculinity is the central object and the plots don’t necessarily revolve around relationships. “Homme coms” have typical “rom-com” plots and are aimed at a male audience (252). Finally, just as how there are “chick flicks” that aren’t romantic comedies, Brook defines the bromance as centered on the male relationship and navigating the difficulties (and comedic moments) of maintaining the relationship. It’s in bromances that the most genuine forms of male friendship are found and illustrated.
“Mainstream bromance” is seen notably in films like Step Brothers, the subject of Tait’s “The Screwball Bromance: Regression, Bisexuality, and Reconfigured Masculinity in Step Brothers.”. While the article emphasizes a takedown of heterosexual and masculine norms through a queer reading of Step Brothers, Tait also writes that - “Men admitting their love for one another is progress, as are the constantly evolving representations of men in films such as Step Brothers and elsewhere.” (Tait 2016, 74) Tait concludes that the virtue in the screwball bromance lies in how willing it is to challenge social norms and present said challenge in an appealing way to the audience. “The screwball bromance, and Step Brothers, represents a small step in a positive direction by presenting men to themselves at their most ridiculous and certainly their least patriarchal.” (74) The literature opens the discussions to male intimacy as something other than a male-female relationship but with two men as something to be celebrated.
The importance of male intimacy is played for laughs but is still meaningful and works to subvert social norms and move the ball forward in expressions of male intimacy. Comedy finds its strengths in turning norms and established systems on its head. Scenes in bromance films are found funny because men aren’t expected to have close, intimate relationship with each other. The thematic bar is lower for comedies and the films don’t need to try and make a point about deeper themes like co-parenting, male friendship, and masculinity. When the overt affection between men typically displayed for laughs touches a nerve, it is shown to have a socially impactful effect. Bromantic comedies and their attempts to address these issues speaks to the unexpected role the genre must play in shaping public perception.
These approaches to bromance and how the genre of film can impact an audience’s perception of masculinity and male intimacy can be seen with Daddy’s Home 2, the sequel to Daddy’s Home starring Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg. All the traits of a typical bromance film as highlighted by Ciasullo can be seen traits in Daddy’s Home 2. Traditionally masculine Dusty is paired with the more sensitive Brad, the tension comes in the form of parental power struggles, and common enemies paired with a desire to do right by their children bring the two back together. The first film opens to Brad, the caring stepdad to two young children who must deal with the arrival of their biological father, who is his antithesis in almost every way. The two feud throughout the film in a series of bits and gags until they agree to be “co-dads” on Dusty ends up becoming a step-father himself.
The sequel builds off the already established relationship between the two. Daddy’s Home 2 uses the standards of a romantically coded male friendship but introduces and deepens the complicated factor of fatherhood and family life. The film follows a similar plot to the first one but introduces the respective fathers of Dusty and Brad as both families gather to celebrate Christmas. This time, however, the protagonist’s fathers are present, adding a new layer to the two’s relationship and exemplifying completely opposite portrayals of masculinity, much like Dusty and Brad did in the first film.
Daddy’s Home 2 opened to unfavorable reviews that blasted its lowest common denominator humor and underutilization of a respectable cast of stars. The film is rated 20% rotten on Rotten Tomatos. Ben Kenigsberg of the New York Times wrote that if Daddy’s Home 2 were a family member, “it would be the sort of relative you might disown.” The crass humor is typical of male oriented films and even of Christmas comedies. It would be easy to label Daddy’s Home 2 as irrelevant in conversations about masculinity and male intimiacy. However, it’s formulaic films that establish tropes and take them from periphery of theory to the canon of a genre. Daddy’s Home 2 fits the mold of three film genres: Christmas family movie, screwball comedy, and bromance film. The first two can dilute the significance of the third and make it harder for the audience to pick up on the themes of masculinity.
In the film, Brad’s father (played by John Lithgow) is a bumbling, expressive man who kisses Brad straight on the mouth when they reunite at the airport. He wears sweaters with a button-down shirt and the instrumental used to introduce him is comical jazz. Whereas by comparison, Dusty’s father, Kurt, (played by Mel Gibson) is the perfect picture of traditional masculinity and makes an entrance almost identical to Dusty’s entrance in the first film. “Thunderstruck” by ACDC plays as a leather clad, glowing Kurt descends the escalators and winks at flight attendants. Dusty recounts his childhood of being raised by a womanizer who was always hard on him and even sent him off to military school. Kurt emphasizes that Dusty turned out fine. Kurt and Don are juxtaposed from the beginning, just as Brad and Dusty were juxtaposed against each other in the first film. But where Dusty has grown to shed parts of his staunch, “alpha-male” image for the sake of raising his kids alongside Brad, Kurt is skeptical of Dusty’s new life, of Brad, and of the way his grandchildren are being raised. He makes his disapproval known straight away and encourages Dusty to take a stronger, more “alpha male” role in the dynamic.
One of the first scenes with the foursome takes place just before they leave for a wintry wonderland getaway as a family. Kurt says to Dusty- “This total lack of masculinity, this weak chin and soft underbelly influencing your son.” The camera cuts to Brad sitting on the same couch, trying not to be fazed. Dusty attempts to defend Brad, and by extension, his own life choices. Kurt’s goal is to create conflict between Dusty and Brad, expressing disbelief in their “co-dad” strategy and worrying that his grandson won’t grow up to be a “real man”. Dusty refuses to validate his concerns. “Everything is rock solid between me and Brad here, in fact. We’re best friends” says Dusty to a crying Brad, who apparently isn’t used to receiving compliments from Dusty. The expression of friendship is used to further establish and strengthen the relationship between Dusty and Brad. The exchange is one of few explicit expressions of intimacy between the two.
Fatherhood is an important theme in Daddy’s Home 2 as a relational plot device and as an example as to how masculinity is lived out. Where Dusty and Kurt have a strained relationship since childhood. Don and Brad are extremely close. Throughout the film, allusions to both protagonists' childhoods marks the differences between parenting styles. This intimacy between father and son is mocked by the other duo, until it becomes something that Kurt and Dusty strive for and eventually achieve.
Key scenes in Daddy’s Home 2 support the argument of a new masculinity as seen through bromance film. Throughout the film, Kurt is constantly reinforcing traditional traits of masculinity, pressuring Dusty to pass those same traits on to his son. He says things like “Be a man!” numerous times while Don and Brad takes an “emasculated” approach. The two juxtaposed pictures of masculinity earn a few laughs from the audience when the two switch traits. The return of Kurt into Dusty’s life challenges the new lifestyle he’s made for himself and throws into question the new normal of a watered-down masculinity.
Bromance films aim to normalize intimate friendships between men through light hearted comedy. It’s up to the audience to decide how homoerotically they want to interpret it, if at all. Queer readings of bromantic films delve heavily into the social implications of a stronger representation of intimacy between men.
In typical bromance films, women are obstacles in the friendship between two men. In Daddy’s Home 2, romance is no longer a source of competition between the two fathers as both are happily married. Instead, competing to be the better liked father replaces competition for love interests. Additionally, both of the protagonist’s wives have their own subplot of competition, spurred by insecurity and traditional depictions of femininity and motherhood (although its idealized femininity through the male gaze). If competition for the favor of children is the vehicle, competing ideologies of masculinity are the motif.
In the beginning montage of the film, the relationship between Dusty and Brad was visualized as ideal. Tropes of domesticity are used to shake up the traditional depiction of a stepfather relationship. The two are in a healthy place, put their children first, and have a routine. The relationship wasn’t struggling until the introduction of doubt and insecurity as seen through Dusty’s father. Even Brad is negatively affected by the arrival of Kurt, not just because of the constant belittlement, but Kurt and Dusty’s behavior brings out the traits in Don that are now considered not masculine enough.
Throughout Daddy’s Home 2, the two protagonists struggle to balance their roles as fathers with their roles as sons. In the first half of the film, Dusty is reluctant to take more traditionally masculine stances with respect to parenting or his relationship with Brad. He doesn’t want to upset the balance of what Brad and he have. Egged on by Kurt, the tension alluded to throughout the Christmas vacation explodes. While Dusty and Brad try to be strong in the face of potential divisions, the resolve eventually cracks, largely over differences in masculinity.
A subplot of the film is Dylan’s (Dusty’s son) developing crush on a neighborhood girl. In a scene set at a Christmas tree farm, Brad gives his pre-pubescent stepson, Dylan, some advice as to how to talk to girls. He encourages him to “get in the friendzone” and hails it as the best place to be, citing his own experiences. Kurt and Dusty overhear this and Kurt compels Dusty to interfere. “You wanna be like Brad and be in the friend zone or do you wanna be like Dad and get in the end zone?” asks Dusty to his bewildered son. In this teachable moment, Dusty is equating acceptable masculinity to sexual conquest. The specific plot niche of Daddy’s Home 2 (and the PG-13 rating) doesn’t allow for much exploration of sexuality and its tie ins to masculinity and male intimacy. But Kurt is constantly making jokes about “hookers” and his sexual encounters throughout the world as an independent man. His dialogue when paired to his image feed into a loop of constant reinforcement of masculinity.
Shortly after the friendzone scene, a scene at a bowling range brings two dueling parenting styles (and masculinity styles) to a head. Dusty’s son, Dylan, is once again at the center of the dueling masculinity ideologies. Kurt urges a tense Dusty to have his son bowl without bumpers. Time after time the ball ends up in the gutter. Almost all the father figures in the space express concerns about Dylan’s confidence being shot if he doesn’t hit a pin. Dylan himself collapses onto the ground in tears. In an unusually tender moment, Kurt tells his grandson that “we might not always show up, but when we do, we finish what we started.” This is one example in which the harder approach of a traditionally masculine Kurt encourages Dylan to find confidence within himself and succeed.
After a series of misadventures and challenging moments, Dusty and Brad’s slowly precipitating animosity reaches a tipping point after a tense night out and the two swear to no longer be co-dads. The Christmas getaway comes to a close but an avalanche deus ex machina prevents them from going home just yet. Trapped in a movie theater, Don is encouraged by Kurt to physically fight Brad to resolve their problems. Physical violence is used as a cliché conflict resolution device in the toolbox of traditional masculinity. The two sets of fathers and sons trade styles for the moment and find the merits in both approaches, strengthening the undercurrent that there is no one way to be a man, husband, or father.
Both sets of fathers and sons were challenged to try new approaches outside of their comfort zones. The main conflict in the film between the different fathers is resolved with Dusty proclaiming his love for all the members of his family, including Brad and just stopping short with his own father. He does so to make a point to John Cena’s character (Dusty’s wife’s ex-husband) who is also played as traditionally masculine and is stiff to Dusty’s proclamations of love. That is, before a group musical rendition of Band Aid’s “Do They Know it’s Christmas” breaks his stoic resolve. The film ends with Dusty and Brad saying goodbye to their fathers at the airport. Brad and Don have a more honest and mature relationship that can survive hard times. Dusty and Kurt are no longer afraid of expressing affection and Kurt even kisses Dusty on the mouth, mirroring Brad and Don at the beginning of the film. The entire family is stronger and even Kurt and Don grew to be friends despite their differences.
The growth achieved on the part of the four male protagonists and the others they interact with is celebrated as a step forward for their interpersonal relationships and for their relationship with masculinity. The resolution of interpersonal and internal problems occurred after the protagonists not only dealt with their relationship, but with addressing how they wanted to raise their children and what kind of example they wanted to set. The glorification of this character development sets a good example for other bromance comedies and for the audiences as they’re presented with an alternative view of masculinity and intimacy.
Comedies are a powerful film genre because of their ability to fly under the cognitive radar. Even if Daddy’s Home 2 didn’t win any awards, it still successfully employs themes of masculinity and intimacy that can be read as critiques on social norms. Critical takedowns of masculinity and male relationships shouldn’t be limited exclusively to acclaimed, “art films”. It is in the lowbrow that theory is actively lived out and formulaic comedies indicate what has already been established in the normalcy of the culture. Even if Daddy’s Home 2 makes fun of norm breaking masculinity and plays the intimate friendship between the two co-dads as a joke, the story still pushes the audience to care. Emotionally connecting to characters on any level makes the audience receptive to their storylines and underlying themes.