Falling Down

Runtime: 1h 53m

Budget: $25m

Tomatometer: 75% 6.8/10 (Audience 88% 4/5)

IMDB Rating: 7.6 / 10 - 188k ratings (Top 1000 7.5/10)

Language: English

Streaming: Vudu , Amazon

Michael Douglas plays Foster, a man with 1950's era mentality who is having a really bad day. He just wants to make it across LA in time for his daughters birthday. The increasing setbacks he faces from modern 1990's society see him increasingly break down into a string of violence episodes. But his violence is guided by his 1950's era set of morals. And in spite of Fosters nerdy 50's appearance, he is surprisingly good at the modern violence thing. Does the movie glorify the violent anti-hero? Not so fast.

Robert Duvell plays Prendergast. A retiring cop on desk duty who is the only who connects the violent dots together. But because he is a retiring desk jockey who is clearly too afraid to take on a real cops job, almost no one listens to him. Almost no one. There is one person on the force who knows Prendergast has a lot more going on than people realize.

This story is an interesting analysis of the male psyche under pressure. Foster reacts with anger and aggression. Predergast bends to the point of being a doormat, and he just lies there and takes it.

What the movie uncovers at the end, is there is a middle ground, that handling life's setbacks sometimes requires patience and grace, and sometimes requires assertiveness and boldness, and that wisdom is knowing what you can and should try to change and what you can and should try to accept.

This movie has always been a favorite of mine, because I love a little bit of the old ultra violence, and I love an unusual ending that makes you rethink about the entire movie with a new perspective.

But what is really interesting, is this movie touches on the 1950's era males ideals and expectations men are still raised with today, and the outrage that arises when that sense of entitlement goes unfulfilled.

This has been a thread I’ve wanted to make for a while but I’ve hesitated to for fear of it going badly. Recent events, however, have made me think it’s a topic that’s we can’t really afford to ignore.

When people read the phrase “toxic masculinity”, some see a clear collection of bad behaviors or mindsets that exist independent of men as a whole, while some see an indictment of an entire gender or identity. I’ve talked to men who have admitted to not knowing how to be masculine without being “toxic”because they can’t see a clear line where one ends and the other begins.

Thus, I’m interested in exploring what specifically gets defined as “toxic masculinity” and how we distinguish it from neutral or positive masculinity.

Part of what has kept me from asking this is that I see in people here two different experiences that I fear might collide in bad ways. I know we have people here (myself included) who have been directly harmed by behaviors and mindsets that would fall under the umbrella of “toxic masculinity”. Likewise, I know we have people here who have been harmed by an over-application of the phrase — being seen or treated as “toxic” simply for being men and thus being denied the dignity of their own identity. Giving credence to one experience can feel like it overrides the other.

Even just the phrase itself is the kind of thing that often divides people into camps and causes conflict, and I’m hoping we can avoid that here. (Though, to be honest, Tildes always impresses me with how we handle difficult topics, so I’m not sure where my worry is coming from). My goal for this topic is for everyone to have the opportunity to speak openly to convey understood truths and lived experiences in ways that maintain dignity for everyone involved.

The guiding question is about distinguishing masculinity from toxic masculinity, but answers don’t have to be limited to that. I’m interested in hearing about people’s relationship with masculinity in general, both in people who identify with it and those who don’t.