Hot-Headed Love
If you don’t have a teen or teen-ish person in your life, you may not have heard about the Netflix movie that has taken the teen rom-com world by storm, The Kissing Booth. Based on a self-published book by Welsh teenager-herself Beth Reekles, the story involves high school junior Elle who has a guy best-friend-from birth named Lee and the problems that arise when Elle falls in love with Lee’s older brother, bad-boy Noah, who is off-limits as far as potential romantic partners due to some friendship rules established by the besties.
Despite its rolling popularity with the young and young-at-heart (to date, it’s one of Netflix’s most re-watched movies), TKB has received terrible reviews. Standing at only a 14% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the general consensus is that despite the comparisons, this is NOT the 10 Things I Hate About You of the 20teens. Too much of the movie is derivative of other, better offerings, and the message that it sends about masculinity and male/female relationship dynamics is ill-suited for this #MeToo moment in history and the #Woke generation.
One specific complaint is the violence that Noah displays on an all-too-regular basis. It’s established early on that the dude is always getting into fights. And when the need comes for him to express his more-than-big-brother feelings for Elle, those warm-and-fuzzies take the form of protectionism via fists and threats. An example: when Elle is stood up for a date, she chalks it up to a combination of the guy’s flakiness and her lack of dating cred. The boy does eventually arrive on the scene to explain his no-show. Apparently, Noah has put out the warning that any guy who dates Elle stands the likelihood of having his face damaged. Throw in a couple of actual punches and Noah is only two hundred years removed from a likely death via dueling pistol.
As far as it goes, I enjoyed The Kissing Booth strictly for what it was. It had too many plot holes to count, blatant throw-backs to other teen rom-coms that I do love (the table dance scene from 10 Things I Hate About You being the prime example), and a height difference between the male and female romantic leads that I found hysterical. But I wasn’t expecting Romeo and Juliet so I could let myself enjoy the movie as a fluffy bit of story for a hot summer night. I hadn’t ordered filet mignon, so I wasn’t disappointed when I got a tuna-fish sandwich.
And to be brutally honest, I had absolutely no problem with Noah’s violent tendencies. Not a one. His over-the-top protectiveness slotted him easily into the stable with all of the heroes from my most favorite romance novels, men and warriors who would throw themselves between danger and their lady-loves quicker than a dog snatches up a bone. I openly confess that the two traits sure to make me fall in love with a fictional hero (note the word fictional) are extreme protectiveness and an abundance of self-confidence. Noah had both.
This all got me to thinking about the well-established trope of violence as an expression of love. Let’s state up front and uncategorically that I am NOT talking about domestic violence, which is a billion percent NOT about love but about control and mental illness and is always, always, always wrong. Always. Moving on.
I’m talking about violence as a male response to the reality or appearance that someone he loves is being hurt. In Noah’s case, he loses his cool when a guy smacks Elle’s bum, when he sees another dude not taking no for an answer, and when Lee makes some not-so-nice remarks about Elle and Noah’s relationship. The guy is a hot-head, pure and simple. When he finally develops true, real feelings for a girl rather than the surface attractions he was used to, this kind of punch-first, talk-later over-protectiveness seemed inevitable.
Now, I’m not saying that Noah was right. Violence is rarely the answer, even in the face of first blood. And it is very true that protectiveness can be displayed without resorting to fisticuffs. After all, Mr. Darcy never even took off a kid-leather glove during his efforts to keep Elizabeth Bennet from suffering public humiliation or in revenge for Mr. Wickham’s sleazy moves on Georgiana. As much as I’m sure he would have loved to shove Wickham’s head up a place where the sun don’t shine, our Darcy kept his cool and resorted no lower than looks of extreme disdain and probably the cut direct to punish the man for his boorish behaviour.
Also, there are two kinds of physical protectiveness on display in The Kissing Booth, one of which I do find unacceptable. Noah threatens violence to any guy who dates Elle. This was not a reactionary impulse, a demonstration of his inability to contain himself in the face of danger to his mate. Rather, this was a calculated effort to control what Elle could or could not experience, an action based on jealousy and possessiveness. For me, this is not a demonstration of love but rather an indicator of extreme immaturity. And I would agree with the movie critics that this is most definitely not the kind of behaviour we should be accepting much less romanticizing for young audiences. Even in fiction, there is nothing right about a man treating a woman as his possession, her actions determined by his whims and wishes.
But as far as Noah throwing down when Elle is directly confronted with possible harm – either physical or emotional – I own my un-PC-ness in admitting that I was okay with it as a story-telling technique. I find something insanely romantic about the prospect of a guy taking up arms to avenge the wrongs done to those he loves. And I don’t just mean loves in a romantic way, but those he shares familial and/or fraternal bonds with as well. In fact, the first time we see Noah throw a punch, he’s standing up not only for Elle but for his little brother, Lee, who has highly overestimated his own capacity for defending Elle’s honor via physical means. A fictional hero who loses his shit for his child, his mother, his sibling, his friend? It’s all cool with me.
While in truth it probably indicates an appalling lack of maturity and self-control, there is something oddly compelling in the concept of a man having feelings of such depth that his reptilian brain takes over his body whenever the object of his affection is imperiled. Perhaps it’s my own reptilian brain, the last remnants of cave woman, that makes me swoon at the thought of my man protecting my honor and my person, even to the length of violence. Isn’t it the purest proof of absolute love when one is willing to risk their own safety or even life in service to another? What parent wouldn’t throw themselves in front of a car to save their child? How many service men and women have died for love of their country? People sacrifice more for things they value more. Only the greatest of loves could inspire someone to make that ultimate sacrifice. Who doesn’t want to be the object of such great love?
Because this kind of behavior is both rare (thankfully) and really not that cool in our modern times, I think there is a level of fantasy at play when it is presented in fiction. And what we desire in fantasy is often a far cry for what we would accept in reality. Today’s woman is supposed to be strong enough to take care of herself. It’s impolitic to admit weakness or to imply that we can’t handle our own protection needs because to do so is to recognize a disadvantage that might put us on a lower level than men. We ignore the reality of physics and biology that dictate that females, as a species, are not always capable of prevailing in a physical confrontation with a male. In such a case, we need men to step up for us when the occasion calls for violence. Again thankfully, these scenarios are very rare. But there is something tantalizing about the idea that we would never have to ask for protection of this sort, that it would come automatically from the men who love us and, as such, save us the social humiliation of admitting that we need it. As long as we fully differentiate fantasy from reality, I don’t see the harm in indulging.
There can be made the argument that protective violence equaling demonstration of love is lazy storytelling. It is. Show a guy rushing to a girl’s defense and the first thought is that he has affectionate feelings of some sort towards her. It’s the equivalent of having the bad guy shoot a dog to prove that he’s pure evil, or putting glasses on an otherwise pretty girl so that she can eventually remove them to become the unexpectedly gorgeous swan. While it may be a narrative cliché, you can’t deny that it works. Whether because of evolutionary necessity or psychological wiring or social conditioning, we make that connection. It’s a legitimate storytelling shortcut that has no equally effective substitute. Granted, any writer (or movie maker) who uses ONLY this technique to demonstrate love should be called to task, if for nothing else but creating cardboard characters and insulting the intelligence of her readers/viewers.
Given the popularity of The Kissing Booth and the continued presence of such protective displays in romance novels, it appears I’m not the only one out there who, if even secretly, finds something appealing or at least acceptable about this trope. And I’m not sure that the effort to eradicate it from all forms of entertainment will ever be effective. Certainly it should be called to our attention so that we can address what it says about us and open a dialogue about how such behavior is really not desirable, and we can continue to take the steps needed to change society’s attitudes so that such a trope is no longer appealing. In its defense, TKB is self-aware that it has a messaging problem. Noah admits that his penchant for fighting is not to be put in his plus column. Elle extracts from him the promise that if wants to be with her, he can’t fight, and she’s the one to convince him that being “wired that way” doesn’t mean he can’t change.
But for now, bashing Noah because he’s a misguided blunt object is pointless. I assure you, the target audience for TKB, those who’ve made it a smash hit, are not saying to their friends “This is a great movie but Noah is a big jerk who can’t control his temper and I can’t believe Elle falls for him.” If that were their true feelings, the movie would be buried deep in Netflix’s archives rather than near the top of its trending feed. Rather, these gals (and some guys) are watching this movie over and over again because they view Noah and Elle as a romance for the decade. Instead of renouncing Noah’s violence as something they don’t want, they shrug their shoulders and queue up the movie for another rewatching.
I think we can take comfort in the fact that maturity brings wisdom. Romantic movies aimed at adult women rarely feature men in their thirties, forties, fifties and up punching out cretins right and left. This leads me to believe that despite watching movies like TKB and reading books like the Twilight series, younger generations aren’t being brainwashed into expecting their men to don chain mail or minor in fencing. Besides, while Mr. Darcy did not resort to it, he did have at his disposal the very civilized option of shooting Mr. Wickham in the face or sticking him in the chest with a pointy metal object.
~ Jenna Harper
Jenna, I considered your blog rather brave and applaud you for your honesty: “If that were their true feelings, the movie would be buried deep in Netflix’s archives rather than near the top of its trending feed.”
Sometimes, I wonder whether women struggle to give feminism lip service, (“I dare not say this in public or be condemned as blasphemous”), and then in the privacy of our own rooms, we watch Heathcliff.
Our fantasies are our own.
My opinion, “The Kissing Booth” is junior high antics inside high school bodies. It’s a lightweight plot carried by two likable leads, particularly Jacob Elordi. I hoped for a little more, plot-wise. At least with a rom-com like “She’s All That,” the female lead offered a little more quirks and depth.
Ryan Gosling as Noah in “The Notebook” created a generation of swooning women, it’s why Noah is a top male baby name and probably why the lead character in “The Kissing Booth” is named Noah.
The film’s appeal is largely due to Australian actor Jacob Elordi, who plays Noah. He’s got a big male physique (tall, muscular), and he’s handsome. And, I daresay, because of the character’s primal, violent outbursts. The film would’ve been frothy forgettable blandness without that darker edge. People are born with temperaments, and we learn to manage them. Some of us are born shy, others with tempers – and we navigate the world as best we can. Most of us are human and imperfect.
Undoubtedly Earth and all of its facets – animals, climate, terrain, its very chemistry – and certainly people – are violent.
I believe both sexes have the capacity to be toxic. Yes, men are violent, and invent horrific methods of violence. Weapons and technology are deployed on a shattering scale. Women are also violent, but it’s intimate. It’s personal. Women poison lovers or drown their children.
Yes, there are toxic male influences. There were also great men: Lincoln, Pasteur, George Washington Carver, Freud, men with feet of clay. There are great women, too, Elizabeth I, Madame Curie, many others.
But surely toxic females exist, too. I’m watching HBO’s “Sharp Objects,” based on Gillian Flynn’s excellent novel, and the female lead cuts herself. So far, in the first three episodes, Amy Adams has tweaked her fingers with needles, so as an audience, we’re not witnessing her using a razor blade. Is this a potential toxic influence as well?
I try to be open-minded about concepts like “toxic masculinity” or the “Queen Bees and wannabeees.” I’ve read “The Women’s Room” and Gloria Steinem. Admired Naomi Wolf’s essays. Recently I’ve expanded my scope and have watched YouTube discussions, and there’s a real thought provoking session between Dr. Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia on feminism.
Dr. Berman, a sex expert, appeared on Oprah a decade ago, and shared her research findings. Sixty per cent of women have fantasies of being “dominated.” Berman clarified: NOT assaulted or abused, but dominated, and Berman explained that’s why romance novels flourish.
I try not to judge other women about their fantasies. Dark heroes have secretly captivated women for decades, troubled leads like Heathcliff. If you’re opposed to such characters, you don’t have to read their stories.
Jenna, you did it first!
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/movies/the-kissing-booth-joey-king-jacob-elordi.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=mini-moth®ion=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below
I disagree with the definition here of fantasy or at least the way it seems to be used by some readers. There is a long, long established ideology of male honor and female submissiveness that is powerful and constructed as sexy and appealing. It sells. Today though, there are strong alternative scenarios for women to find appealing and sexy and romantic. These two version (and variations of them) are struggled over in our culture. That’s a good thing! I think, being an optimist, that women are going to find male violence less appealing with each passing year. I already see it compared to five years ago in cultural products like books and TV shows and movies.. So what some are calling “fantasy” is ideology to me.
Some random thoughts: 98% of gun violence occurs at the hands of men today in the U.S. That is an astonishing statistic that should give everyone pause on the issue of gender and violence. How are we raising boys in America? What messages do we teach boys about ways to handle conflict? Why are young girls being raised to view male violence as sexy and romantic?
Another random thought: To Dabney’s point about women feeling exhausted and wanting to be rescued, it occurs to me after reviewing the most recent happiness survey in America, that the majority of American women in heterosexual relationships found it most loving when their partners shared the burden of labor in a home and helped out equally or more. Sure women are stressed and in need of help when they are still doing more housework and childcare than their partners in addition to working outside the home. Opray Winfrey once said that the sexiest thing a man could do for a woman is to vacuum the house. But according to narratives like the movie above, punching someone in the face is the “fantasy” we’re supposed to buy.
I agree with Maggie about anyone being free to view this movie. My 14-year old niece watched it and mentioned it to me. I didn’t realize until reading this blog about the actual content. I still would have let her watch it because I want her to develop critical thinking skills about the ideas represented in our culture. However, my rule is that we have to talk about such things. She’s a smart girl with a great head on her shoulders, but I’m still going to talk to her about this movie because that’s my responsibility as her caretaker.
So, are you saying that since modern times have rendered the need (or desire) for males to physical protect females at best unnecessary and at worst unacceptable, that anyone who enjoys such a fictional scenario is in the wrong? The very definition of “Fantasy” is the activity of imagining things that are most likely impossible or improbable. I don’t see how any one person can judge any other person’s fantasy as being right or wrong, assuming those fantasies involve consenting players and are kept in the world of fantasy. You seem to be saying that anyone who either understands the appeal of this particular fictional scenario or perhaps enjoys the concept on a fictional basis is buying into some kind of unacceptable real-world ideology. If people were judged on what they fantasize about, we’d have a pretty messed up world.
Jenna, I don’t see fantasies as protected and sacred categories that people can put out for public consumption, such as a blog post, and feel entitled to have only positive comments in response. Fantasies like anything else are phenomena that can and should be critiqued. What if someone’s fantasy involved mutilating strangers or molesting children and they wanted to blog about it in a widely read website? We shouldn’t comment because the poster has a right to their publicly-shared fantasy and we might hurt a person’s feelings? Did you know that punching people in the face is illegal? Should we not comment on that? Most people have fantasies and most people have some that are unhealthy. But it seems dangerous to me to have fantasies and be unable to acknowledge their dangers. Furthermore, toxic masculinity is a **cultural problem** and not limited to your individual psyche, and so as a nation, I hope we can eventually come to terms with it, and yes, critique it. So to your last sentence, I would actually turn it around and say instead that if harmful perspectives about what is appropriate behavior is not judged, we will continue to have a messed up world.
I should also just to clarify restate too that my posts are about the content of a popular movie. I’m not that interested in any person’s individual fantasy but I am always interested in ideas put forth in popular cultural products like the movie under discussion,
I agree with those who have said there is a difference between fantasy and reality. If someone has a problem drawing those lines the difficulty/issue shouldn’t be placed on the nature of the fantasy but the flaw within the individual that keeps them from seeing the difference between life and imagination.
That said, this movie doesn’t sound like my cuppa. I haven’t seen it but I tend to be very wary of heroes who isolate the heroine since this is RL abuser behavior. But I will still argue that any girl/viewer it speaks to should be free to enjoy it. I find some of the story lines in The Handmaid’s Tale completely ridiculous – but I still love it. Few entertainment choices are perfect and we shouldn’t feel judged for enjoying one that is flawed.
It’s complicated for me. I’d never want my man to behave like Ronny does in Moonstruck but I find that movie deeply romantic. Nor would I want anyone to be as obsessed with me as Noah is in The Notebook but love that love story too. And there have been reams written about Outlander’s Jamie and it’s clear millions of readers and watchers think he’s the bomb.
I guess it’s always been clear to me that just like I wouldn’t really want dragons in my life but I love watching/reading about them, alpha males can be swoon-worthy in fiction as long as they stay there.
Like I said, it’s complicated.
Fantasy is fantasy. I’m not a fan of policing other people’s fantasies, however uncongenial I may find them. In fact, according to psychologists there are even more extreme fantasies than those depicted in TKB which are relatively popular.
The relationship between fantasy and actual behavior is complex, to say the least. I doubt very much if most fans of this film would like to replicate the relationships that it depicts. Nevertheless, it would be disturbing if all or most YA-oriented films and novels shared the same relationship dynamics, but as far as I can tell that is definitely not the case.
I have to wonder if a lot of YA-oriented romance novels resort to this kind of “if I beat a guy up for you, it means I like you” trope because it is honestly such a basic, primitive display that they expect unsophisticated audiences to understand. That or they assume that most YA heroes are not yet mature enough to think past the “throw punch” reaction when they feel in some way threatened. Like I stated in my article, if real life begins to give us a bunch of 20 and 30-something guys who go around beating up anyone they think has offended their romantic interests, then I think we will have to worry that life is beginning to imitate art. As it stands, I think YA readers grow up to become reasonable, controlled adults.
And I totally agree with you about fantasy being fantasy. Whatever floats your boat!
I haven’t seen the movie but the conventional representation of men taking up arms to defend their woman is an aberrant behavior that will hopefully be retired sooner rather than later. Not only do I not find it “romantic,” I view it a toxic masculinity. Traditionally male violence is couched as “male honor,” giving men the right as well as the burden to defend women, who are cast as objects in need of defense rather than agents of their own fate. I think today there are many more positive ways to represent gender that eschew violence or the belief that women find male violence exciting and protective. There are so many positive ways to create romance today, and this movie doesn’t sound like one.
I really enjoyed the movie. Thanks for your blog.
The whole overprotective alpha male trope is just not for me, so I’m gonna give this one a pass, but to each their own. I do like that it’s a teen story actually written by a teen – how often does that happen anymore?
I didn’t care for TKB for a lot of the reasons you said. Noah came off like a jerk and I didn’t see that enough reasons to find him likeable were presented besides that he’s hot. Also though I went in thinking the best friend/younger brother Lee was a love interest and I was bummed that wasn’t the case.
Have you seen The Candy Jar? It’s another YA Netflix movie but I really liked it. I thought the characters got to fall for each other more out of mutual attraction and shared interests.
Woo…thanks for the recommendation. I’m off to add it to my must-watch list!
This is really interesting, Jenna. Thanks for sharing. I remain convinced that the alpha, overprotective, possessive male is deeply appealing to many women of all ages. One has only to look at top selling romances at Amazon to see that.
Several years ago, Maya Rodale made the argument that modern women, who are burdened with earning, buying, cooking, serving, and cleaning up after the bacon have fantasies of having someone who took care of them. This, I suspect, is true even for teenage girls. It’s also true that the alpha male has been the pinnacle of masculinity in almost every culture’s pop culture–see the latest movie starring The Rock–for centuries. It’s hard to overcome that kind of conditioning.
For me personally, your fantasies are just that: private, rarely connected to your reality of things you enjoy. So, rewatch on!
I agree so much with what you’ve said here – I think that it’s a certain type of fantasy that women may have that allows them to be taken care of without feeling guilt. Women today are supposed to be fully self-sufficient, and there are very few (if any) arenas left where women are allowed to sit back, lift their hands in the air and say “this isn’t my job”. So the prospect of men stepping into to “take care” of a woman’s physical protection when she cannot may be the last frontier of neediness that is somewhat permissable. And again, this is all in a fantasy realm – in reality, I think most of us would agree that we would hardly want our menfolk to take up arms to defend our honor and hopefully would NEVER need them to truly come to blows to protect our actual safety.