Bitch Flicks – Page 254 – The radical notion that women like good movies

Leave your links in the comments!

2011 Emmy Nominees

Something to break up the long, hot summer: the 2011 Primetime Emmy nominations are out. Here is a selection of the women nominated for acting. Stay tuned for an analysis of female nominees behind the camera. For the entire list of nominees, visit the official Academy of Television Arts & Sciences website.

Lead Actress in a Comedy Series
Laura Linney for The Big C
Edie Falco for Nurse Jackie
Amy Poehler for Parks & Recreation
Melissa McCarthy for Mike & Molly
Martha Plimpton for Raising Hope
Tina Fey for 30 Rock

Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series
Jane Lynch for Glee
Betty White for Hot in Cleveland
Julie Bowen for Modern Family
Kristen Wiig for Saturday Night Live
Jane Krakowski for 30 Rock
Sofia Vergara for Modern Family

Lead Actress in a Drama Series
Elizabeth Moss for Mad Men
Connie Britton for Friday Night Lights
Mariska Hargitay for Law & Order: Special Victims’ Unit
Mireille Enos for The Killing
Julianna Margulies for The Good Wife
Kathy Bates for Harry’s Law

Supporting Actress in a Drama Series
Kelly Macdonald for Boardwalk Empire
Christina Hendricks for Mad Men
Michelle Forbes for The Killing
Archie Panjabi for The Good Wife
Margo Martindale for Justified
Christine Baranski for The Good Wife

Lead Actress in a Miniseries or Movie
Kate Winslet for Mildred Pierce
Elizabeth McGovern for Downton Abbey
Diane Lane for Cinema Verite
Taraji P. Henson for Taken from Me: The Tiffany Rubin Story
Jean Marsh for Upstairs Downstairs

Supporting Actress in a Miniseries or Movie
Evan Rachel Wood for Mildred Pierce
Melissa Leo for Mildred Pierce
Mare Winningham for Mildred Pierce
Maggie Smith for Downton Abbey
Eileen Atkins for Upstairs Downstairs

Any thoughts about the kinds of roles being highlighted this year? I don’t watch a lot of current television, so I can’t speak with much authority on the nominees. I’m thrilled to see Kristen Wiig nominated for SNL, as I think she’s one of the few bright spots on that show, and Amy Poehler is great in Parks & Rec. Share your comments!

Guest Writer Wednesday: African American Romantic Comedies: Colorism

This guest post by Renee Martin also appears at her blog Women’s Eye on Media.

I love a good romantic comedy, but I must admit I am especially partial to those that star Blacks. It is a rare thing to see a dominant Black presence in media, and romantic comedies happen to be the only genre that this consistently happens in. Unfortunately, these movies still fall into specific tropes that are a direct result of being produced in a White supremacist culture.

Many of the male stars like, Morris Chestnut and Taye Diggs are dark skinned Black men. In fact, you could reasonably argue that Morris Chestnut is the king of the African Romantic comedy. These dark skinned men are always described as fiiiine, hot, and a real catch. When it comes to colourism and Black men, it would be fair to say that it is not an issue in African American comedies, because the actors range from Morris Chestnut to the ever so lovely LL Cool J (and yes, I love him).

The same is not necessarily true when it comes to women. From Stacey Dash in VHI’s new series Single Ladies, to Paula Patton in 2011’s Jumping the Broom, to Sanaa Lathan in The Best Man, to Zoe Saldana in Guess Who, to Vivica Fox in Two Can Play That Game, and Queen Latifah in Just Wright, light skinned women have a tendency to dominate the genre. The darkest skinned women that you will find in the genre are Monique, who played the ghetto woman Two Can Play That Game, Kimberly Elise, who played Helen in Diary of a Mad Black Woman (the title says it all doesn’t it), and Gabrielle Union, who starred in Deliver Us From Eva.

What is perhaps most interesting, is that in Deliver Us From Eva, Union played the stereotypical angry Black woman who had been burned countless times. She was absolutely vicious to anyone that approached her, and her brother in laws absolutely detested her, that is until they paid LL. Cool J to date her, and suddenly she became soft, and loving. Here we go again with another Black woman being saved from her angry ways by the love of a good Black man. (Tyler Perry is somewhere dancing a little jig.) All the things that allowed her to support her sisters up to and including putting them through school, and saving money for the benefit of their family, were seen as negative character traits. When Union played opposite Vivica Fox in Two Can Play That Game, she played the role of Jezebel. That’s right, a dark Black woman out to steal away Morris Chestnut from the light skinned, smart, and in control Vivica Fox. Union was slut shamed throughout the movie, and yet when Vivica Fox chose to sleep with Chestnut in his office it was simply being freaky and keeping your man happy. Particularly telling, is that no reference was made to differentiate between the two women, except for the visually obvious difference in hue. Why one was necessarily deserving of being slut shamed, when she was essentially no different than the other, was left for the viewer to determine. Even in movies, the strong dark skinned Black woman can never get a break.

Colourism can be just as damaging to Black men as Dr. Michael Eric Dyson explained, when he examined the relationship between himself and his incarcerated dark skinned brother, yet in movies, the hue of Black men can range from LL. Cool J and Terrence Howard to Taye Diggs and Richard T Jones, without any real issue. In fact, the very range in hue of Black men suggests that Black men are all uniquely valuable and sexually attractive. This is why it is hard to comprehend why the same universal acceptance is not given to Black women.

In Jungle Fever, Wesley Snipes leaves his light skinned Black wife played by Lonette McKee, for an Italian woman. In a scene with McKee’s girlfriends, they discuss how the trend for a long time was for Black men to seek out light bright and damn near White women as partners, and how that changed as inter racial relationships became acceptable. You see, the White woman has always been held up as the epitome of beauty, and failing that, the WOC who was closest in appearance to Whiteness was then the chosen prize, thereby leaving dark skinned women completely out of the loop. A new documentary entitled Dark Skin being released this fall discusses this issue. If you doubt that this is an issue, a simple look at what L’Oreal Feria haircolor did to Beyonce, or what Elle Magazine did to Gabourey Sidibe is more than enough to settle this issue.

No woman of colour can ever be light skinned enough. What is particularly disgusting, is not only do these movies have all Black casts, in quite a few instances, they have Black directors to boot. What does it say about Black cinema, that we constantly reproduce our internalized racial hatred? Since we know that colorism is an issue for the entire community, why is it that, Black women are particularly targeted with erasure? Watching these movies really brought to mind the conversations in media about the lonely Black woman, who is destined to die a single woman. As much as African American romantic comedies constantly end with a Black woman and a Black men either in a committed relationship, or getting married, the near erasure of dark skinned women plays into the whole idea that unless you are light skinned you are not worthy of being loved. When we add in the fact that these movies are not aimed at White people, it seems to me that Blacks have come to find this idea acceptable, otherwise when given the opportunity to tell our stories, darker Black women would appear in this genre more regularly, rather than being restricted to films like The Color Purple and Precious.

Editors Note: This is an ongoing series. You can find part 1 here on class. Next week, we will be looking at the ubiquitous usage of the word nigger in these movies.

Renee Martin is a disabled mother of two, and a freelance writer who focuses on social justice. On her blog Womanist Musings she largely writes about social justice generally. She also is a contributor and co-creator of the blog Fangs for the Fantasy, where she writes critically using a social justice lens on the urban fantasy genre. Each week she also participates in the Fangs for the Fantasy podcast, where she discusses the latest in urban fantasy. At Women’s Eye on Media, where she is also a co-creator and shares editing and writing duties with fellow creator Holly Ord, she writes about social justice and the media. Her work has been published at The Guardian, Ms Blog and several small newspapers. She previously cross-posted her review of The Big C at Bitch Flicks.

Documentary Review: !Women Art Revolution

So why don’t we know more women in art? It’s a case of omission, of erasing women and their contributions out of history. A stunning film 40 years in the making, “!Women Art Revolution” seeks to fill that gap by combining “intimate” interviews along with visceral visual images of paintings, performance art, installation art, murals and photography.

Let’s play a game. Name three artists…go on. Now who comes to mind? Picasso? Monet? Michelangelo? Now what if I asked you to name three female artists. You probably would think of Frida Kahlo or Georgia O’Keefe. But what about other women like Judy Chicago, Kathe Kollwitz, Ana Mendieta or Miranda July? This very query of naming a mere three female artists, opens the compelling documentary !Women Art Revolution. Sadly, the people questioned, visitors exiting museums in NYC and San Francisco, could only think of Frida Kahlo. If you had asked those same people to name male artists, or just stated “artists” without indicating gender, I’m sure they would have rattled off a lengthy list…of men.

So why don’t we know more women in art? It’s a case of omission, of erasing women and their contributions out of history. A stunning film 40 years in the making, !Women Art Revolution seeks to fill that gap by combining “intimate” interviews along with visceral visual images of paintings, performance art, installation art, murals and photography. Director Lynn Hershman Leeson, a performance artist and filmmaker, began interviewing people, friends and colleagues who visited her apartment in the 1970s, continuing to interview artists, curators, historians, critics and professors for the next 4 decades. She narrates the film, becoming its conscience, observer and participant. Chronicling the convergence of feminism and art, fueled by anti-war and civil rights protests and the inception of the Feminist Art Movement in the 60s, the documentary depicts how women activists have fought to express their vision and have their voices heard in the art scene.

Difficult to synopsize, the film encompasses a vast breadth of work and activism. In the 70s, female artists created their own spaces and galleries such as WomanHouse, a feminist installation founded by installation artist Judy Chicago and abstract painter Miriam Schapiro at CalArts in Los Angeles, and A.I.R., an all-female gallery in NYC. Some of the pieces that stand out for me include Yoko Ono’s performance art “Cut Piece,” which consisted of her kneeling while spectators came up to her and snipped pieces of her clothing off with scissors; Faith Ringgold’s quilts depicting African American narratives; and Martha Rosler’s video “Semiotics of the Kitchen” displaying her performance of domestic chores and questioning gender roles.

One of the artists in the film says, “Women have always been looked upon, so we looked back.” This quote struck me. Women have been the muses and the models, but as artists and activists, they examine those gender roles and expectations. Feminist artists challenged norms. They questioned the dominant narrative of gender roles that women belonged as docile wives slaving over a hot stove and that women had to conform to societal beauty standards in a heteronormative world. Interestingly, many artists revealed their marriages suffered and dissolved as a result of their burgeoning outspokenness and activism.

Throughout the film, Hershman Leeson continually questions gender and power structures. Ana Mendieta, a sculptor, painter, performance and video artist, created images of women in trees, mud and grass using twigs and blood. At the age of 36, she was allegedly killed by her husband, artist Carl Andre. Because he was such a powerful figure in the minimalist movement, no one would speak out against him. As a result, he was acquitted.

!Women Art Revolution showcases the controversy swirling around The Dinner Party, Judy Chicago’s infamous exhibit. A powerful feminist installation piece, it consists of a massive triangular-shaped banquet table with 39 place settings. Each plate, utensils, chalice and placemat decorated with colors and iconography unique for the intended guests: various famous women throughout history and myth. Chicago created a groundbreaking piece that puts women front and center, something often lacking in the media. Apparently, The Dinner Party caused the government unease and even outrage. Accused of being pornographic due to the butterfly and floral plates symbolizing the vulva, the U.S.House debated on whether or not it should be displayed. Yes, because vaginas are soooo scary. Some Representatives, all male, said it wasn’t art. Um, who are they to determine that?! One Congressman, a former Black Panther, defended the piece saying it was art and protected as free speech. Sadly, the House passed a bill banning it from being exhibited (Oh that’s right, because Congress has nothing better to do! Sigh). Luckily, when it went to the Senate, a small group of wealthy and influential women urged their Senators to drop the legislation, causing it to be dismissed.

The film covers and interviews the Guerilla Girls, an anonymous watchdog group of gorilla mask-wearing feminist activists combating sexism in the international art world. Formed in 1985, an exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art that showcased an international collection of recent artists in painting and sculpture spurred their creation. The exhibit featured 169 artists, only 3 of whom were women. They also looked at the collections in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1989 and found that only 3% of the artists in the modern wing were women and 83% of nude subjects were women. This prompted their famous poster tagline, “Do women have to be naked to get into the Met. Museum?” The Guerilla Girls protest and continue to speak out, publishing report cards on gender and racial gaps in other museums, galleries and exhibits. They force the art world to face the reality of its own discrimination.

But gender discrimination didn’t just happen to artists. Museum curators also faced disparities. Marcia Tucker, Founding Director at the New Museum of Contemporary Art, shared her personal story of wage inequity when she was a curator at the Whitney Museum of American Art, the first woman to hold that position there. After she found out she made less than her male counterpart, she confronted the museum’s president who gave her the feeble excuse, “The budget, the budget, the budget.” To which she replied, “The New York Times, The Daily News, The New York Post.” While things have certainly improved, there’s still a long way to go in reducing wage gaps as women still earn far less than men today.

!Women Art Revolution easily could have become dull with dry facts or depressing due to the obstacles the female artists struggled against. Yet it pulses and throbs with fervent energy. Like a little feminist sponge, I soaked up all of the passion, activism and information. With images of women, hearing women’s voices and a score composed by Carrie Brownstein, Sleater-Kinney guitarist and Portlandia actor, the film feels like a safe haven for feminists. In our male-dominated media, it was inspiring to see a riveting documentary created by women and featuring women. My only complaint of the film is that it doesn’t really follow a chronological or thematic order, making it feel a bit chaotic. Yet it also makes it feel raw and personal. Interestingly, Hershman Leeson, almost prophetically anticipating this, admits as much in her own chronology, comprised of various pieces knitted together “like a patchwork quilt.” I found it refreshing that Hershman Leeson’s introspection as a documentary filmmaker leads her to question whether or not she should feature her own art in the film. She comes to the rightful conclusion that she should as women have been omitted from art history for too long.

Hershman Leeson said she didn’t know how the film would end; she’d been waiting to see how events would unfold. Without any more threats from douchebag legislators, The Dinner Party now permanently resides at the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art, founded in 2007 at the Brooklyn Museum, for future generations to behold. In 2007, the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) featured “Wack! Art and the Feminist Revolution,” a groundbreaking exhibit showcasing feminist art from 1965 to 1980, the first exhibit of its kind. The documentary also features young feminist artists like Alexandra Chowaniec. One young artist recalled how her instructor asked if she had ever heard of Ana Mendieta and other artists from the 70s, as her work mirrored that of feminists 40 years earlier. As she hadn’t, she visited the library to learn about them. When she could find no books on women in the Feminist Art Movement, her instructor gave the young artist copies of her own books. The artist admits that she and her generation benefit from the gains women who came before her struggled to achieve, a sentiment that too often leads many women of my generation and younger to deem feminism useless and outdated. But nothing could be further from the truth.

In an interview with Sophia Savage, Hershman Leeson talks about the “meaning of feminism today:”

“Of course I think it has positive connotations for intelligent women and men. But there is still an existing fear of the word itself, as well as miscommunicated baggage of what it represents. This needs revision. Feminism is about cultural values and equality. The young women I am in contact with are grateful to learn about this history. They devour the information. It is, after all, their legacy.”

It is this legacy to future generations that means so much to Hershman Leeson. Arising from the documentary, she started the RAW/WAR project, a virtual community allowing people to submit images of drawings, paintings, performances, dance and music, opening up the dialogue of art and gender to a global community. Also, all of the interview transcripts and many of the videos are available online. As to the message of the film, Hershman Leeson declares:

“As Marcia Tucker reminds us, “humor is the single most important weapon we have!” I think audiences will be inspired by the courage, sense of humor and tenaciousness of the artists who courageously and constantly reinvented themselves and in doing so dynamically revised existing exclusionary policies of their culture.”

Art questions, challenges and inspires. While it can be beautiful and serene, it can also be disturbing and uncomfortable, unnerving the viewer, forcing the audience to look at the world around them. The art in this documentary reveals the media’s incessant agenda of writing women out of history. Society views women’s art, their experiences and stories, as lesser than men’s: less important, less noble, less substantial. When I took Art History in college, I remember we only studied a handful of female artists. The Feminist Art Movement is a chapter ripped out of history, a period most people just don’t know. Whether you’re an art aficionado or not, you simply must see and experience this revolutionary and visionary film for yourself. !Women Art Revolution reclaims women’s narratives and manifests a vocal group of dissenters rattling the cages of constriction and conformity, refusing to be silenced.

Trailer:

Megan Kearns is a blogger, freelance writer and activist. A feminist vegan, Megan blogs at The Opinioness of the World. In addition to Bitch Flicks, her work has appeared at Arts & Opinion, Italianieuropei, Open Letters Monthly and A Safe World for Women. Megan earned her B.A. in Anthropology and Sociology and a Graduate Certificate in Women and Politics and Public Policy. She currently lives in Boston with her diva cat. She previously contributed reviews of The Kids Are All Right, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest, Something Borrowed and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? to Bitch Flicks.

Call for Writers!

We’re turning back time to the first couple of years of Bitch Flicks to plug some holes–namely, we want reviews of Best Picture nominees from the 2008 and 2009 Academy Awards.

As for guidelines, reviews should be from a feminist perspective and (when applicable) focused on the films’ female characters. If you’re still not sure, take a look at reviews of the Best Picture nominees from 2010 and 2011.

We are looking for reviews of:

2009
Slumdog Millionaire
~~The Curious Case of Benjamin Button~~
~~Frost/Nixon~~
~~Milk~~
~~The Reader~~

2008
~~Atonement~~
~~No Country for Old Men~~
~~Michael Clayton~~
~~There Will Be Blood~~

Email us at btchflcks(at)gmail(dot)com if you’d like to contribute a review. We accept original pieces or cross-posts.

Documentary Preview: Dark Girls

Dark Girls (2012)

Set to premiere this October at the International Black Film Festival in Nashville, Dark Girls is a documentary by D. Channsin Berry and Bill Duke that explores the prejudice against and the often-internalized feelings of self-hatred experienced by dark-skinned Black women in the United States.

The light-skinned bias is easily recognized in film and media, but rarely do we get to hear from women who experience this bias in their lives, workplaces, and relationships. I’m looking forward to watching this documentary, and hope it gets a wide release after its festival showings.

Writing for Clutch, Jamilah Lemieux says:

While many people would love to believe that color is no longer an issue, and that we are post-racial, post-color struck–post-anything that forces them to admit that all things are not even in this world, and that we have much work to do–the many subjects interviewed for the film sing a very different tune.

[…]

Though we know that not all darker sisters suffer great indignities or issues with self image, nor is life a crystal stair for those of us who are lighter, this film continues a long conversation that is still very important. So long as we have people amongst us who gladly uphold the damning “White is right” standard–assigning favor to people based upon their proximity to it, we can’t let this one go. This is something we can get past, this does not have to continue.

Watch the trailer and share your own experiences on the official film website:

Bitch Flicks’ Weekly Picks

Rachel Maddow Reviews ERA History from Gender Focus

July Movies I Won’t Be Seeing (And One I Will) from The Funny Feminist

Pop Pedestal: Captain Turanga Leela from Bitch Magazine

Help Expose the Real Illusionists from Adios Barbie

The Idiot Box Goes Back to the Future from The New Agenda

Great Sites About Women in the Media I Had to Share from BlogHer

Talk to John Carpenter on Twitter on Friday, July 8th from Flick Filosopher

Feminist Booster Club: Help a Native Filmmaker Finish Her Doc on LaDonna Harris from Ms. Magazine

Pissed Off in a Huge Way from FBomb

HBO, You’re Busted from the Los Angeles Times

Leave your links!

From the Archive: Pay Discrimination in Hollywood, Who Knew?

In honor of the recently released Forbes 2011 List of the Highest Paid Actresses, I thought I’d repost this little gem from 2009. Enjoy!

Forbes recently published a list of Hollywood’s top-earning actresses, for films completed within the previous year.

Please note the following:

“As is still typical for Hollywood, our actresses earned significantly less than their male counterparts. Harrison Ford was the top-earning actor this year with $65 million, $38 million more than Jolie earned. All told, the top 10 actors earned $393 million, compared with $183 million for the top 10 actresses.”

Take a look at the 15 Top-Earning Actresses, along with their respective career Oscar wins and Oscar nominations (as of 2009).

1. Angelina Jolie: $27 million

1 Oscar win, 2 Oscar nominations

2. Jennifer Aniston: $25 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

3. Meryl Streep: $24 million

2 Oscar wins, 15 Oscar nominations

4. Sarah Jessica Parker: $23 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

5. Cameron Diaz: $20 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

6. Sandra Bullock (tie): $15 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

7. Reese Witherspoon (tie): $15 million

1 Oscar win, 1 Oscar nomination

8. Nicole Kidman (tie): $12 million

1 Oscar win, 2 Oscar nominations

9. Drew Barrymore (tie): $12 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

10. Renee Zellweger: $10 million

1 Oscar win, 3 Oscar nominations

11. Cate Blanchett: $8 million

1 Oscar win, 4 Oscar nominations

12. Anne Hathaway (tie): $7 million

0 Oscar wins, 1 Oscar nomination

13. Halle Berry (tie): $7 million

1 Oscar win, 1 Oscar nomination

14. Scarlett Johansson: $5.5 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

15. Kate Winslet: $2 million

1 Oscar win, 6 Oscar nominations

Total Amount of Money Earned: $212.5 million
Total Number of Oscar Nominations: 35
Total Number of Oscar Wins: 9

***************************************************************

And, just for kicks, here’s the Forbes list of the 15 Top-Earning Actors:

1. Harrison Ford: $65 million
(0 Oscar wins, 1 Oscar nomination)

2. Adam Sandler: $55 million
(0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations)

3. Will Smith: $45 million
(0 Oscar wins, 2 Oscar nominations)

4. Eddie Murphy (tie): $40 million
(0 Oscar wins, 1 Oscar nomination)

5. Nicolas Cage (tie): $40 million
(1 Oscar win, 2 Oscar nominations)

6. Tom Hanks: $35 million
(2 Oscar wins, 5 Oscar nominations)

7. Tom Cruise: $30 million
(0 Oscar wins, 3 Oscar nominations)

8. Jim Carrey (tie): $28 million
(0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations)

9. Brad Pitt (tie): $28 million
(0 Oscar wins, 2 Oscar nominations)

10. Johnny Depp: $27 million
(0 Oscar wins, 3 Oscar nominations)

11. George Clooney: $25 million
(for acting: 1 Oscar win, 2 Oscar nominations)

12. Russell Crowe (tie): $20 million
(1 Oscar win, 3 Oscar nominations)

13. Robert Downey Jr. (tie): $20 million
(0 Oscar wins, 2 Oscar nominations)

14. Denzel Washington (tie): $20 million
(2 Oscar wins, 5 Oscar nominations)

15. Vince Vaughn: $14 million
(0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations)

Total Amount of Money Earned: $492 million
Total Number of Oscar Nominations: 31
Total Number of Oscar Wins: 7

***************************************************************

In the past year, the top-earning men made over twice the amount of money as the top-earning women. Perhaps the Oscar info might seem arbitrary; the films that usually gross the most money (summer blockbusters, Apatow, etc) don’t necessarily line up with the many low-budget films that garner Oscar nominations for the performances (The Reader, Rachel Getting Married).

But I still find it disheartening, to say the least, to look at a list where the highest paid women in the previous year, who have won more Oscars overall (arguably the most prestigious award in the history of fucking filmmaking), and who have been nominated for more Oscars overall, still earned less than half of what their male counterparts earned.

***************************************************************

Now, to get really super-crazy, let’s look at the highest grossing films that the top five earning actors and actresses released last year, specifically noting who starred, the exact box office gross, and the overall “fresh” rating on rotten tomatoes (a high percentage means critics thought it rocked; anything lower than 60% usually means it was a piece of shit).

Actresses

1. Angelina Jolie: Kung Fu Panda
Box Office: $215,395,021
RT Rating: 89%

2. Jennifer Aniston: Marley & Me
Box Office: $143,084,510
RT Rating: 61%

3. Meryl Streep: Mamma Mia!
Box Office: $143,704,210
RT Rating: 53%

4. Sarah Jessica Parker: Sex and the City
Box Office: $152,595,674
RT Rating: 50%

5. Cameron Diaz: What Happens in Vegas
Box Office: $80,199,843
RT Rating: 27%

Total Box Office Gross: $734,979,258
Average RT Rating: 56%

Actors

1. Harrison Ford: Indiana Jones … Crystal Skull
Box Office: $316,957,122
RT Rating: 76%

2. Adam Sandler: Bedtime Stories
Box Office: $109,993,847
RT Rating: 23%

3. Will Smith: Hancock
Box Office: $227,946,274
RT Rating: 39%

4. Eddie Murphy: Meet Dave
Box Office: $11,644,832
RT Rating: 19%

5. Nicolas Cage: Knowing
Box Office: $79,911,877
RT Rating: 32%

Total Box Office Gross: $746,453,952
Average RT Rating: 38%

***************************************************************

Basically, the women made much better films according to critics. And while the men grossed more at the box office, by $11.5 million, it’s hardly worth mentioning when you’re talking about $746 million versus $735 million. And yet, the top five actors still earned more than double ($245 million) what the top five actresses earned ($119 million).

Will someone please explain to me how this isn’t blatant gender-based discrimination?

From the Archive: Movie Review: Juno

This review originally appeared at Bitch Flicks in October 2008. With Diablo Cody set to direct her first film, it’s interesting to go back and look at the film that launched her career.

Juno(2007)

It took me a long time to see the film Juno. I was thrilled when Diablo Cody won the Oscar for Best Screenplay, but at the same time suspicious about her little movie being so lauded. To win an Oscar, the film must be saying the “right” things to the “right” people, a dynamic that rarely favors progressive thinking (see the movie Crash as a recent example). In other words, when too many people love a movie, there’s probably something wrong.

Aside from critical praise and popularity, the topic of teen pregnancy is rarely done without a hefty dose of morality. While we are in a peculiar cultural gray area on the subject—consider the cover of OK Magazine, featuring smiling teen mom Jamie Lynn Spears, or the Republican VP nominee’s pregnant teenage daughter—there seems to be an anti-choice undercurrent running through pregnancy plots, not to mention the culture at large.

The expectations I had going in were also based on reading commentary about the ultra-hip dialogue and soundtrack of the film. While certainly not negative in themselves, coupled with a controversial topic, these features could be enough to couch a conservative, anti-woman message in a hip, fresh film.

It turns out, however, that after an initial adjustment period to the dialogue (and a question about whether the film is set in the early ‘90s), Juno turns out to be planted in a feminist worldview, and is a film that teenagers, especially, ought to see. It was thoroughly enjoyable, funny and touching. I liked it so much that I watched it again, but when I started to write about it, what I liked about the movie became all the more confusing. I loved the music, although Juno MacGuff is way hipper than I was (or am), and I saw a representation that reminded me of myself at that age. I saw a paternal relationship that I never had and a familial openness that I’ve also never had. I saw characters who I wanted as my childhood friends and family.

And while in Juno we have a strong, unconventional female character—and a lead character, at that—the film itself was very, very safe. And I worry whether that’s a good thing. It’s certainly understandable for a first film. A Hollywood outsider would have a much more difficult time making an overtly progressive movie about teen pregnancy, but if she plays the politics safe, and if her own personality is enough of a draw, she just might make it.

I was worried when Juno visited the dumpy abortion clinic and met her pro-life classmate protesting in the parking lot, and I was worried by the very dumpiness of the clinic. I was struck by the notion that a clinic like that would look and feel much more sterile—even in the lobby, as far as Juno went. The thought of fingernails sent her running out of the building. A detail like “fingernails” made the abortion too real for Juno, a teenager, I suppose. Is this a good or bad thing? I don’t know.

Juno, in a rather nonchalant way, seeks permission of the baby’s father, her good friend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera), for the abortion. Or, rather, she seeks his opinion; she seems to want him to resist her plans. But his lack of resistance causes her to make the following decisions on her own. This straddles the line somewhat. She wants to be told what to do, and rather than seeking out someone smarter and more experienced than she is, she asks the boy whose approval she’s still seeking.

Juno wants her baby to have the perfect family; one unlike her own, which her mother abandoned. Her family now consists of her father, her stepmother Bren (Allison Janney), and her half-sister Liberty Bell. Juno doesn’t have a bad deal going. Her folks are markedly working class (they’re both members of the labor class, a group that doesn’t see much Hollywood recognition; he’s an HVAC repairman, she’s a nail technician). Yet Juno imagines a perfect life to consist of two loving parents and a McMansion.Why would she seek out people of this particular class? Is this a case of Juno’s lack of class awareness or the film’s?

The film’s real progressive moment comes when Juno realizes that her idea of perfection isn’t perfect. She realizes that a father who doesn’t want to be there would be as bad as a mother who hadn’t wanted to be there. She sees that a father isn’t a necessity–or perhaps simply that two parents aren’t a necessity. Yet what does this all add up to mean? There’s certainly a moment of female solidarity (and this isn’t the only one, certainly, in the film), and a difficult decision that she makes independently. But, as with other conclusions I’ve made, I’m left with the question of “So what?”

The film does love all of its characters, which is a refreshing change for a high school flick. Juno’s best friend, Leah, is a cheerleader who exhibits some flaky, teenage qualities (her crush on the chubby, bearded, middle-aged math teacher takes a cliché and gives it a twist), but the film loves her nonetheless. Vanessa Loring (Jennifer Garner) is an obsessional, middle-class mommy blogger type, but we see that she would be a good mother, and the film cares for her. We even have sympathy for Mark (Jason Bateman) who, through his relationship with Juno, realizes that he and his wife no longer want the same thing (if they ever did). There are cringe-worthy moments with Mark and Juno, but none that damn him completely. It’s a rare film that gives us no bad guys, which is a large part of its charm.

It’s easy to want to live in a world like this, where a pregnant sixteen-year-old seems to get by pretty well, with her parents’ support and a relationship with her baby’s adoptive family. She has a sweet teenage love affair and doesn’t seem to struggle much. While teen angst is the stuff of Hollywood cliché, things just seemed too easy for Juno. I wish my teenage years could’ve been a bit more like Juno’s. Hell, I wish my life now could be.

The final question remains, though, about whether we should criticize a movie like Juno. Representations of role models for American girls tend to inhabit the poles; either young girls are encouraged to be the beautiful bimbo or the chaste Christian. This film has a strong personality (that masquerades as strong values—even an ethic) without being preachy or moralistic. That can’t inherently be a bad thing. Yet I find myself asking for more, wanting more–something that steps outside of the realm of safety. Perhaps Juno isn’t the film to give me more.

In all, I fear Juno suffers from the same postmodern condition afflicting so many films today. It strives for a non-message in order not to offend anyone, thus allowing anti-choice advocates to cheer the film as loudly as pro-choice feminists. There’s a problem here. If a film that almost universally passes as hip and progressive is so murky in its values and allegiance that we’re not really sure what to think of it, how can a truly hip and progressive film make it today?

Quote of the Day: ‘Movie-Made America’

Movie-Made America by Robert Sklar

I came across this interesting piece from Movie-Made America: A Cultural History of American Movies, in which author Robert Sklar talks about a fairy-tale aspect of acting (being “discovered”), the patriarchal foundation of casting, and the behind-the-scenes women of the 1910s and 1920s. I’ve added some links to the original text for further reading.

In the World War I era–an unsettled period when late-Victorian mores persisted side by side with an emerging image of a “new woman”–it could only have been disconcerting to respectable Americans to see photographs of determined young women in the ankle-length dresses, high-button shoes and broad-brimmed hats standing in long lines outside a Hollywood casting office. The American middle class had only just begun to regard movies as something other than immoral trash for working-class people; and suddenly their daughters were packing up and leaving home to seek their fortunes in the movies.

If they had to go, the least one could do was give them sound advice, most of it intended to be discouraging. A girl should plan to have enough money to survive for a year without additional income; authors of advice books and articles for the movie aspirant set the minimum figure at $2,000. She should have resources enough to be able to acquire her own wardrobe, since extras in those days had to supply their own outfits for scenes of contemporary life. She should consider what abilities she possessed and perhaps direct her ambitions to other interesting work in motion pictures.

Studios needed talented dress designers, set decorators, film cutters, all jobs that were open to women. In fact, the motion-pictures studios in the 1910s and 1920s gave more opportunities to women than most other industries, far more than they ever did again. Many of the leading scenario writers were women, among them Anita Loos, June Mathis, Frances Marion and Jeanie Macpherson. Lois Weber was a well-known director and independent producer, and Elinor Glyn, Dorothy Arzner and other women directed films during the 1920s. Women were occasionally found in executive positions in Hollywood producing companies. And if a woman possessed none of these talents, there were always jobs as secretaries, mail clerks, film processors, and in other modest but essential roles in the making of movies.

But what women wanted was to be actresses. They could see that other girls, many still in their teens, without acting experience, were making it. Why not they? But no one informed them that a fair share of the young girls with film contracts were “payoffs,” as Colleen Moore called them: players who were hired as a favor to influential people or to pay back a favor they had done the studio. Moore got her start because her uncle, a newspaper editor, gave D.W. Griffith help in getting his films approved by the Chicago censorship board, and Griffith repaid him with a contract for his niece. In Silent Star, Moore reports that Carmel Myers, Mildred Harris (a bride at sixteen to Charlie Chaplin) and Winifred Westover, who began acting as teen-agers, were all “payoffs” in similar ways.

From the Archive: Business Trip Wishes

NOTE: After reading over this letter (originally posted July 2, 2009), I’m struck by how many of these stereotypes were included in Bridesmaids. I’m not sure how I feel about that yet; I ultimately found Bridesmaids to be a fairly subversive film. (Stay tuned for my Review in Conversation with Amber–she may completely disagree with me on that.) But yeah, Bridesmaids failed the shit out of this list of no-nos. Hmmmmm …

According to several entertainment sources, a new comedy called Business Trip has been picked up by Universal Pictures. Written by Stacey Harman, the film focuses on four women who take a business trip together and, instead of getting any real business-oriented work done, shenanigans ensue. Apparently, it’s being produced by the same people involved with The Hangover, so I speculate that Business Trip will contain similar comedic elements, but from a female perspective.

How do I feel about this? It’s hard to say. I’ve longed to see a film that focuses on what women actually do when they’re screwing off together. I’m pretty sure they get high sometimes. They might even sleep until noon and not have jobs and live in their parents’ basement at the age of 34 (although probably not in a film about women in corporate

America

). I guess I’ll at least experience some satisfaction if the filmmakers manage to stick to a few basic rules.

Dear Business Trip filmmakers,

As you work toward developing this film, and if you’re at all interested in breaking some new ground by portraying real women on-screen (rather than the conventional stereotypes of women we’ve gotten so used to seeing) please be advised of the following:

1. Do not cast Jessica Alba, Megan Fox, Katherine Heigl, and Anna Faris, and then parade them around in giant heels, wearing some semblance of revealing business suit-esque attire, probably involving excessive cleavage and certainly showcasing thirty gratuitous inches of bare leg.

2. Do not institute a plot point that involves one of the lead actresses finally feeling complete because she finds a man who rescues her from her horrible life as a lonely, over-achieving corporate executive i.e. childless, feminist spinster.

3. Do not include a scene where one or two or all of these women make out, possibly in a hot tub, but definitely in front of a man, just for the sole purpose of performing some lightweight pornographic male fantasy.

4. Do not kill one of them off with a melodramatic deadly-illness twist.

5. Do not include a scene where one or two or all of these women get depressed about a man, and as a result, gorge themselves on any carbohydrate-infused junk food within reach, while simultaneously sobbing (for extra comedic effect).

6. Do not ever allow any character to utter the phrase “cat-fight” … ever.

7. Do not script any of the following: klutzy falling scenes, food fights, cake-decorating, aerobics classes, weepy arguments with Mom, random bursting into song, lip-synching and/or dancing around in pajamas to 60s music, a wedding, an ice-queen who can’t feel, an infantilized, codependent ditz, group slut-shaming, or group competition for a man.

8. Do not even go near “scheming-vindictive-bitch” territory; we get enough of that in the male-dominated comedies of the Apatowverse.

9. Do not try to balance out the characters’ personalities by making one a good, sweet, virginal Madonna and another a fucked-ten-men-in-one-night, “crazy party girl” who dances topless on bar tables with a cigarette in one hand and a tequila shot in the other.

10. Do not make one or more of the characters “baby-crazy” and/or desperate to be inseminated by a gay best friend.

11. Do not turn this into Sex and the City Takes a Business Trip, even though that’s undoubtedly what everyone will encourage you to do.

Good luck!

Love,

Bitch Flicks