‘Parks and Recreation’: Leslie Knope’s Problem with Women

For Leslie, feminism means, rather simplistically, that she admires women who are in power, believing that gender should be no barrier for achievement. Unfortunately, despite Leslie’s determination to highlight her dedication to furthering the feminist cause, her understanding is not only crude and rather rudimentary, but can, frequently, be damaging. Her identification as a feminist is, much like Tina Fey’s Liz Lemon on ’30 Rock,’ hugely lacking in intersectionality. This is even more frustrating considering that three of the four female cast members are women of color.

This guest post written by Siobhan Denton appears as part of our theme week on Unpopular Opinions.

Leslie Knope, the much loved and indulged protagonist of Parks and Recreation, is by her own account, a feminist. For Leslie (Amy Poehler), feminism means, rather simplistically, that she admires women who are in power, believing that gender should be no barrier for achievement. Unfortunately, despite Leslie’s determination to highlight her dedication to furthering the feminist cause, her understanding is not only crude and rather rudimentary, but can, frequently, be damaging.

Her identification as a feminist is, much like Tina Fey’s Liz Lemon on 30 Rock, hugely lacking in intersectionality. This is even more frustrating considering that three of the four female cast members are women of color. Leslie is a feminist when it comes to her own interests, or encouraging other women who resemble her. She is more than willing to actively encourage April Ludgate (Aubrey Plaza) in her pursuit of career success, but works hard to distance herself from women that are not aligned with her own personal beliefs. While she does advocate for comprehensive sex education and contraception access, Leslie’s version of feminism is entirely reliant on her own morals and desires. She never truly wants to further the feminist cause, but applauds her own personal efforts as achievements for the movement.

Leslie often finds herself threatened by other women, despite no reasonable impetus. Regularly, this threat is manifested into jealously. Take, for example, her numerous interactions with Shauna Malwae-Tweep (Alison Becker). Shauna, a journalist, is regularly critiqued by Leslie. Her initial issue stems from Shauna’s romantic interactions with Mark Brendanawicz. Mark has shown no romantic interest in Leslie, and in fact, seems to find her relatively irritating at the start of the series. Despite this, Leslie places blame on Shauna, and attempts to question her professionalism and worth.

Meeting Shauna again in a similar scenario, when Leslie observes Shauna speaking to and flirting with Ben, Leslie immediately pits herself Shauna. She perceives her as a rival, rather than a fellow professional woman.

Perhaps Leslie’s disdain for other women is highlighted the most when it comes to her interactions with Brandi Maxxxx (Mara Marini). Leslie has made her views on sex workers clear from the start of the series. Spending time in a strip club, she questions the women’s life choices without recognizing her own privilege as a white, educated, middle-class woman.

Leslie would rather silence Brandi during a public forum than be associated with her. Brandi offers Leslie her support, but Leslie consistently attempts to distance herself. Her character is held up to be a figure of humor, derived both from her occupation and her perceived lack of intellect.

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoDV7iacqg8″]

Take the scene in which both Leslie and Brandi are discussing the concept of hard work. Brandi, in recognizing Leslie’s work ethic and clearly admiring it, attempts to draw parallels between them. She states that, like Leslie, she too works hard. Rather than commend Brandi’s hard work, or thank her for her praise, Leslie is clearly horrified.

Leslie is not on Brandi’s side, and we, the viewer, are also told to treat Brandi in the same way. She should be laughed at, and ridiculed, not applauded.

The viewer, in looking at both women and their physical similarity, is effectively instructed to draw comparisons between the two. Brandi is clearly presented as an example of a vacuous woman who should be treated with disdain. While Leslie, thanks to her privilege and education, should be commended for her intellectual approach.

Notably, much of the praise surrounding Parks and Recreation has surrounded Leslie and Ann’s (Rashida Jones) friendship. Yet, as has been noted, for Leslie, Ann is never really her equal. Ann, rather than fulfilling an equivalent role, is content to act as Leslie’s sidekick, cheering on her aspirations rather than necessarily fulfilling her own.

Leslie’s friendship with Ann originally stems from her personal desire to further her career, rather than truly helping Ann’s plight. The dynamics of their friendship is entirely uneven. Leslie clearly holds power, and even in her hyperbolic praise, focuses more on Ann’s physical appearance than her intellect. When she does praise her career abilities, she does so in such an exaggerated manner, that it becomes supercilious, forcing Ann to downplay her skills and in turn, undermine her own ability and qualifications.

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5qUg6DQBeg”]

Many of her hyperbolic compliments are used to obscure Leslie’s real intention; asking Ann to support her without question or judgement, to be silent and supportive.

As the series progresses, Ann, under pressure from Leslie, begins to work at City Hall, despite being happy in her current occupation as a nurse. Leslie does not consider Ann’s feelings in this decision, but rather focuses on the benefits that it will bring her. Ann is a sounding board for Leslie; a compliant friend who will readily allow Leslie to offload with little in return.

Fans of Leslie will note that she is regularly applauded by other characters in the series for her kindness and consideration. She regularly provides friends with elaborate, carefully thought-out gifts, but these gifts, rather than being given selflessly are, too often, a means for Leslie to feel valued. Leslie revels in her ability to provide these presents, and gains much satisfaction from doing so. Ann and Ben both note in one episode, that they feel immense pressure to provide Leslie with a similarly thoughtful present. If Leslie’s habit of purchasing such gifts were to be truly selfless, it would not leave her loved ones feeling so despondent.

Leslie’s version of feminism is entirely informed through her own privileges and limited life experiences. Certainly the series is intentionally “small-town” in its approach, using this central conceit as the source of much of its idiosyncratic humor. Yet, when a show is going to be broadcast to such a large audience, and a character’s perceived feminism is so ingrained in character construct, it is damaging and short-sighted to allow this character to espouse the virtues of feminism when she displays so little interaction or understanding of wider intersectional issues.

See also at Bitch Flicks:

Parks and Recreation: How Fat Phobia Is Invisible

Shirley, Donna, and Lana: African American Women in Thursday Night Sitcoms

Ann Perkins and Me: It’s Complicated

Why We Need Leslie Knope and What Her Election on Parks and Recreation Means for Women and Girls

Are You There, Hollywood? It’s Me, the Average Girl

What Baby Daddy Can Learn from Parks and Recreation

I Want to Establish the Ron Swanson Scholarship in Women’s Studies

Parks and Recreation Seasons 1 and 2

Emmy Week 2011: Leslie Knope

Siobhan Denton is a teacher and writer living in Wales, UK. She holds a BA in English and an MA in Film and Television Studies. She is especially interested in depictions of female desire and transitions from youth to adulthood. She tweets at @siobhan_denton and writes at The Blue and the Dim.

Yas Queen!: In Praise of Female Friendship and Sex Positivity on ‘Broad City’

As emerging adults, Abbi and Ilana are free to explore their sexuality as they choose. Choosing to be sexually active means the women have the possibilities of exploring love and sex, casual or within a relationship, in a way that best serves them as 20-something single women. Although Abbi and Ilana each explore their sexuality differently, the women share a common mentality- that they will embrace the many sexual adventures they embark on and support and empower each other every step of the way.

This guest post by Alexandra Shinert appears as part of our theme week on Sex Positivity.

In the pilot of Comedy Central’s hit show Broad City, we meet Abbi Abrams (Abbi Jacobson) and Ilana Wexler (Ilana Glazer), two women whose idea of friendship has no bounds. Throughout the series, which is executively produced by Amy Poehler, Abbi and Ilana’s friendship not only takes precedent in their lives but it is also at the core of the show, intentionally placed at the center by the female comedy creators, Abbi Jacobson and Ilana Glazer. As a show that focuses on the lives of two 20-something (mostly) heterosexual, single best friends who are navigating life in New York City, it’s their friendship that shines brightest and makes a significant impact on the landscape when it comes to female-centric media.

At the Paley Center for Media’s New York Comedy Festival panel featuring Broad City, Glazer spoke about the central focus of the show saying, “It’s just a romance between two friends…platonic, for now.” Acknowledging the romance between the two women, Poehler also emphasized that the relationship viewers should care most about is Abbi and Ilana’s as the show is really “a love story” between these two friends. We get the sense that the women truly care for each other and this love can be best expressed in their own words in a scene from the pilot episode (“What a Wonderful World”).

Ilana tells Abbi, “Dude, I would follow you into hell, brother!” A sentiment Abbi would replicate without hesitation by telling her friend, “I would take you on my shoulders, like I’d strap you up and I’d be like, ‘let’s go through hell.’” This declaration that illustrates the women’s true devotion for each other is also extremely visible throughout every episode of the series’ two seasons. Whether Abbi is saving Ilana’s life after a serious allergic reaction to shellfish or the women make time to catch up with each other in the middle of sex via FaceTime, at the core of Broad City’s slap-stick comedy are two women who would do anything for each another.

Central to the nature of friendship, and a key characteristic of female friendship is the role of conversation. For female friends to engage in activities that allow them to talk, open up, and discuss every aspect of their lives, women not only bond but in the process create closeness through self-disclosing of personal information. In the case of Abbi and Ilana, the women comfortably discuss any and all topics (from pooping to pegging); due to this level of self-disclosure, they’ve created a bond that is incredibly close. Abbi, in particular, vocalizes the kind of self-disclosure and closeness they’ve established by emphasizing to Ilana in the season one finale, “You text me every time you take a dump, I know about the pimple on your nipple, and I’m, like, the holder of your social security card.” This dialogue reinforces the important role each of the women play in each other’s lives and further establishes the kind of friendship Broad City portrays. It is within Abbi and Ilana’s friendship that sex positivity truly exists, and due to the nature of closeness between the women and the levels of self-disclosure they’ve established, discussing sex happens most visibly through positivity and empowerment on Broad City.

As 20-something women who are both comfortably content with this particular moment in their lives, the women have no sense of urgency when it comes to finding a partner to marry or deciding when or if they want to have children. These cultural attitudes not only connect to larger generational traits of Millennials but are also characteristic to the stage of their lives the women are experiencing: Emerging Adulthood. As emerging adults, Abbi and Ilana are free to explore their sexuality as they choose. Choosing to be sexually active means the women have the possibilities of exploring love and sex, casual or within a relationship, in a way that best serves them as 20-something single women. Although Abbi and Ilana each explore their sexuality differently, the women share a common mentality- that they will embrace the many sexual adventures they embark on and support and empower each other every step of the way.

In the season 1 finale (“The Last Supper”), the women celebrate Abbi’s 26^th birthday by going out to a fancy restaurant for dinner. While dining, the women discuss the sexual adventures Abbi has been enjoying as a way to celebrate her birthday. Ilana is truly overjoyed to learn that Abbi had “slightly above average sex” “twice in one week.” However, after Abbi pees out a condom, she shares a realization with her best friend that she likely had unprotected sex with one of her partners. Ilana’s reaction to Abbi’s dilemma illustrates both the kind of friendship the women share and the importance of having safe sex. “Not only are we talking STDs here, I can’t even imagine how many dudes would love to lock you down with an unexpected pregnancy! I mean, your body is a temple. You’ve got to respect it.” To respect one’s body means taking on the responsibilities that come with the act and to practice safe sex extends into a larger dialogue about sex positivity on Broad City. Abbi and Ilana will continue to celebrate and praise any and all sexual experiences the women enjoy, but this scene clearly emphasizes the importance of being safe above all. Moreover, Ilana’s honesty and openness to tell Abbi how she really feels continues to normalize the kind of friendship the women share and the significant role conversation places within their relationship.

From a simple conversation about sex to experiencing the act and pausing to seek out a friend for advice, Broad City’s depiction of sex positivity exists comfortably within Abbi and Ilana’s friendship. It is extremely present within “Knockoffs” (season 2, episode 4), an episode where Abbi finally gets to date her long-time crush and next-door neighbor, Jeremy (Stephen Schneider). Despite experiencing sex with Jeremy, Abbi is thrown for a loop when he asks her to penetrate him with a strap-on in an act of pegging. Confused by this suggestion, she excuses herself into the bathroom to call Ilana. Abbi seeks out Ilana’s advice, by explaining her situation to her friend: “So we were doing it and I was like ‘we should switch positions,’ and then he throws me a strap-on.” It is Ilana’s guidance and support in this moment of confusion that helps Abbi regroup and eventually partake in this sexual act. The way the women discuss sex and talk through Abbi’s dilemma continues to further establish how sex positivity exists on Broad City within the women’s friendship.

When Ilana gets the call from Abbi, she is overjoyed for her friend, calling the situation “a dream come true” and a “once in a lifetime” experience. She even pauses the conversation to twerk against a wall to express her enthusiasm. Abbi’s lack of confidence as she deals with how to execute the act is fully supported by a knowledgeable Ilana, whose reassurance is exactly what she needs. The women’s conversation continues to demonstrate the strength of their friendship, which connects to the depiction of sex positivity displayed within this scene.

This kind of celebratory praise of sex positivity can be extended to the conversation the women have post-pegging while attending Ilana’s grandmother’s shiva. When Abbi admits to pegging Jeremy, Ilana exclaims, “This is the happiest day of my life,” causing a scene at the somewhat somber event. Ilana praises Abbi for choosing to peg by calling her “a pegga” and “peggasus,” beyond thrilled that she would get to experience that sexual act. Ilana’s reaction is both humorous and extremely heartfelt, as she’s genuinely thrilled for her best friend. What is most significant about this scene is the way Abbi is praised for choosing to have sex, as Ilana never shames her or makes her feel weird about her decision to peg Jeremy. This further exemplifies the portrayal of sex positivity on Broad City that, I’d argue, can also be extended into a larger narrative about the way Abbi and Ilana celebrate each other in every aspect of their lives.

Broad City’s portrayal of sex positivity connects to constructs of sexuality and identity that must also be considered to truly understand the impact of these depictions. For instance, the pegging scene in “Knockoffs” illustrates that Abbi is open to the idea of engaging in an act that challenges heteronormative constructs/roles. In doing so, Broad City exemplifies the fluidity of sexuality. This is also visible through the depiction of Ilana, someone uninterested in labels or monogamy, comfortably content with having a stable “sex friend,” Lincoln (Hannibal Buress) and interested in sex for the sake of her own pleasure. This portrait of sexual fluidity and sex positivity on Broad City is emphasized best and most notably in the episode “Coat Check” (season 2, episode 9), where Ilana engages in sex with a woman, Adele (Alia Shawkat). Adele, who bares a striking resemblance to Ilana, helps her realize her sexual preferences and orientation.

In the middle of her same-sex encounter with Adele, Ilana stops her after realizing she may be too similar to her in appearance (not because she’s a woman, but instead because they’re nearly identical) for this relationship to continue. This instead results in a declaration of Ilana making sense of her own sexuality, as she openly tells Adele, “I have sex with people different from me, you know? Different colors, different shapes, different sizes. People who are hotter, uglier. More smart, not more smart. Innies, outies. I don’t know, a Catholic person.”

For Ilana, someone so eager to discuss and explore her sexuality, this scene emphasizes liberation. She feels comfortable with her choices and owns them, giving us a glimpse of sex positivity rooted in knowledge. Jenny Kutner discussed this scene as she saw the significance of Ilana’s declaration with respect to labels. She wrote, “Ilana’s same-sex encounter gives us the closest thing to a ‘definition’ for the character’s purposely ambiguous sexuality we’re likely ever to get, and it’s still not entirely clear.” By highlighting the significance of this scene she argues, “Broad City’s giving us what is real, and what we often experience as real people who exist in the world.” Furthermore, Ilana is someone who is liberated by this identity and is proud to experience her sexuality in any way she chooses, further demonstrating Broad City’s take on sex positivity.

Ilana comfortably discusses with Abbi the prospects of having a relationship with Adele, even if she considers it “mostly sexual.” Ilana feels the need to reassure Abbi that their friendship will continue to take precedent, by telling her “she [Adele]’s not replacing you.” There is never any worry for the women on Broad City that a relationship, a job, or a responsibility will come between the friends and the bond they share. As Abbi learns about Adele, we see someone who just wants to support her best friend in any way she can. This means being able to support Ilana the way she supports her.

As illustrated, sex positivity on Broad City directly connects to the friendship Abbi and Ilana share. Regardless of the kind of situation the women find themselves in, they would truly do anything for each other. Above all, Jacobson and Glazer’s series is about celebrating women, specifically 20-somethings as they experience this moment in their lives. This celebratory praise of women begins with Abbi and Ilana’s friendship, where two women’s love and support for each other extends into every aspect of their lives. If Broad City is a love story between Abbi and Ilana, it is one that is adding an incredibly powerful portrayal and narrative about women to the landscape. For women to be supporting women and empowering one another above all, Broad City gives us not only an amazing depiction of sex positivity but one of the greatest portraits of female empowerment that is beyond worthy of praise.

References

Fehr (1996). Friendship Processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Johnson (1996). “Friendships Among Women, Closeness in Dialogue.” In J. T. Wood, Gendered Relationships (pp. 79-94). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Alexandra Shinert holds her M.A. in Media, Culture and Communication from NYU. She has spent time studying media portrayals and narratives, most notably on Girls and Broad City. She is genuinely interested in understanding 20-somethings and Millennials and appreciates a great TV reaction gif. You can connect with her on Twitter @AShinert

‘Inside Out’: Female Representation Onscreen But Not Off

It’s therefore unsurprising that the character who most drives the plot of the film is Riley’s dad (voiced by Kyle MacLachlan). In fact, the film is largely one big piece of advice for fathers from fathers.

(SPOILERS for Pixar’s Inside Out)

As pointed out by Natalie Wilson on Bitch Flicks, Pixar’s latest film, Inside Out, about a preteen girl and her characterized emotions, has plenty to enJoy. It’s a female-centric film, with three leading female protagonists – the 11-year-old Riley (voiced by Kaitlyn Dias), her leading emotion Joy (voiced by Amy Poehler), and Joy’s least favorite co-emotion, Sadness (voiced by Phyllis Smith). There are also many other female characters, such as Disgust (voiced by Mindy Kaling) and Riley’s best friend Meg (voiced by Paris Van Dyke), and unnamed but still important characters such as Riley’s mom (voiced by Diane Lane). So many female characters with leading or otherwise key roles in the story means that the Bechdel Test is passed in multiple scenes. Nevertheless, while there is much gender diversity, and to a lesser extent ethnic divsersity, there is much less diversity offscreen.

All four producers were men. Pete Docter and Ronaldo Del Carmen, a White man and a Man of Color, co-directed and came up with the story. Of the three people who wrote the screenplay, there was one woman (Meg LeFauve), and the music, film editing, and art direction were all done by men, and most of the rest of the crew is male. This is despite the fact that not only does the film feature many female characters, but most of the film actually takes place inside the mind of a girl. And yet, not only was the film mainly created by men, but even the scientific and psychological consultants who were brought on board to help Pixar create an accurate and authentic portrayal of the workings of a girl’s mind, were men. Sure, the daughters of the film’s creators provided the “inspiration” for the story, but it’s not their names on the film. It’s therefore unsurprising that the character who most drives the plot of the film is Riley’s dad (voiced by Kyle MacLachlan). In fact, the film is largely one big piece of advice for fathers from fathers.

Riley’s dad is the one who moves the family from Minnesota to San Francisco for the sake of his start-up business, and it is this move that is the impetus for the plot and the changes that take place in Riley. Though not portrayed as an actual villain, the film puts a fair amount of blame for Riley’s unhappiness on Riley’s mother. It is Riley’s mom who brings in the dad to reprimand Riley’s “attitude,” and the argument between Riley and her dad escalates quickly. It is Riley mom who most encourages Riley to “keep smiling” and be “happy,” putting pressure on Riley to show happiness and optimism whether she feels them or not for the sole sake of making the move easier on her parents. It is this pressure that hurts Riley the most. She feels such pressure to be happy that she even attempts to run away in order to find happiness, and steals money from her mother for her bus ticket.

This pressure on Riley to provide her parents with happiness is emphasized by the subtle but present fact that Riley is adopted, and by her mom’s line, “What did we ever do to deserve you.” Riley is blonde and blue-eyed, while both her parents have brown hair and eyes. When baby Riley “meet[s]” her parents, her mother does not look like she just gave birth, and isn’t sitting in a hospital bed. Riley’s parents adopted Riley to make them happy, and inadvertently put pressure on her to continue to make them happy by feigning constant happiness herself. At the end of the film, it is Riley’s father who gives the strongest lines of comfort to Riley, assuring her that it’s all right for her to miss Minnesota and to be sad. This elevates the role of the dad, while at times even condemning the mother. Though this is slightly balanced by portraying the mother as more intelligent than the father at times, this too emphasizes the kindness and innocence of the father and making the mother look like a downer and someone fast to criticize others.

The film serves a dual purpose: beautifully letting children know that it’s OK to feel sad sometimes, while also encouraging parents (especially fathers) to be more understanding of their children. The bond between fathers and daughters, and the inspiration for the film itself, is emphasized by the fact that while Riley is a complex character, much (if not most) of what makes her that way is her similarity to her father. Her father daydreams about hockey, and Riley plays hockey. Her father at first condemns her anger in their argument despite his leading emotion being anger. (Interestingly, the emotions in the mother’s head are female and the emotions is the father’s head are male, while Riley has emotions of both genders. Evidently, this was done so that the cast was more “diverse” because goodness knows that men need more roles in film…) The toll of the move is shown to be harder for Riley and her father, while her mother encourages Riley to make the move easier for her father by showing herself to be happy. At the end of the film, Riley and her father reunite due to their shared feelings of sadness, while mother’s emotions are given less consideration.

At the end of the film, Riley is problematically put into the male gaze, as not only Riley’s parents but a boy who instantly develops a crush on her watch her play hockey, and the male emotion Anger (voiced by Lewis Black) guides her actions. Despite there being many, many other ways to continue Riley’s story, when the DVD of Inside Out is released, it will contain a short about Riley’s first date (which will be with a boy) and the anxiety that her father feels about it. This further emphasizes Riley’s role in relation to men and boys, and arguably takes autonomy away from her by focusing on her father and the boy.

Male sacrifice is also emphasized by the film. Riley’s imaginary boyfriends constantly state that they would “die” for Riley, and there words are proven to be true statements. A more heartbreaking instance of male sacrifice is the one carried out by Riley’s imaginary friend Bing-Bong (voiced by Richard Kind). So emotional is the character’s storyline that more than one article has been dedicated to him, such as BuzzFeed’s humorous one and Slate’s interview with a child psychologist about Bing-Bong’s role.

I and many others loved Inside Out, and viewed it in theaters more than once due to liking it so much. Its female characters are well-developed and engaging, and pass the Bechdel Test often. The maternal role that Joy feels for Riley is beautiful, especially when Joy is watching a memory of Riley skating, and pretends to skate along with her. However, the film emphasizes the need for women behind the camera, and Hollywood can only ignore the voices shouting for diversity for so long.

Pixar’s ‘Inside Out’ Provides Long-Term Joy

As for ‘Inside Out,’ it gives us not one female protagonist, but three – Riley, Joy, and Sadness – and NONE of them are princesses! And, minor criticisms aside, the film is a true joy to watch – and, like deeply felt joy – it has its moments of hilarity, of reflection, of nostalgia, and, yes, of sadness too.

This guest post by Natalie Wilson previously appeared at Skirt Collective and is cross-posted with permission.

Inside Out is an excellent addition to the Pixar canon, one that, like the equally amazing Brave, has female characters front and center. A coming-of-age story about Riley, a young tween forced to leave her beloved Minnesota, the film departs from the typical stories about girlhood – stories that often focus, in soppy-romantic-teen-angsty fashion on L-O-V-E at the expense of character development and female friendship. Some of these films are good (yes, I admit to liking The Notebook), some are rather great (I sobbed my face off at The Fault in Our Stars), and some make me feel like spewing vomit Exorcist-style (Breaking Dawn). Inside Out is in a league of its own, however – hardly surprising given the unstoppable Amy Poehler is the lead voice.

Focusing mainly on the inner-workings of Riley’s brain, the film is a coming-to-emotional-maturity story featuring Riley’s main emotions – Joy (Amy Poehler), Fear (Bill Hader), Anger (Lewis Black), Disgust (Mindy Kaling) and Sadness (Phyllis Smith). These emotions run “Headquarters” – the part of Riley’s brain that creates the “core memories” making up her identity. The unflappable and infectious Joy believes herself to be Riley’s most important emotion, but when the usually happy Riley goes into a tailspin after the family’s move to San Francisco, havoc erupts at “Emotion Headquarters”causing Joy and Sadness to embark on a journey through Riley’s brain in hopes of salvaging her once happy, confident personality.

The movie is brimming with clever nods to how we think about thinking (Riley’s brain includes a “Train of Thought”), pop-psychology (trouble-making memories and thoughts get taken to the prison-like subconscious), and imaginary friends (in the form of Bing-Bong). It is perhaps Pixar’s deepest film, a laugh- and tear-fueled lesson about the key role emotions and our thoughts about them play in our lives. Nope, this is not the id-filled fun of Toy Story, or the ego-pumping race of Cars, but a super-ego tinged exploration of how our emotions will control us if we don’t get control of them.

Most of the movie takes place within the landscape of Riley’s mind, allowing for witty forays into the dream production center (replete with its “reality distortion filter”), inventive exploration of abstract thought (characterized as a “danger zone”), and adroit usage of those commercial ear-worms that take-over one’s brain. The scenes set in real-world San Francisco are similarly delightful, mocking the ire Riley feels when broccoli pizza is the only choice on the menu, evoking the horrors of being the new kid at school, and capturing the frustrations of trying to fit one’s old life into a new house.

The film’s use of emotion and memory is inventive and ingenious, ultimately offering a lesson about the importance of emotional diversity (hint: Joy, as it turns out, is not quite as important as she thinks). Adding to the poignancy of the emotional rollercoaster ride (my daughter named it “the saddest kids movie ever”), is the incredible cast of voice actors. Joy is reminiscent of Poehler’s ever-positive Parks and Rec character, while Phyllis Smith (from The Office) stands out ingeniously as Sadness, playing her blue-bodied character with the palpable dreary, depressive ennui that all of us (except Leslie Knope perhaps) experience at some point or another.

If I have a quibble with the film, it would be with its gendering of emotions. While it is hard to portray genderless characters to an audience still embroiled in the gender binary, some slight changes could have nudged the film towards a more gender-fluid narrative. Riley’s emotions are presented as a mixture of female (Joy, Sadness, Disgust) and male (Anger and Fear). This gendering of her emotions nods to the “unfixedness” of gender pre-puberty, especially as all the adults (most notably, her mom and dad) are presented as having emotions that match their sex/gender (and the dad’s are not only male, but think in sports terms!).

The end of the film, which includes a look inside the brains of various characters, accords with this view – that once someone moves beyond puberty into the realm of adulthood, one’s emotions “match” the sex/gender of the person. While this is a minor criticism of an otherwise great film, it could have been easily remedied by not stereotypically displaying the inner minds of post-puberty characters. I get it, stereotypes are a quick and fast route to comedy, but they also lead us to dead-end either/or thinking. One other beef is that Riley’s mom (voiced by Diane Lane) doesn’t seem to have a job. No, not ALL women have to have jobs/careers, and NOOOOOOOOOOOOO I am not saying that being a mother is not a more-than-full-time, important job — what I am questioning is a world in which dads are still depicted as the major breadwinners and also often get to be “good dads” to boot, while moms are more often “just moms.” Perhaps these gender-conforming aspects of the film can be partially put down to what one reviewer calls “the Mouse’s boot” on Pixar’s neck – or, in other words, the fact that Disney now owns Pixar. Yet, while Pixar admittedly gave us a marvelous run of inventive movies that put the tried-and-true princess narratives to shame, they were not without their gender problems, with Brave standing out as the most feminist in its exploration of gender confines that bind.

As for Inside Out, it gives us not one female protagonist, but three – Riley, Joy, and Sadness – and NONE of them are princesses! And, minor criticisms aside, the film is a true joy to watch – and, like deeply felt joy – it has its moments of hilarity, of reflection, of nostalgia, and, yes, of sadness too. I agree with this review, that “One viewing is nowhere near enough to appreciate the extraordinary level of detail lavished on this world.”

So see it and see it again, my many-emotioned friends, and take all your emotions with you, even the non-gender conforming ones!

Natalie Wilson teaches women’s studies and literature at California State University, San Marcos. She is the author of Seduced by Twilight and blogs for Ms., Girl with Pen and Bitch Flicks.

Eight Trailers to Watch (and Love or Hate After)

However, in honor of some possible greatness, let us consider some more films that could also be equally amazing, or as roundly terrible. Enjoy.

Melissa McCarthy is going to be in Ghostbusters! — Melissa McCarthy is going to be in *Ghostbusters*!

Written by Rachel Redfern.

There’s a reboot of Ghostbusters coming, a la femme, and of course people are freaking out. It’s not new to have reboot that retools popular characters into another gender, Battlestar Galactica did it to amazing success with the character of Starbuck; in fact, after some of the death threats against her died down, she became a fan favorite and easily the most dynamic part of the series. Now, Ghostbusters is an epic classic of Dan Akroyd and Bill Murray and I will love it forever, and I can’t really think of any beloved film with such a complete makeover before, so whether or not this new Ghostbusters will be as amazing is yet to be decided.

However, in honor of some possible greatness, let us consider some more films that could also be equally amazing, or as roundly terrible. Enjoy.

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bed87s9ORrk”]

Sisters

This is an easy one. Fan favorites and feminist/actress/producer/writer team extraordinaire Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are back together again as sisters. I imagine this is sort of how they are in real life? Anyway, we don’t know too much yet, just that they’re estranged sisters who really like the ’80s and are obviously back together for some embarrassing mischief and heartwarming family time.

What information does this offer us about women? Women are goddamned hilarious is what.

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoQuVnKhxaM”]

Ex Machina

I’m excited about this; so far the trailer is super ambiguous–who is manipulating whom? Is the female AI character evil? Consciously pulling the strings of the men of surrounding her? Or is she a victim? Abused, feared, and typecast by her obsessive creator? On an entertainment level I’m excited, on an intellectual level I’m intrigued.

From looking at the trailer it seems that either way we’ve got something interesting going on with sexuality, violence, creation and it’s telling, I think, that the AI figure is a woman Alicia Vikander (The Fifth Estate). Also starring Domnhall Gleeson (Bill Weasley in the Harry Potter films, Black Mirror) and Oscar Isaac (A Most Violent Year, Inside Llewyn Davis).

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3IsUOSHlnU”]

Cake

Woman has bad marriage and/or gets a cancer, many things go wrong, has sassy girlfriend and/or sexy new lover, woman finally find self-discovery, lots of tears in between. This kind of Hollywood “chick flick” inevitably seems destined for Girls Night Out everywhere, but usually gets a lot of disdain from critics and male filmmakers. On the one hand, I get it, there’s usually not much difference in the plot and characters between the films, and they all seems fairly formulaic. However, there is something very necessary and realistic about the women’s stories that these films tell.

Female dissatisfaction is something that Betty Friedan recognized in The Feminine Mystique, and these films tap into it with their themes of anger and dissatisfaction coupled with reinvention or discovery being the resolution. It’s a simple, very human problem, and it’s interesting that it appears so often in films meant for women.

This film seems to fulfill much of that formula, with the addition of one unique detail: Anna Kendrick as the dead wife of Jennifer Aniston’s new flame/friend. Female friendship wrapped up in the darkness of suicide and chronic illness.

This one could be different.

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62E4FJTwSuc”]

Terminator Genisys

The Terminator franchise feels like it’s been around forever, and regardless of its age, still manages to be a big moneymaker. And with the popularity of the Hollywood reboot in top form, Terminator is going to get one, again.

I bring up this trailer because it has Emilia Clarke in it (Danaerys Targaryen, mother of dragons, queen of everything she decides she wants, Winter is Coming ya’ll), so it should bring in that crowd. Also, Arnold is back, or at least a lot of CGI Arnold is back, proving that his original, fame-creating phrase, “I’ll be back” should actually be, “I’ll return incessantly.”

Anyway, minus the fact that Sarah Connor is a kick-ass rescuer instead of the rescuee, this new Terminator feels pretty stock and trade Hollywood action film reboot and I’m feeling pretty meh about it.

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgbBwovOOoc”]

The Boy Next Door

I think the premise here is actually really interesting: dissatisfied woman has sexual relationship with high school boy, creating a destructive and obsessive situation that wrecks itself on their suburban life.

However, I think the dialogue here is struggling a bit, what with comments like “I love your mom’s cookies” and, as he takes her clothes off, “No judgments.” The whole thing looks like it could go the way of shirtless cliché.

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp20Kn2VbYE#t=48″]

Queen of The Desert

Back in college, while taking an excellent, now-seemingly pretentious sounding course, “The Desert Sublime,” I studied Getrude Bell, famous anthropologist and explorer. She was an amazing woman who we just don’t hear that much about today; however, Nicole Kidman is about to change all that.

Kidman plays the Victorian traveler in an intriguing new biopic (not to be confused with the Hugo Weaving film, Priscilla, Queen of the Desert) from Werner Herzog. Bell’s story is pretty incredible and I can’t wait to see it on the silver screen, I’m a bit hesitant about her costars however: James Franco (Harry Osbourne!), Robert Pattinson (Edward!), Damian Lewis (Nicholas Brody!). I just struggle to see these actors outside of the 21^st century, and maybe have some personal issues with a few of them.

Also, I can’t tell from the clip what exactly to expect from the rest of the film, but I’m going to hope for the best. Queen of the Desert premiers this month at the Berlin International Film Festival.

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L-9rcEhGm4″]

Clouds of Sils Maria

How actresses are expected to age has cropped up in the news lately. Juliette Binoche’s new film, Clouds of Sils Maria is pretty obviously addressing that issue. But it looks like its also addressing a lot more–namely fame and female relationships.

In the trailer, Binoche’s opposite is Chloe Moretz, whose character seems like a pretty pretentious, bitchy actress, but I’m assuming that’s just the tip of the iceberg we’re seeing so far. Then there’s this complicated relationship she’s got going on with her much younger assistant, Kristen Stewart, a relationship that seems ambiguous; is Stewart using the Binoche for her fame? Is Binoche sexually attracted to her employee? Lustful? Jealous? Obsessive? We’re not really sure yet.

Either way, Binoche and Moretz are amazing actresses, and in an out-of-character move, Stewart looks great.

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zc3KTQJvK4&spfreload=10″]

Spy

I really like Melissa McCarthy. I’ve liked her since Gilmore Girls, up through Bridesmaids, The Heat (not so much with Tammy and Identity Thief, but hey, Samuel L. Jackson has Snakes on a Plane, so ya know, equality), and now probably this. It’s a spy movie where over half of the top seven people on the bill are women: this is a big deal people! Allison Janney will also be there and she’s hilarious, British comedienne Miranda Hart (obviously funny), and Rose Byrne, who isn’t known for being funny, but was also in Bridesmaids, so it looks like she can definitely be funny.

The plot doesn’t seem particularly difficult to guess, I’m assuming that McCarthy will get her bad guy in the end, but not before making a mess of things and engaging in comedic gold. Also, that bit with Janney and Statham about the use of the “T” word was actually pretty brilliant. More, please.

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPyYEqYSo9A”]

_____________________________________________________

Rachel Redfern has an MA in English literature, where she conducted research on modern American literature and film and its intersection; however, she spends most of her time watching HBO shows, traveling, and blogging and reading about feminism.

Bitch Flicks’ Weekly Picks: Awards Edition

Check out what we’ve been reading this week–and let us know what you’ve been reading/writing in the comments!

Golden Globes

Strong Female Lead: A Feminist Golden Globes Show by Megan Garber at The Atlantic

Breaking Through Hollywood’s Celluloid Ceiling by Jenevieve Ting at Ms. blog

Watch Gina Rodriguez’s Tearful Golden Globe Speech by Jamilah King at Colorlines

‘Ask better questions’: Amy Poehler’s inspired feminist Golden Globes campaign against the awards show gender divide by Helen Nianias at The Independent

Who Won the Golden Globes? Women. by Jill Filipovic at Cosmopolitan

The Biggest Lesson From This Year’s Golden Globes: Women’s Stories Matter by Sophie Kleeman at Mic

Margaret Cho Has No Regrets About That Golden Globes Running Gag by Alison Willmore at BuzzFeed

Oscars

Some Thoughts on the 2015 Oscar Nominees by Roxane Gay at The Toast

The “Selma” Best Director Oscar Snub: What It Means To a Black Female Filmmaker by Nijla Mumin at Shadow and Act

It’s No Surprise That the Oscars Snubbed “Selma” by Evette Dione at Bitch Media

White, Male by Michele Kort at Ms. blog

People Are Tweeting Their Thoughts About The Fact That #OscarsSoWhite by Emily Orley at BuzzFeed

Why female filmmakers need powerful allies by Monika Bartyzel at The Week

Why Ava DuVernay’s ‘Selma’ Oscar Snub Matters by Scott Mendelson at Forbes

2015 Oscar Nominations: A Dark Day for Women in Hollywood by Melissa Silverstein at Women and Hollywood

What have you been reading/writing this week? Tell us in the comments!

Bitch Flicks’ Weekly Picks

Check out what we’ve been reading this week–and let us know what you’ve been reading/writing in the comments!

The year in TV: How the shows of 2014 remade “masculinity” on television by Sonia Saraiya at Salon

Why Aren’t We Talking About the Sexual Assault in ‘Beyond the Lights’? by Shannon M. Houston at Shadow and Act

An Updated ‘Annie’ And The Tradition Of Nontraditional Casting by Bob Mondello at NPR

Why a Black Annie Is So Significant by Imran Siddiquee at The Atlantic

Why is Hollywood Scared of Wonder Woman? by Veronica I. Arreola at Bitch Media

Women of “Action!” by Denene Miller at Essence

Jennifer Lawrence: Legal Tipping Point for Women in Hollywood? by Maria Giese at Ms. blog

Sony Hack Reveals the Insufferable Whiteness of Hollywood by Tanya Steele at Shadow and Act

Amy Pascal Sets Back Women in Hollywood and Race Issues in One Fell Swoop by Joanne Cronrath Bamberger at the broad side

The Interview: just one subplot in Sony’s troubled big picture by Justin McCurry at The Guardian

Hollywood has a race problem — and it’s on display in Ridley Scott’s new movie ‘Exodus’ at PRI

‘Sisters’ Photo Reunites Our Favorite BFFs Tina Fey and Amy Poehler by Britt Hayes at Screen Crush

First Look: Queen Latifah To Star As Blues Icon Bessie Smith In 2015 HBO Film by Stacy-Ann Ellis at Vibe

The Final Hobbit Film: One Kick-Ass Chick Among the Sausagefest by Natalie Wilson at Ms. blog

The Queer Women of Color Video Streaming Service That’s Cheaper Than Netflix by Jamilah King at Colorlines

The Most Important Feminist Film Moments of 2014 by Melissa Silverstein at Women and Hollywood

Ava DuVernay Has Multi-Episode TV Series on “Black Experience in America” in the Works by Sergio at Shadow and Act

As an Urban Feminist, I Was Surprised to Fall in Love With “Nashville.” by Aya de Leon at Bitch Media

What have you been reading/writing this week? Tell us in the comments!

15 Funny Women for 2014

On the subject of female comediennes, A.O. Scott, ‘New York Times’ movie critic, recently wrote, “The ‘can women be funny?’ pseudo-debate of a few years ago, ridiculous at the time, has been settled so decisively it’s as if it never happened…The real issue, in any case, was never the ability of women to get a laugh but rather their right to be as honest as men.” I love A.O. Scott and his writing is brilliant, and I agree with him—the “can women be funny?” argument is a weird pseudo-debate that managed to gain traction on the big world of the web.

Written by Rachel Redfern.

On the subject of female comediennes, A.O. Scott, New York Times movie critic, recently wrote, “The ‘can women be funny?’ pseudo-debate of a few years ago, ridiculous at the time, has been settled so decisively it’s as if it never happened…The real issue, in any case, was never the ability of women to get a laugh but rather their right to be as honest as men.” I love A.O. Scott and his writing is brilliant, and I agree with him—the “can women be funny?” argument is a weird pseudo-debate that managed to gain traction on the big world of the web.

However, I disagree slightly. I don’t think its as if the debate never happened, because for some insane reason, women have to keep proving that they are funny. Studies have been done to discover why woman might not be perceived as humorous as men and documentaries have explored the topic with famous comedians. Why people seem to believe that there aren’t funny women out there when there seem to be a million examples of hard-working funny women producing and creating funny material everyday, remains a strangely resilient, sexist mystery.

I mean SNL has been a hot spot for female comediennes for about 30 years—have people not noticed that a staple of modern comedy has been staffed by women for a LONG time?

Tina Fey and Amy Poehler

Tina Fey and Amy Poehler: the two incredibly popular, insanely talented funny women just sort of rule over popular comedy on TV—did you see them host the Golden Globes when they were awesome and made fun of George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, made out with Bono (who makes out with Bono?) and cross-dressed. No one could ever deny that those two women aren’t talented and ridiculously hard working. Both of them write and produce TV shows and movies all the time. Do you know how hard that is? To write a full-length feature film and multiple episodes of TV shows? Oh, and books. I’ve been working on a novel for like five years and it’s still not finished.

[youtube_sc url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc8HwtqhNDY”]

Betty White

How about Betty White, who remains awesome and hilarious and could probably beat me in a 5K and she’s 83.

[youtube_sc url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv3c4pBZYiI”]

Julia Louis-Dreyfuss

There’s also Julia Louis-Dreyfuss who just racks up awards for TV comedy (also an alumni of SNL) and has been producing fantastic comedy since 1987 (longer than most of our readership has been alive). She’s an all-around comedienne whose portrayal of a self-centered, out of touch, Vice President of the United States of America on VEEP is absolutely spot on and fantastic. I love that she can portray someone so unlikeable and still make us love her.

[youtube_sc url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4FHpJ4Ri8w”]

Fran Drescher

I know that she’s probably not on many “funny women lists,” but she should be. Drescher is not only a writer, producer, and actress (The Nanny, The Simpsons, Thank God You’re Here, Living With Fran), she’s also one of the strongest, most inspiring women in Hollywood. Just Google her and understand exactly what this woman has been through in her life and how’s she not only, still funny and optimistic, but also a legit activist and US diplomat for Women’s Health Issues. Respect Fran Drescher.

[youtube_sc url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDioSZ8YUDM”]

Kirsten Wiig

Did you see Bridesmaids? Have you ever watched SNL?

[youtube_sc url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9sCsfoyN8o”]

Isla Fischer

Isla Fischer: First off, she’s married to Sascha Baren Cohen so you know she has a sense of humor. But more than that I love the way she completely commits to ditzy, hilarious roles (The Bachelorette, Confessions of a Shopaholic, Hot Rod). In fact, I can’t even think of any Isla Fischer role that wasn’t comedic.

[youtube_sc url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sotx95oNMuA”]

Sarah Silverman

Sarah Silverman: that woman has a mouth like a sailor and I want to be with her all the time. She says the C-word more than a drunk me and I love her. Oh, and she’s also hilarious, her standup is fantastic and she’s also not a bad actress (she was the best part of that weird movie, Take This Waltz).

[youtube_sc url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSfoF6MhgLA”]

Melissa McCarthy

Melissa McCarthy is bold and incredibly brave with her comedy—she’s a master of gross physical comedy and as a woman, that takes guts. I would actually consider one of the most cutting-edge female comediennes out there right out, and definitely the bravest. I want more interviews with a woman who is incredibly versatile and not afraid to take risks—Also, her gun-loving, foul-mouthed, “sex-goddess” role in The Heat was just fantastic, more funny characters with contradictions please!

[youtube_sc url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHPtRjo67pM”]

Sandra Bullock

Sandra Bullock unfairly has a very “girl next door” reputation, despite the fact that 90 percent of her career has been devoted to very silly, funny, relatable comedy.

[youtube_sc url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYYcvTrd7-A”]

Mindy Kaling

Mindy Kaling: we all know her, and obviously this lady is one hell of a comedy writer. She started writing for The Office at an insanely young age (thanks for making me feel like a failure at life—you too, Lena Dunham), and then creating her own show. The Mindy Project is, I think, actually a high-cut above your standard sitcom, the jokes are funny and pointed, and Kaling has managed to cobble together a very silly, pop-culture-obsessed, shallow woman, and mix her up with an insanely smart, outspoken gynecologist, normal-sized, woman of color. Hello complex character that more accurately reflects women in America!

[youtube_sc url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9khXnRPsYGQ”]

Amy Sedaris

Amy Sedaris: if you don’t know who that is, go and Google her. If I could go to any dinner party in the world, I would ask that it be at Amy Sedaris’ house. Sedaris’ straight-faced comedy is in its own category of genuine silliness, biting sarcasm, and sheer absurdism. I died when I read her Simple Times: Crafting for Poor People book and desperately wish that she would bring back her show, Strangers with Candy, on Comedy Central and go back to writing that insane advice column.

[youtube_sc url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te-MKE6kPzo”]

Ilana Glazer and Abbi Jacobson

Broad City: Have you seen this quirky new show on Comedy Central? Created by newcomers Ilana Glazer and Abbi Jacobson (and produced by Amy Poehler) as a spin-off of their web series, there’s a scene in ep. 6 that had me in tears it was so brilliant. Again, young, talent-ridden comediennes bursting with genuine, funny girl comedy that is so “buddy-buddy” and focused on female friendship that we could just talk about it for days.

[youtube_sc url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5ufnqqP5dc”]

Chelsea Handler

Chelsea Handler: I get that a lot of people find Chelsea Handler a bit in-your-face with her, “I got drunk and slept with my boss” kind of humor, however I think she’s marks a really important step for comediennes. Handler is crass, sexual, wildly inappropriate, brags about her lack of self-awareness, and most importantly, doesn’t apologize. Handler has put herself out there as an unreformed party girl and carved out a great space for funny women who also may or may not be alcoholics and sex addicts. Cool. The world needs all kinds and her unabashed account of one-night stands in My Horizontal Life is hilarious and awe-inspiring.

Oh, and she was also the only female comedy-based late-night talk show host for about eight years and told off Piers Morgan for being an idiot.

[youtube_sc url=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUkW9umVUqs”]

________________________________________

Rachel Redfern has an MA in English literature, where she conducted research on modern American literature and film and its intersection, however she spends most of her time watching HBO shows, traveling, and blogging and reading about feminism.

‘Baby Mama’ Makes Fun of Pregnancy More Than Poor People

Shockingly, despite both Tina Fey and Amy Poehler being on my Fantasy Dinner Party Guest List, it took me six years to finally watch Baby Mama, the 2008 surrogacy comedy starring everyone’s favorite FFBFFs (famous funny best friends forever). I made the classic error of judging a movie by its trailer and thought ‘Baby Mama’ was going to be 90 minutes of “this old bat has such raging baby fever she lowers herself to associating with—get this—poor people!” and/or “This chick is so poor she sublets her uterus! It’s funny because she’s poor.”

'Baby Mama' movie poster — *Baby Mama* movie poster

Shockingly, despite both Tina Fey and Amy Poehler being on my Fantasy Dinner Party Guest List, it took me six years to finally watch Baby Mama, the 2008 surrogacy comedy starring everyone’s favorite FFBFFs (famous funny best friends forever).

Aside from having been released during the pop culture blackout period that was my first year of law school my giant mistake, I also made the classic error of judging a movie by its trailer and thought Baby Mama was going to be 90 minutes of “this old bat has such raging baby fever she lowers herself to associating with—get this—poor people!” and/or “This chick is so poor she sublets her uterus! It’s funny because she’s poor.”

Amy Poehler's Angie holds breast pumps over her eyes. — Amy Poehler’s Angie holds breast pumps over her eyes.

Fortunately, Baby Mama is not as grossly classist as I feared. Yes, Tina Fey’s Kate, the wealthy businesswoman who can’t get pregnant, is shocked by her surrogate Angie (Amy Poehler) for everything from her diet (heavily featuring Tastykakes and Dr Pepper) to her manners (discarding gum under a reclaimed barnwood coffee table) to her interests (the American Idol karaoke video game Kate bought for her niece). But the audience is invited to laugh at both sides of the class divide between these characters, and there are actually significantly fewer jabs at Angie for being insufficiently classy than there are at Kate for being a yuppie snob. It’s just that peeing in the sink makes for better trailer material than jokes about forced nicknames for gentrified neighborhoods.

"You peed in the sink, isn't that against everyone's rules?" — “You peed in the sink, isn’t that against everyone’s rules?”

However, if you’re looking for any kind of meaningful exploration of the power dynamics and body politics inherent to contracted surrogate pregnancies, Baby Mama is not your movie. This is strictly a situation comedy, with a surprising reliance on plot twists and a mostly superfluous romantic subplot involving Greg Kinnear as a slightly more sincere yippie (Young Urban Professional Hippie) than Kate. A lot of the humor is derived from the absurdities that apply to pregnancy and parenting more generally rather than surrogacy specifically: birth shaming, strollers with airbags, books like 101 Things That Can Go Wrong With Your Pregnancy.

Kate reads 101 Things That Can Go Wrong With Your Pregnancy — Kate reads *101 Things That Can Go Wrong With Your Pregnancy*

But, the surrogacy forces the Hollywood Movie Unobtainium that is a central female relationship. And it is the chemistry between Fey and Poehler that keeps this movie afloat despite its meandering pace, some repeated jokes that never quite land (Steve Martin as Kate’s boss is one yuppie joke too many, Sigourney Weaver as the surprisingly fertile surrogacy agent), pointless tertiary characters (Maura Tierney as Kate’s supermom sister, Romany Malco as Kate’s weirdly ubiquitous doorman), and a final plot twist that made me feel like I had morning sickness.

Really, if the combined powers of Tina Fey and Amy Poehler can make a movie as thoroughly mediocre as Baby Mama so much fun to watch, we should probably be legally requiring them to make at least one movie together a year. Call your congressperson.

Robin Hitchcock is an American writer living in Cape Town who just looked up how many days there are until the next Golden Globes (129).

‘They Came Together’ and the Sins of Romantic Comedy

It’s easy to look at the ads for ‘They Came Together’ and expect a straight romcom. The poster and the film are glossy and full of comedic stars. New York is so important to the story it’s like another character. The leads, Amy Poehler and Paul Rudd as Molly and Joel, play exaggerations of the roles they could be cast in in any other film. She’s the big-hearted and dangerously clumsy proprietor of a quirky little candy shop that gives all its proceeds to charity, while he’s a big candy executive who dreams of a simpler life, obsesses over sex, and threatens to shut down Molly’s shop. They get together. That much is obvious once you hear it’s a romantic comedy.

It’s easy to look at the ads for They Came Together and expect a straight romcom. The poster and the film are glossy and full of comedic stars. New York is so important to the story it’s like another character. The leads, Amy Poehler and Paul Rudd as Molly and Joel, play exaggerations of the roles they could be cast in in any other film. She’s the big-hearted and dangerously clumsy proprietor of a quirky little candy shop that gives all its proceeds to charity, while he’s a big candy executive who dreams of a simpler life, obsesses over sex, and threatens to shut down Molly’s shop. They get together.

That much is obvious once you hear it’s a romantic comedy.

They Came Together, the latest from David Wain and Michael Showalter, the team behind cult pic Wet Hot American Summer, intends to parody these easy conventions, and though an enjoyable film, it’s debatable what it actually accomplishes. Comedy is a difficult matter to critique as so much of what we find humorous is specific to us as individuals, as well as to factors like our culture, class, and age, that it’s nearly impossible for one person to stand up on a soapbox and declare whether or not something is funny. Adding to that, They Came Together is a polarizing film by nature. Its humor is absurdist and jokes zig and zag completely out of left field, sometimes feeling more like an extended sketch than a feature film. There are subtle visual gags, highly telegraphed centerpiece jokes, clever observations about life both in the real world and in the sunny world of the romantic comedy, plenty of raunch and some of those repetition bits that run just long enough to stop being funny and then to get funny again, thrown in for good measure. In short, it’s a comedy grab bag for which both rants and raves are justified.

Joel is given advice by friends, A-list comedians who each represent a different archetype

Much of the romcom references are bang on. The basic plot, cribbed from You’ve Got Mail, pegs an uptight man against a free-spirited woman and tells us he needs her to help him believe in his dreams, while she needs him to help her become more grounded. To stress this point, they’re even given wrong partners as contrast, ever-literal accountant Eggbert (Ed Helms) and perfectly put together Tiffany (Cobie Smulders). All the genre staples we know and are growing tired of are there: Joel gets advice from basketball playing pals who each represent a different point of view (and tell us out-right which idea they represent), they bond over their “quirky” shared tastes, in this case a love of fiction books and a hatred for the complications of modern life, spread their clothes all over Molly’s apartment while making out and fall in love through a montage that shows them buying fruit and playing in fallen leaves.

Joel and Molly fall in love through a montage of cliche activities

There are also some new and intriguing points made by the film about how race and class are portrayed in earnest examples of the genre. For existence, Molly’s assistant is Black woman who appears to have no life other than helping her, even picking up the phone in one scene and assuming the call is for Molly before even asking. Later into the film, it is revealed that Molly has a young son, and has such an easy time being a single mother that his presence in her life wasn’t even noticeable until it was pointed out. The movie fantasy of easy success and money is also briefly deconstructed in the end, when the main character’s business fails and cannot be salvaged.

With the film’s absurdist style, the plot and characters can’t really be dissected at length. But a romcom parody is particularly interesting for its power to point out annoying or offensive staples of the genre, in particular, their portrayals of women. Though a genre geared toward women, female characters in romantic comedies are uniformly portrayed as cardboard cut-outs, needy bleeding hearts or catty and conniving villains. In They Came Together, the one-dimensional nature of the female characters is pointed out as part of the joke. Molly’s business is failing because of her compulsion to give candy away and she never once thinks of changing the way she runs things. Likewise, Tiffany tells Joel point-blank that she is untrustworthy. In contrast, Joel is a complicated character who supports his younger brother, is conflicted about his job, and has strange feelings for his grandmother.

Joel’s ex Tiffany warns him to be suspicious of her morals while seducing him — Joel’s ex Tiffany warns him to be suspicious of her motives while seducing him

The difference between men and women is also boiled down to one point, that men are easy-going and order from the menu, while women are needlessly complicated (like Meg Ryan in When Harry Met Sally) and have impossible specifications for how their food must be prepared. This idea, a common one in romantic comedies that has even bleed into real life expectations, is clearly posed as ridiculous.

But one target the film should have paid more attention to is the derision of the romantic comedy genre without our collective culture. When a new romcom opens, most of us expect it to be terrible, sight unseen. Horror films, another genre that can be cheaply and quickly made, don’t suffer the same derision, perhaps because the genre is generally geared toward a masculine audience. While bad horror is recognized as such, masters like John Carpenter and Wes Craven are still routinely praised, even by film buffs who are not major fans of the horror genre. Meanwhile, giants of romcoms like the late Nora Ephron, are seen as bi-words for schmaltzy “chick” movies no serious person would admit to liking. In my own life, I can’t recall the last time I heard a woman admit to a fondness for the likes of Sleepless in Seattle or Never Been Kissed without adding “as a guilty pleasure” in a knee-jerk reaction.

The ladies of ‘game-changing’ romantic comedy Bridesmaids — The ladies of ‘game-changing’ romantic comedy *Bridesmaids*

That was a big part of the wild success of Bridesmaids and its reputation as a game-changer: while a lot of the story presented wasn’t new, it was the first romantic comedy in a long time that we were “allowed” to like as something more than the garbage film meant for watching alone in sweatpants while nursing a carton of Hagen Daas.

Somehow it got drummed into our heads that the romantic comedy isn’t meant for us.

I’m making some wild generalizations about you as a reader here, but I’m going to guess that you’re something like me. You consider yourself smart, cynical and wary of the phase, “Well if you didn’t like it, that means you didn’t get it.” I’m not generally a fan of romcoms, but I’m starting to wonder how much of that distaste comes from the idea that they’re not “serious movies,” that they’re not worth my time, that I’m not supposed to like them. Sure, I’m turned off by the cutesy modern touches like klutzy women, quirky businesses, the plague of architect love interests (one trope missing from They Came Together) and honestly by the term “romcom” itself, but none of those things are that tied up in my ideas of modern womanhood and my comportment. I roll my eyes at them and I’m over it.

A romantic comedy where characters always succeed regardless of business sense or marketability and end up up happily ever after, is like a fairy tale to me; I don’t feel held to the expectations of women presented in them. But what I do feel constrained by is the idea of a universal taste, the final opinions formed in almost unspoken consensus that this show is a masterpiece or this show is crap, wherein anyone who disagrees loses all credibility.

Genres that cater to women are already disadvantaged in this respect as they’re seen as veering away from the universal, generally masculine path of canonized media. No matter how much important journalism or honest snapshots of our lives women’s magazines present, they’re still seen as trash. Female bloggers that write in a colloquial style that mirrors their style of speech and engages with their female readers are seen as unserious and dumb. Likewise, Girls was only acceptable as a good show after it gained the approval of young male viewers and with the approval of bro-humorist Judd Apatow.

There’s joke I’ve heard a lot recently: “I’m not like most girls”- most girls.

For most young educated women, romantic comedies are for those others, the stereotypical girl we imagine existing somewhere (basically characters played by Mindy Kaling), the one we’re deathly afraid of appearing be. We claim not to diet, we have female friends, we would never force a date to see the latest Jen Aniston movie, we call ourselves low maintenance. Sure, we want someone to love but we don’t see it as the ultimate goal in life.

But in truth? I’m sure we’ve all got “girly” things we truly love that compromise a good portion of identity. And it shouldn’t be shameful to like things that are supposed to be for women, just like shouldn’t be shameful to reject them or to like media geared toward both masculine and feminine audiences.

As in most romantic comedies, Joel and Molly have a meet cute when they wear the same costume to a halloween party

It’s probably taking things too far to say I hope They Came Together will change filmmaking or consumption; it’s a light comedic parody without activist intentions. Still, it’s the kind of film that, intentionally or not, makes you think about what we’re used to seeing on the screen and wonder why we have accepted certain ideas presented to us without complaint. Like why is one genre for women and another for men/everyone?

It hasn’t always been this way. Past romantic comedies from the 30s, even through the 90s where much of the tropes in They Came Together originated from, have been acclaimed as serious films, targeted to a universal audience and even Academy Award-ed. Many of these films were even posed from a masculine point of view, following a male character’s quest for love instead of a woman’s.

Sure They Came Together is parody, but despite its basic romantic comedy structure, it’s aimed at any audience appreciative of its brand of comedy and assumes even male viewers are familiar with the genre. Is it hopelessly naive to wish that the very existence of this film, which takes for granted that the audience will recognize romantic comedy tropes and see them as stale, will lead to some innovations?

See Also: The Romantic Comedy is Dead

________________________________________________________________________

Elizabeth Kiy is a Canadian writer and freelance journalist living in Toronto, Ontario.