Does Monkey Man Challenge or Reinforce Hollywood Gender Conventions?

by: Bella Carbone

I recently saw Monkey Man at the movie theater and I have been reflecting on what I have just seen unfold on screen. As a media critic, I first thought I wanted to focus on rage in this film as a constant theme and the idea of injustice leading to such rage which is a commonly felt sentiment amongst marginalized people. Yet, something more striking has taken up my thoughts after sitting with this movie for about a day, and that is how gender is portrayed and performed. Disclaimer: I take to writing this reflection on the film as someone who has studied American queer media theory but I am not Indian nor am I the most well-versed on the gender-cultural relations in India. I do, however, really respect and love the incorporation of gender non-conforming characters who are marginalized but build community and seek refuge despite their oppression. Alas, since I am coming in appreciation, I will still begin to give a piece of my mind even though I am no expert on this subject.

We begin with our main character Kid, aka “Monkey Man,” whose community was destroyed by the prejudiced police force when he was a child. That has resulted in him fueling his anger towards fighting which is also his way of making an income. Besides fighting Kid has one other desire in his life, vengeance. He seeks revenge on the police officer who brutally murdered his mother, as well as the closely connected political party that is responsible for displacing many of the people from their land. Kid is a quite scrawny underdog who spends the first fights of the movie being beaten to a pulp. He is not the perfect depiction of masculinity but, his body evolves as the movie unfolds and his muscle definition becomes more visible. Fighting as the vehicle for anger is a common trope throughout films to initiate the masculine transformation. Movies like Rambo and Captain America: The First Avenger, show a man turning into a hard-bodied hero, and Monkey Man is no different. Kid’s depiction of masculinity is stereotypical of the underdog, when he is lean he is inadequate it is only once he trains that he can truly seek revenge. This is evident through his failed assassination attempt towards the beginning of the film. It’s only after we’ve visually seen his hard six-pack abs that Kid can successfully carry out his plan for revenge and truly avenge the perpetrators of persecution. 

Now, I want to move into the transgender or gender non-conforming characters in the film. I would use the language of the latter because I am not quite sure of each character’s gender identity but I believe the film referred to them as “transgender” in one of the news clips spliced into a scene. I am referring to the inhabitants of the temple where Kid is rescued. They represent the Hijra people which is a South Asian term to describe a person who identifies as having the third gender. These people have been pushed out of society and Kid can relate. He stays with them where they use a spiritual healing practice to help Kid overcome his trauma. This is super refreshing to see queer and non-queer individuals rejoice in community, healing, and accepting of one another. Radical change stems from including imagery of healing, spirituality, and unity in films rather than individualism or capitalism. Representation of gender non-conforming people is not prevalent in media and it is difficult to see them in positions that do not end in hardship and tragedy. Despite the community in this film being outcasted for their gender identity and the possibility of losing their sacred land, these individuals are shown experiencing joy, kinship, and a space to safely perform gender in a non-normative way. They are not the main characters which is okay because this is how the change begins. Just as much as we need to hear queer stories, we need to see queer people. If we normalize having gender non-conforming people as characters in films then, we should be seeing more depictions of them on-screen. Although these queer characters were side characters in the plot, they were not tokenized or reduced representations. This community ultimately backs Kid up at the end of the film, they do not need him to be their savior rather they all need each other to overcome oppression. This is a super powerful message as the oppressors tend to separate the oppressed and have them turn against one another so they cannot unite and stand against what is truly oppressing them. If all subjugated people, even those of different marginalized identities, came together to fight against their systems of oppression, change is bound to happen and Monkey Man is a hopeful testament to this sentiment.

    I guess the answer to my question is it does a little bit of both. Dev Patel is a cisgender man telling a story about a cisgender man but he does not limit the film's scope of social justice issues it touches upon. This movie is not the most radical or transformative commentary on gender, class, and government corruption. It does bring the idea of gender expression in other cultures besides America into the viewer's psyche, which does a great job of de-mystifying the idea of transgender people in America as they are not as new or woke as our society would like to paint them as. Further, I think a lot of people do not realize the connections between oppression throughout many nations as American exceptionalism manifests deeply in American audiences, especially with media. I think this film is bold enough to bring the nuance of gender representation in India alongside its issue of class because a) a lot of issues are intersectional including class disparity which tends to be accompanied by other forms of oppression and b) it educates people about a beautiful, radical community that they would not have otherwise known about unless they deeply sought it out themselves.