Look, it’s not like I want to keep sending traffic to the Total Film site. Especially after they treated us to their list of the 100 Greatest Female Characters. But last Wednesday, they published another list of greatness, this one involving movie posters. Well, I love movie posters, and I understand that my Greatest Ever list won’t match Amber’s Greatest Ever list, or anyone else’s Greatest Ever list, and that one’s reaction to and appreciation of all forms of art is subjective and often deeply personal. So I’m not here to discuss whether these are, in fact, the 40 Greatest Movie Posters. I’m here to talk about how Total Film talks about the posters that feature women. (I’m using the word “feature” here loosely, as most of the posters that dare include a woman often objectify, obscure, and/or dismember her.) Feel free to look at their list of all 40 posters, but I’m including only the posters that “feature” women below.
I take it back. I am going to talk about the offensiveness of these shitty selections. Out of the nineteen posters above–and that’s nineteen out of Total Film’s forty that actually contain some semblance of a woman’s image–most either sexually objectify the woman or show her getting attacked. Or she’s dead or dismembered. I mean fuck, out of Total Film’s list of 40 Greatest Movie Posters, Bitch Flicks has previously criticized the posters of American Beauty, Choke, The Silence of the Lambs, and Secretary for showcasing dismembered women. That’s bad enough. But the way the Total Film writer, George Wales, talks about the women/characters in these posters is just … problematic at best.
Jaws: “Nubile young swimmer versus hungry giant shark. We know who our money’s on …” Um, nubile? Really?
Rosemary’s Baby: “They should stick one on the wall of every Boots. Sales of contraception would skyrocket!” Why even bother selling contraception anymore? Just force doctors to make every girl, immediately when she begins menstruating, sit in an an empty room alone with this poster. I’m sure we can get some legislation passed on that if we just casually mention it to a nearby Republican.
The Silence of the Lambs: “The presence of the moth over the girl’s mouth …” The girl’s mouth? She’s not five.
Pulp Fiction: “Uma Thurman practices her best come-to-bed expression …” Is that what she’s doing? Practicing? That’s a thing she sits around practicing? Like learning to play an instrument?
Secretary: “Okay, so it’s more than a little pervy, but given the subject matter, that’s probably fairly appropriate. And there’s a wonderful symmetry to the image … oh who are we kidding?” I don’t even know what this means. What’s pervy? The poster? The film’s exploration of fetish and S & M? The writer of this article?
Hard Candy: “Every parent should mount one of these in their child’s bedroom to ward off sexual predators …” Look, George Wales. You can’t tell from the poster that this is a film about sexual predators. And even if you could, you’re basically implying that it’s the responsibility of the victim to ward off a potential attack. A child has no responsibility in warding off sexual predators, okay? A child abducted and abused by a sexual predator is a victim of kidnapping and sexual abuse. End. Of. Story.
Brick: “The more hard-boiled elements aren’t on display, but the amount of fragile beauty conjured up by a single wrist is most impressive.” Yeah, when I look at a dead woman’s hand floating in the water, I’m all, “OMG the gorgeous subtlety of a woman’s probable murder.”
Being John Malkovich: “Cameron Diaz’s make-under is also on full display.” Because that’s important to note.
Choke: “It certainly captures the off-kilter mood, although we must clarify that Sam Rockwell doesn’t actually eat any women in the film.” He doesn’t?!! What a misleading rip-off. Reminds me of the title of an article I just read at Total Film called, “The 40 Greatest Movie Posters.”
Wow. WOW! Much like with the 100 Characters list, if the choices themselves weren’t sexist enough the accompanying text really drives their message home. Buh. I will have to refrain from clicking through this time. Total Film is an easy target but I can’t give them any more of my traffic.
I don’t visit Total Film, so I won’t know about their past “offenses,” but I seriously think the list is harmless. It’s all aesthetic. I don’t see any inherent misogyny here. ‘Jaws’ is a classic. ‘Rosemary’s Baby,’ ‘The Silence of the Lambs,’ ‘Pulp Fiction,’ ‘Vertigo,’ ‘The Birds,’ ‘Memento,’ ‘Brick,’ ‘Hardy Candy,’ the Indie Jones posters, ‘Chinatown,’ all of them are gorgeous! So a woman happens to be in the poster. It’s advertising a great film and the themes are represented dead on. I mean, just ‘Hard Candy’ alone: anyone who’s seen the movie, and I’m sure you did too, would know Ellen Page’s character totally subverts what we perceive at face value. The only one I think really doesn’t deserve to be on the list is ‘Secretary,’ but there couldn’t be a finer poster to represent that movie.
Have you seen Hard Candy? I take it you haven’t based on your response to the commentary in the original article. In it, Ellen Page’s character is 14, and suspects a man she has been talking to on the internet to be a pedophile. So she lures him back to his place with the intents and purposes of exposing him as a pedophile. That’s right, she put herself in the trap on purpose to trap him. And the joke that parents should put it in their children’s bedroom to ward off sexual predators doesn’t have anything to do with the *child* warding off sexual predators. I can’t believe I have to explain the joke to you. It’s as if you didn’t get the jokes, got pissed off, and criticized it without actually getting it.
Your “dismemberment” argument also fails because the men featured in the posters are also “dismembered”. It’s called cropping. Really! Look at Indiana Jones and the rest of the people in the poster. If you’re going to criticize it because it only shows the face of the woman, then criticize the whole poster for only showing the faces of the men, and 3/4 of Harrison Ford. So are the posters being sexist towards men too because they are “dismembered” too?
And for Rosemary’s Baby, the whole contraception joke is a joke, because if you watched the movie, you’d know that Rosemary’s baby turns out to the the Anti-Christ, which makes that joke about contraception pretty damn funny.
And God forbid that a poster shows a woman as a sexual person. Would you rather posters portray women clad head-to-toe in a sheet as totally nonsexual? What about your anger over Rhett Butler being shown with sexual prowess? Why just anger over Uma Thurman giving her best sexual prowess look
I’ve read some of your other articles, including one about “headless” and “dismembered” women on movie posters. What about the 3:10 to Yuma poster? The man on that poster is virtually headless and missing his feet. Where is your anger over that? And Guy Pearce’s head is cropped, so why your anger over Carrie Anne Moss but not him? Are only men allowed to be cropped? Where is your anger over Bill Murray’s face being completely obscured and blacked out and replaced with marine life?
I’m sorry but I just don’t get it. I just find your analysis to be so lopsided and biased.
That’s because I’m humorless and don’t get jokes. I also don’t understand anything about how film marketers portray women and men differently in their posters. I’ve just kind of been saying stuff without really thinking about what I’m saying. You’ve enlightened me, though, and I want to sincerely apologize for my ignorance in these matters.
Anonymous–
With regard to Hard Candy, I’ve seen that film, and I like it. But we’re talking about posters. If I need to know nine million things about the movie to understand that the author’s analysis of the poster isn’t *really* sexist because it’s all just a joke and if you’d seen the movie you’d know and blah blah blah, then it fails.
So like, what are your complaints about the Rosemary’s Baby, Being John Malkovich and I’m Not There posters?
I said I was including the posters that feature women. I don’t particularly have major problems with those three posters–but as I say in the post, I have problems with the way the author talks about the posters. I’m pretty clear about that.
So you have a problem with tongue-in-cheek humor?
Harrison Ford is “dismembered”–hahahaha, this made my day. Yah, right!
I find it amazing (read: disappointing) how many people who take the time to comment fail to take the time to actually read the post they’re commenting on, and feel the need to clarify a few things.
1. The author of this post says she’s “including only the posters that “feature” women,” which means that out of 40, less than half of Total Film’s Best Posters include women. That is a Problem.
2. The author of this post is troubled by the fact that “most either sexually objectify the woman or show her getting attacked…or she’s dead or dismembered.” Notice the use of the word “most,” not all. She did not systematically go through and analyze each poster pictured, but provided brief commentary on some (posters she’s previously critiqued), and critique of the language Total Film used to describe the posters. That language, like SOME of the images, tends toward objectification, belittling women and female sexuality, and fetishizing dead female body parts.
I hate to be a jerk here, but COME ON. Read before you comment. Maybe provide your opinion or personal insight instead of just being an ass.
You realize these aren’t posters that comment on society, right? They are portrayals of films. They aren’t meant to convey your thoughts on feminism… unless of course you write a film on feminism. Then that poster can have whatever you want on it. But these posters are about stories. Stories that have women in them. Some of them happen to be sexy women. It’s part of the story. Sex sells. Sex is a part of life.
Sounds like you are just ranting with no apparent reason. You need to relax.
@Sunflower
The Indiana Jones poster is not problematic for men because it shows him in an action/position of power. The others (American Beauty, Secretary) are problematic because the body parts are shown as vulnerable, naked and in Secretary, quite obviously a passive object ready for er…do I need to say it?
@Sarah
As for the poster’s relationship with the film, I suppose Maggie Gylenhaal’s character in Secretary is so masochistic that it’s appropriate to have her in that position. It reduces the character to an object, however it also undermines Maggie’s Gylenhaal’s performance in the film, I can’t see her face anywhere. Either way, it’s unimaginative and I wouldn’t pick it as a best poster, was it the only thing they could think of?
The only thing they could pick out of American Beauty was Kevin Spacey’s fantasy of a teenage girl, who’se face again, doesn’t really matter.
Sex might sell, but the ‘sexy’ posters (American Beauty, Secretary) of women are not displaying sex, they’re displaying women’s body parts ready for consumption, the power ratio is a little skewed. The poster with Marilyn is iconic and she was a sex symbol and its not reducing her to a crotch shot, so it can work.
I have to agree with calling Jodie Foster a girl. She’s not a girl in the film and I doubt he’s calling her that in the spirit of comraderie like hey girl, it sound like he’s either infantalizing a veteran actress, or that its just any old girl in a poster, it’s also dismissive of the character that Jodie plays in the movie.
Why would a parent warning a child about child predators be funny? In itself the red-riding hood wolf predator play on the poster is brilliant, because the trap is usually made for the wolf and the main character is baiting the wolf. The poster makes sense the comment doesn’t.
Spot on analysis of these posters and the accompanying comments. The imbalance of female to male characters in movies and the way women are portrayed is a never-ending source of frustration.
Also, to Sarah above: You realize that films don’t exist in a cultural vacuum, right? They are meant to convey thoughts on women’s role in society, and a woman’s role, based on the above, is to be a sexy victim. What we see in movies and on TV shapes how we interact with one another. It’s all very connected. Stories that feature women and rely on them being young, thin, white and sexy and often dead or in need of rescue shape how all women are perceived. So yes, these posters are meant to convey a message about feminism.
I know no one will ever read this, as no one (thankfully) uses this website to research feminist ideas, but this is the most ignorant and cynical critique I have seen on the site. I understand being annoyed by the male author’s jokes, but wow did you go out of your way to get mad at it.