This past week, I watched the trashy 80s movie Porky’s. It’s meant to be set in the 1950s, after WWII but before integrated schools. This point gets hit almost too hard within the first ten minutes of the movie: we see a group of boys talking about some prank they payed a Black guy to be a part of, referring to him only using two different n-words commonly used at the time. This man is the only Black character in the entire film. Even for the 80s, when movies still weren’t the best with diversity, this is completely unnecessary. As soon as I heard that way the boys were referring to this person, I guessed he was going to be portrayed as a criminal and/or used as a scapegoat. Unfortunately, I was correct. When we do see him, however, we start to see a race, and possibly class, difference in mainstream media portrayals of masculinity.
When the high school boys went to a cabin in the woods to see a prostitute, they were all told by the masterminds of the prank (two of the boys) to strip as the prostitute, who was in on the prank, proceeded to examine them all. Of course, comedic comments on every unshown penis are made. From this small clip, it’s established that “sexy” penises need to be big in length and girth, uncrooked, and not circumcised. Anything else is less than the ideal for a sexually active man, which these high schoolers are desperately trying to be (the one called peewee, because of his small penis, is still a virgin, too, and he is essentially depicted as a beta male).
As part of the prank, the two masterminds go into another room, and they pretend to be having loud sex that can be overheard by the boys. The Black man is standing against the wall, watching and holding a fake bloody machete. When the prostitute pretends to orgasm, she breaks the window, and the boys overhear yelling and the Black man’s booming voice threatening her. The masterminds cover themselves in fake blood, going into the room where the other, still naked, boys are waiting. Of course, this prank works in scaring them, and they run out of the cabin naked when they see the man with the fake machete. A prank involving a fake scenario of a Black man breaking into a house and threatening a white woman. It’s too common of a trope nowadays, and it still was back then. It reflects and shapes the way people view Black people, specifically Black men.
When the police show up, though, the Black man just disappears into the woods. We never hear from him again. There is no sense of connection between this man and the high school boys he was with, as if they were from different worlds. As if he was just a lunatic who did this prank for some quick cash. Meanwhile, there is plenty of connection between the white boys and the police. One high-ranking officer is a main character’s brother, and he bails them out of quite a few situations. Yet the police are, interestingly, still portrayed as cunning yet incompetent. The police purposely break the car’s headlights so the boys have to pay a fine. Somehow this happened in a movie but people don’t believe similar things can happen in real life to minorities.
When it comes to women, the non-white women exist as sex objects. When the boys are at Porky’s (essentially a stripper bar), they’re prepared with fake or switched IDs. The boys try to “go upstairs” with some of the girls, and Porky tricks them into a trapdoor once he realizes they’re underage. The boys leave angrily back to a diner where their schoolmates are. While all the women in the movie are seen as potential love interests, their white schoolmates are seen as pure and well-dressed in contrast to the Cuban dancers at Porky’s. None of the women participate in the boy’s antics, nor do they do much besides creating romantic or sexual tension with the male protagonists.
The movie seems to make one message very clear, even if unintentionally: These stories of adolescence and sexual adventure are for white boys. The Jewish are being included in this story to aid in the character development of an antisemite who has to unlearn the bigotry his father taught him. Considering that the movie is supposed to take place in the 50s, I imagine this focus on Jewish heritage as a token minority is because of the setting’s proximity to the end of WWII. It’s “realistic”, as opposed to racial acceptance in the 50s. It blames bigotry on the parents and essentially tries to convince us that this character was not responsible for his ignorance (including the humorous mispronunciation of the k-slur as “kite”) prior to turning on his dad. That it’s easily forgiven. Even when the former antisemite goes against his father, he says, “If being manly means being with you, I’d rather be queer.” This is the most that the movie goes into rejecting any traditional masculinity, but it’s inauthentic and seems to be used just to show being homosexual as the complete opposite of traditional masculinity. Even right after that statment was made, a character called others “ladies” because they were having a petty argument. The character also does not change anything about himself, keeping his hypermasculine biking persona.
So while the movie was funny and a nice easy viewing all the way, thinking about it in the lens of this class definitely had me thinking about the portrayals of the characters, especially since the movie relies on an 80s mindset about how the 50s was. It’s different than how it would be made now.