Tag: Gender Trouble

Bitch Flicks’ Weekly Picks

Each of the wives deals with the different schools of thought within feminism in ways that roughly align with their ages. The three tell the generational story of feminism, albeit in broad and heavily stereotyped ways.

What’s interesting about the expressions of feminism is that they are happening within a family structure where the husband/father is at the center as the authority. 

Of 4,315 adults across the UK who were surveyed, a clear majority believe cinema too often falls back on discredited stereotypes, including sexless older women, drug dealing, oversexualised black people and gay people whose lives are dominated by their sexuality.

Almost two-thirds of those questioned believe older women are “significantly underrepresented” in films. They are rarely portrayed as sexual beings and are, generally, only given marginal roles, according to the findings, published exclusively in the Guardian today. 

The Fort Lee Film Commission is sponsoring a symposium next month dedicated to the first female filmmaker in cinema history, Alice Guy Blache, as part of the 2011 Garden State Film Festival (GSFF) in Asbury Park, New Jersey. The symposium, Reel Jersey Girls: Alice Guy to Today–a Century of Women in Film, is a key event, said Fort Lee Film Commission executive director Tom Meyers, at what he calls “the largest annual film festival in the state of New Jersey.”

Alice Guy Blache, one of the first three filmmakers in France, began directing in the 1890s. In 1912, Blache came to the then motion picture capital of the world, Fort Lee, and built her $100,000 studio, Solax, on Lemoine Ave. There she produced, wrote ad directed hundreds of films, according to Meyers. 

Whatever the strategy, director Deborah Kampmeier says she hopes that women and men can reach parity in the film industry, because film is so important to our culture. Kampmeier says that “films are the place in society that we really sit around the campfire and tell our stories and make our myths, and really create our future as a society. And 93 percent of those stories are being told by men, and this is a chronic, very unhealthy balance.”

The Group from Papermag: 

It’s a really good time to be young, female, funny, smart–and a little bit weird and awkward. Meet the members of Hollywood’s unlikely new in-crowd.

The Manic Pixie Dream Girl is a cute, bubbly, young (usually white) woman who has recently entered the life of our brooding hero to teach him how to loosen up and enjoy life. While that might sound all well and good for the man, this trope leaves women as simply there to support the star on his journey of self discovery with no real life of her own.

Winter’s Bone Q and A from Women and Hollywood: 

Here’s the Q and A from the Athena Film Festival with Debra Granik, Anne Rosellini and moderated by IndieWIRE’s Anne Thompson of Thompson on Hollywood. 

Leave your links in the comments.

Best Picture Nominee Review Series: Toy Story 3

Toy Story is the fourth film featured in our series of reviews leading up to the 2011 Academy Awards ceremony.  Be sure to check out our reviews of Black Swan, Inception, and Winter’s Bone.

Third Time Still Not the Charm for Toy Story’s Female Characters
This guest post also appears at the Ms. Magazine Blog and Professor, what if …? 
Toy Story 3 opens on a woman-empowerment high, with Mrs. Potato-Head displaying mad train-robbing skills and cowgirl Jessie skillfully steering her faithful horse Bullseye in the ensuing chase. And that’s the end of that: From there on, the film displays the same careless sexism as its predecessors.

Out of seven new toy characters at the daycare where the majority of the narrative takes place, only one is female–the purple octopus whose scant dialogue is voiced by Whoopi Goldberg. Although two of the toys in the framing scenes with Bonnie, the girl who ultimately becomes the toys’ new owner, are female, the ratio is still far worse than the average in children’s media of one-female-to-every-three-males (documented by The Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media). And these ratios have a real effect: Decades of research shows that kids who grow up watching sexist shows are more likely to internalize stereotypical ideas of what men and women are supposed to be like.

Toy Story’s latest installment revolves around now-17-year-old Andy leaving college. His mom (who has yet to be given a name) insists (in rather nagging fashion) that he store or get rid of all his “junk.” The bag of toys mistakenly ends up in the trash, resulting in the toys landing in a prison-like daycare (way to turn the knife on working parent guilt).

In typical Pixar fashion, male characters dominate the film. Though it ends with young Bonnie as the happy new owner of the toys, making way for more sequels, Woody would have to become Wanda, and Buzz become Betty, in order for the series to break Pixar’s male-only protagonist tradition (think Wall-E, A Bug’s Life, Cars, Monster, Inc, The Incredibles).

Bo Peep is inexplicably missing in this third installment, leaving even fewer female figures. Barbie has a larger role this time around though, as an overly emotional, often crying girlie-girl. She is also a traitor of sorts, breaking away from the gang to go live with Ken in his dream house.

As for Ken, he is depicted as a closeted gay fashionista with a fondness for writing in sparkly purple ink with curly-Q flourishes. Played for adult in-jokes, Ken huffily insists, “I am not a girl toy, I am not!” when an uber-masculine robot toy suggests so during a heated poker match. Pairing homophobia with misogyny, the jokes about Ken suggest that the worst things a boy can be are either a girl or a homosexual.

Barbie ultimately rejects Ken and is instrumental in Woody and company’s escape, but her hyper-feminine presentation, coupled with Ken’s not-yet-out-of-the-toy-cupboard persona, make this yet another family movie that perpetuates damaging gender and sexuality norms.

While the girls in the audience are given the funny and adventurous Jessie, they are also taught women talk too much: Flirty Mrs. Potato-Head, according to new character Lotso, needs her mouth taken off. Another lesson is that when women do say something smart, it’s so rare as to be funny (laughter ensues when Barbie says “authority should derive from the consent of the governed”), and that even when they are smart and adventurous, what they really care about is nabbing themselves a macho toy to love (as when Jessie falls for the Latino version of Buzz–a storyline, that, yes, also plays on the “Latin machismo lover” stereotype).

As for non-heterosexual audience members, they learn that being gay is so funny that the best thing to do is hide one’s sexuality by playing heterosexual, and to laugh along when others mock homosexuality or non-normative masculinity.

Yes, the film is funny and clever. Yes, it is enjoyable and fresh. Yes, it contains the typical blend of witty dialogue as well as a visual feast-for-the-eyes. But, no, Pixar has not left its male-heterocentric scripts behind. Nor has it moved beyond the “everyone is white and middle class” suburban view of the world. Perhaps we should expect no more from Pixar, especially now that Disney, the animated instiller of gender and other norms (a great documentary on this is Mickey Mouse Monopoly), now owns the studio. Sadly, Toy Story 3 indicates that animated films from Pixar will not be giving us a “whole new world,” at least when it comes to gender norms, anytime soon.

[Note: the comments on this post at the Ms. Magazine Blog make a great companion to this review!]
Natalie Wilson, PhD is a literature and women’s studies scholar, blogger, and author. She teaches at Cal State San Marcos and specializes in areas of gender studies, feminism, feminist theory, girl studies, militarism, body studies, boy culture and masculinity, contemporary literature, and popular culture. She is author of the blogs Professor, what if …? and Seduced by Twilight. She is a proud feminist mom of two feminist kids (one daughter, one son) and is an admitted pop-culture junkie. Her favorite food is chocolate.  Her other guest posts at Bitch Flicks include Let Me In, Lost, Nurse Jackie, and The United States of Tara.

Movie Preview: The Tempest

Director Julie Taymor’s (Across the Universe, Frida) adaptation of the Shakespeare classic The Tempest includes one central deviation from its source material: the central character’s gender has been changed. Prospero is now Prospera, played by the incomparable Helen Mirren. The switch should change a major dynamic in the story–the relationship between Prospero/a and the daughter.

Critics don’t seem to be loving the film thus far, but here’s a nice summation from Entertainment Weekly’s Lisa Schwarzbaum:

Taymor repositions Shakespeare’s mysterious story of magic, revenge, and forgiveness on a strange island by turning the play’s vexed sorcerer, Prospero, into a sorceress, Prospera, played by Helen Mirren with moody feminist authority.

Personally, I enjoy most Shakespeare adaptations–even the bad ones–and am interested in what Taymor has done with this one.

Here’s the film’s trailer:


And an interview with Taymor on The Colbert Report:


The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Julie Taymor
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog March to Keep Fear Alive

Guest Writer Wednesday: Let This Feminist Vampire In

Cross-posted at Ms. Magazine
Warning: spoilers
Vampires have become so common in contemporary texts that they have lost some of their bite. With most of them falling into the emo, brooding, love-struck and angst-ridden variety (Edward of Twilight, Damon of The Vampire Diaries and Bill of True Blood), the female vampire featured in Let Me In (the U.S. remake of the Swedish film Let the Right One In) presents a refreshing change. Abby (Chloe Moretz), the 12-year-old lonely-yet-resilient vampire in a world populated by male violence, is a feminist vampire worth rooting for.
While the original film was also excellent, it lacked some of the more overt gendered analysis of the U.S. version. Though this may be due to discrepancies in translation (I saw the film both in Swedish with English subtitles and dubbed in English), the bullying theme running throughout the narrative was framed very differently in the Swedish version. In it, the young male protagonist, Oskar, was repeatedly told to “squeal like a pig” by his tormentors. In contrast, the male protagonist in the U.S. version, now named Owen (played by Kodi Smit-McPhee), is attacked by bullies with taunts such as  “Hey, little girl” and “Are you a little girl?”
Owen’s burgeoning friendship with the young vampire Abby (named Eli in the original) furthers this gendered meme when she advises him “You have to hit back … hit them back harder than you dare.” When she promises to help him, he says “But you’re a girl,” exhibiting the belief the bullies have instilled in him that girls are scared and weak. Even though an earlier scene showed Owen smiling as he views a girl punching the lead bully in the arm, this approval of female resistance has not erased the anti-girl taunts the bullies have polluted his brain with.
With an existence shrouded by his parents’ ugly divorce, the film suggests Owen has turned to voyeurism as an escape from his prison-like existence at both home and school. As Owen watches the world from his bedroom telescope and from behind his wide-eyed gaze, we see the daily injustices humans enact upon one another: bedroom fights, schoolyard torture, sibling abuse, interpersonal violence. Much of this violence is linked to codes of masculinity, including the muscling-up men do to create bodies capable of violence.
In comparison, vampire Abby’s thirst for blood becomes less violent and a lesser evil: Killing is something she resorts to in order to survive, in contrast to it being a sport (as with the bullies) or a means to secure and keep a mate (as with her “father” figure). The everyday violence in the film is more horrific and has more lasting effects than Abby’s monstrous thirst.
Unfortunately, the opportunity to further the suggestion that “average humans” are plenty monstrous is rendered less horrific in the American version by removing the references/suggestions of pedophilia in the original novel and film. Nevertheless, the remake provocatively suggests that our cultural proclivity to focus on exceptionally violent crimes of the “stranger danger” variety allows enduring, daily acts of violence to go comparatively unnoticed. Owen has adopted this view as well–he never mentions evil until he learns Abby is a vampire, failing to see that what the bullies do to him is actually more evil.
Though the film drips with gendered representations (although ones not as graphic, nor as queer as the original novel, as discussed here), reviews such as those in The New York Times and at MovieFone offer no gender analysis–an omission that seems particularly odd given the misogynistic bullying the film depicts as well as its focus on a girl vampire, a rarity in our male-dominated vampire tales of late.
To find such analysis, one most go back to reviews of the original film, including here at Feminist Review. Noting the tendency for a “queer sensibility about female vampires in film, whether explicit or subtextual,” Loren Krywanczyk argues the “gender non-normativity” of the two young protagonists presents us with a queering of gender as well as of childhood sexuality. Such queer readings are even more apt if Abby/Eli’s centuries-earlier castration (cut in the American film and only alluded to in the Swedish version) is taken into account.
While there has been much rallying against the necessity of remaking the film to appease Americans subtitle-avoidance (as here), I feel this new version offers yet another useful spin on a very complex tale–one a bit less queer but also one that  links the cultural disdain for femininity to the ubiquity of horrific daily acts of violence. If only our mainstream news media would similarly let that argument in.
Natalie Wilson, PhD is a literature and women’s studies scholar, blogger, and author. She teaches at Cal State San Marcos and specializes in the areas of gender studies, feminism, feminist theory, girl studies, militarism, body studies, boy culture and masculinity, contemporary literature, and popular culture. She is author of the blogs Professor, what if…? and Seduced by Twilight. She is a proud feminist mom of two feminist kids (one daughter, one son) and is an admitted pop-culture junkie. She previously contributed posts to Bitch Flicks about The United States of Tara, Nurse Jackie, and Lost.

Guest Writer Wednesday: THE DILEMMA Preview

Cross-posted at Shakesville.
THIS LOOKS GREAT!!!
(That was sarcasm.)
Here’s the trailer for a fun new movie—coming in January to a theater near you!—from Ron Howard, starring (big voice) Vince Vaughn, Kevin James, and (little voice) Queen Latifah, Jennifer Connelly, and Winona Ryder, about the
conundrum
predicament dilemma (!) in which Vaughn finds himself after discovering that his best friend’s wife is cheating on his best friend.
Even though he calls them, as a couple, his “hero” for their awesome relationship, before uncovering the
quandary
crisis dilemma-producing infidelity, she is only known as his “best friend’s wife,” not, you know, his friend, Geneva. She’s just his best friend’s appendage, not her own autonomous entity with an independent relationship with him, despite the fact they apparently hang out in a big group all the time.
Anyway, the lack of female personhood is probably the least of this movie’s problems, given that the trailer opens with a homophobic joke:


[Transcript below.]
I can’t even imagine what the hilarious reversal is going to be. Is Ryder posing as a beard for James’? Is it an immigration scam? What is the kooky story behind the Very Hot Lady who is cheating on her Stupid Fat Husband?! Boy, I bet it’s a hoot!
With a nod to how awesome our new post-feminist world is, I’d also like to note that Jennifer Connelly has won an Oscar. Winona Ryder has twice been nominated for Oscars. Queen Latifah has been nominated for an Oscar.
Vince Vaughn and Kevin James have both been nominated for Teen Choice Awards.
[Via Andy. As always, I am not discussing the film per se; I’m discussing the trailer, and what I perceive the film to be based on how it is being represented by its own marketing.]

[Vince Vaughn, wearing a business suit, stands in a corporate conference room, in front of a table of other people wearing business suits, giving a presentation.]

Vaughn: Ladies and gentlemen, electric cars [long pause for comedic effect] are gay. I mean, not homosexual gay, but, you know, my-parents-are-chaperoning-the-dance gay. [His business partner, Kevin James, nods in agreement.] B&B engine design can combine the benefits of electric transportation with the rock-and-rollness of Dodge’s current muscle car models.

James: That we all know and love!

[Queen Latifah, part of the group to whom they’re presenting, nods and smiles appreciatively. Vaughn wow-wows the opening riff of Heart’s “Barracuda” while playing air guitar. Cut to Queen Latifah talking to Vaughn and James in the hall after the meeting.]

QL: I’m inspired by what you’re throwing down, and I got some serious lady-wood here. [She gestures to her crotch.] I want to have sex with your words. [James throws a side-eye at Vaughn.] Gotta go! Mommy and me! I’ll call you! [She waves and runs off.]

Text Onscreen: TWO BEST FRIENDS.

[Cut to Vaughn and James at a smoky bar. Vaughn’s girlfriend is Jennifer Connelly. James’ wife is Winona Ryder.]

Vaughn: Nick, buddy, we got the deal.

James [to Connelly]: I’m not gonna lie—I love your boyfriend. Come in here. [They hug and the girls cheer.] This is great.

Vaughn: Don’t ever let me go.

Text Onscreen: TWO PERFECT COUPLES.

[Cut to a restaurant, where the two couples are sitting around a table. Vaughn and Connelly kiss each other.]

James: I think you can know someone within the first ten seconds of seeing them; I fell in love with Geneva the moment I saw her.

Ryder: Awwww. [She reaches out and strokes James’ cheek.]

[Cut to James and Ryder on the dance floor; James, because he is fat and intrinsically hilarious, is dancing like a complete arse; Vaughn and Connelly watch from a booth.]

Vaughn: When it comes to couples, they’re my hero.

James: Honey, you hear that? Ronnie told Beth I’m his hero! [Ryder gives an “awwww” look. James turns back to Vaughn.] I’m Mean Joe Green; you’re the little boy with the Coke bottle; come on, I’ll throw ya a jersey! Let’s do it! [More ridiculous dancing.]

Text Onscreen: BUT THIS JANUARY.

[Vaughn, now in some tropical location, sees Ryder with young hot stud, Channing Tatum. He spies on them through the foliage, as “Barracuda” swells.]

Text Onscreen: ONE LITTLE DISCOVERY…

[Vaughn ventures deeper into the foliage for a closer look, ignoring a sign reading: “CAUTION Passiflora incarnata DO NOT ENTER. He sees Ryder and Tatum kissing.]

Text Onscreen: WILL CAUSE A BIG DILEMMA.

[Vaughn trips and falls face-first into a bunch of plants. Cut to Vaughn sitting indoors with two other white dudes, his face all fucked up.]

Vaughn: I just saw my best friend’s wife with another man.

Dude #1 (played by Clint Howard, in his obligatory role in every film of his brother’s): You fell in a whole bed of poisonous passiflora incarnatas!

Dude #2: You can expect diarrhea, fever, dry heaving, painful swelling in your gums, and challenging urination, with a possible bloody discharge. [HA! HIS FRIEND’S WIFE’S CHEATING EVEN RUINED HIS DICK!]

Text Onscreen: From Academy Award winning director Ron Howard.

Vaughn [to some other random white dude in another setting]: Let me ask you a question, and this is completely hypothetical, something way out of left field [continuing as voiceover, over images of Vaughn stalking his best friend’s wife and discovering her with Tatum again]: Let’s say that one friend found out that another friend’s wife was cheating on him…

Dude #3: How good a friend?

[Cut to footage of Vaughn and James at a Blackhawks’ game, doing a choreographed move together.]

Vaughn [back with Dude #3]: Let’s just say his best friend. Very best friend.

Dude #3: I wouldn’t tell him.

[Clips of random people responding to, one assumes, the same question. A black woman says: “It all depends.” A young white dudebro says, “He’s gotta tell him. It’s guy code, man. If you don’t tell your friend, then you’re basically doing her, too.” Cut to Vaughn walking with James at a bar or something.]

Vaughn: Nick, I need to talk to you about something.

James: What’s going on with you?

[Random scenes that make no sense, inserted presumably to show that Things Happen in the movie.]

Text Onscreen: THE DILEMMA.

[Scene of Vaughn peeing and screaming.]

Connelly: Are you all right?

Vaughn: Oh, to be honest with ya, honey, I’m feeling a little challenged. [Hilarious callback to being told he will have challenging urination.]

Text Onscreen: COMING SOON.

Melissa McEwan is the founder and manager of the award-winning political and cultural group blog Shakesville, which she launched as Shakespeare’s Sister in October 2004 because George Bush was pissing her off. In addition to running Shakesville, she also contributes to The Guardian‘s Comment is Free America and AlterNet.  

Quote of the Day: Geena Davis

Gender in Media activist and actress Geena Davis

Perhaps best known for her award-winning roles on television and in film, Geena Davis is the founder of the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media. According to the website 

Five years ago, while watching children’s television programs and videos with her then 2-year old daughter, Academy Award winner Geena Davis noticed a remarkable imbalance in the ratio of male to female characters. From that small starting point, Davis went on to raise funds for the largest research project ever undertaken on gender in children’s entertainment (resulting in 4 discrete studies, including one on children’s television).

The research showed that in the top-grossing G-rated films from 1990-2005, there were three male characters for every one female – a statistic that did not improve over time.

The concern was clear: What message does this send to young children?

We’ve highlighted our disappointment with Pixar for its girl problem (WALL-E, Up), but nearly every Disney film deserves the same–if not worse–scorn (and that’s just picking on two production companies). As angry as films make us when they don’t depict real, complex women, the problem really starts with children’s programming–and the solution might, too.
We really learn our value in society by seeing ourselves reflected in the culture–kids more so than anyone. I mean, as they’re learning what their role in society is and what’s their place and value, they’re exposed to massive amounts of media, and the message that boys and girls are getting currently is that girls are not as valuable as boys, and that women are not as important as men.

Kudos to Geena Davis for tackling this important problem. Check out her website, and watch a short interview about her project below.

Working Women in Film

Yesterday was Labor Day here in the U.S., and we wanted to highlight some films about working women.
When I sat down to write this post, I thought it would be relatively easy: brainstorm and research a list of movies about working women. But the more I searched, the more frustrating the list became. I kept coming across the same movies. These movies:
  1. 9 to 5
  2. Baby Boom
  3. Boomerang
  4. Broadcast News
  5. Clockwatchers
  6. The Devil Wears Prada
  7. Disclosure
  8. Erin Brockavich
  9. Frozen River
  10. His Girl Friday
  11. Julia
  12. Legally Blonde
  13. Mahogany
  14. Maid in Manhattan
  15. Marnie
  16. Mildred Pierce
  17. Network
  18. North Country
  19. The Proposal
  20. Secretary
  21. Silkwood
  22. The Ugly Truth
  23. Wendy and Lucy
  24. Woman of the Year
  25. Working Girl

A quick glance at the list and the most basic familiarity with the titles (which vary in decade and genre, and range from horribly anti-feminist to some of our personal favorites) reveals some disturbing trends:

The women featured in these films–the protagonists–are overwhelmingly white. Where are the women of color? 
Professions in which women work–every imaginable profession–aren’t widely represented. Most of the women here have Careers rather than Jobs, although the careers are heavily in the secretarial /assistant arena. In the newer films, the women who are working class, as Caryn James points out in Slate’s XXFactor,  are heavy on criminality. 
The Hollywood working-class heroine is usually a Norma Rae or Erin Brockovich, a reformer making a grand social gesture. The new indie films more authentically depict their characters’ workaday lives. That’s why it’s so disappointing to find them undermining their own heroines, reinforcing an assumption that should have been blasted away long ago—that the poor are morally suspect and quick to steal. 
Nobody gets ruder treatment than career women, who are routinely portrayed as bossy, uptight and utterly without personal lives. What they need, we’re supposed to think, is a man. But before they can get one, they must have a mortifying comeuppance.
These observations on my incomplete list lead me to a few questions:

How do we define “movies about working women?” First, I want differentiate movies that feature women who work from movies about working women. The former category could include almost any contemporary movie with a major female character. But, movies that are thematically about working women are a different, rarer thing. They question what it means to be a working woman in a culture that is both dependent upon and hostile to them.

How do we define “working woman?” A working woman is not a rare thing; nearly all women work. Women have professional careers and jobs of all sorts. There are lawyers, teachers, doctors, writers, police…the list is endless. Try to argue that a woman who cares for her children isn’t a working woman, even though, I suspect, many people tend to equate work with wage. How do we define work? What does our definition of work and its role in our lives mean for women? Does it mean something different for men? Do you think of yourself as a “worker?”

And a couple of possible conclusions:

Women of color who are workers don’t weigh heavily in the American cultural imagination. When women of color appear in films, they tend to be secondary characters in low-paying jobs. Rarely do we see movies about working women who happen to be women of color. Rarely have I seen it, at least, which may be a personal failing.
All in all, I’m not very happy with this list, and I’d love to enlist your help in making it more complete.

Readers, help out! What are some of your favorite movies about working women?

*Remember, we’re not just talking about movies that feature women who work, but ones that explore what it means to be a working woman.


UPDATE: Readers have contributed additional films to the list. Here they are so far (we’ll continue to add any films you suggest):


All About Eve
The Apartment
Cleo from 5 to 7
Dancer in the Dark
Easter Parade
Gypsy 
Mr. Mom
Places in the Heart
Showgirls
Sunshine Cleaning
Waitress
Winter’s Bone

Movie Preview: Bluebeard

Written and directed by Catherine Breillat, Bluebeard (Barbe Bleue) likely explores the same themes that Angela Carter highlighted in her retelling, “The Bloody Chamber.” Read the original fairy tale by Charles Perrault here and Angela Carter’s version here.

Variety‘s Leslie Felperin:

Having built a career on provocative, sexually explicit yet cerebral fare (“Romance,” “Sex Is Comedy”), Catherine Breillat shocked auds with her 2007 period piece, “The Last Mistress,” because it was not all that shocking. Now the Gallic helmer’s latest, “Bluebeard,” features considerable blood but no sex. This offbeat but compelling take on the tale, arguably the first serial-killer yarn, emphasizes sisterly bonds but still gets to the original story’s heart of mysterious darkness with impressive results. 

The New York Times‘ Manhola Dargis:

In “Bluebeard,” a sly rethink of the freakily morbid fairy tale, the filmmaker Catherine Breillat makes the case that once-upon-a-time stories never end. Divided into two parallel narratives — one focuses on Bluebeard and his dangerously curious wife, while the other involves two little girls in the modern era revisiting the tale — the movie is at once direct, complex and peculiar. It isn’t at all surprising that Ms. Breillat, a singular French filmmaker with strong, often unorthodox views on women and men and sex and power, would have been interested in a troubling tale about the perils of disobedient wives. Ms. Breillat never behaves.

You can watch the trailer here.

Review in Conversation: ‘Sex and the City: The Movie’

Carrie at her wedding
Carrie at her wedding
Welcome to our second installment of the Review in Conversation: Sex and the City: The Movie. Our first RiC discussed the film Black Snake Moan.I had liked the early seasons of Sex and the City when it was on HBO, and while acknowledging its problems–unawareness of class most troubling, though in the late 90s perhaps it was permissible in our cultural imagination for a newspaper columnist to live a fabulous life –I thought it was funny and well-written. Oh, how things have changed. The fantasy of a newspaper writer being able to afford shoes with designer names I can’t pronounce has morphed into a successful book writer being so fabulous that she receives a free couture wedding gown from a designer I’ve even heard of, and her super-rich boyfriend buys a multi-million dollar penthouse apartment. The silly consumerist fantasy exploded like a vomit balloon all over this materialistic movie.Here’s a secret: I like fashion. It’s an art form, and its creators are capable of beautiful design and cultural statements. It’s also an industry, and like all major industries, has a very ugly side. I liken it to professional sports: I watch from the sidelines, aware of the way I’m being manipulated, but enjoy it nonetheless—all without expressly participating. In the TV show, Carrie Bradshaw stepped into the world of New York fashion, and we could laugh at her ridiculous ensembles and her forays into a world in which she didn’t—and probably didn’t want to—completely belong. In the movie, we’re watching The Carrie Bradshaw Brand, and she’s become very much a part of that thing called fashion. The fact that she wore a bird on her head as part of her wedding ensemble isn’t a joke, but played straight and serious. In other words, we’re no longer identifying with an outsider to fashion; she’s now part of the machine.Carrie’s friends have all been similarly transformed from dynamic characters into commodities—who are all far too rich and insincere for any comedy to ensue. There were clearly moments in the film when we were supposed to laugh (and during which I imagined a cheesy sitcom laugh track), but all felt so dated, so out of touch, and so, frankly, ADOLESCENT MALE, that they completely fell flat. I mean, come on, Charlotte shits herself? Samantha gets a pocketbook dog that humps everything in sight (standing in for her own caged libido)? A 50-year-old woman gains ten pounds and is OMG! FATTY McFAT FAT? Are you fucking kidding me? This is only the tip of the iceberg, but my question is this: In a movie we can’t possibly take seriously (in terms of reality), which claims to be nothing more than a (guilty) pleasure, did you laugh at all?

The women go through Carrie's wardrobe
The women go through Carrie’s wardrobe
Stephanie’s response:
No, I didn’t laugh. I didn’t laugh when Charlotte shit her pants. I didn’t laugh at Samantha’s dog humping its (his/her?) way through the film. I didn’t laugh at Charlotte’s screaming over-reaction to Carrie’s engagement, where she went as far as to stand up and announce it to the entire restaurant. (That’s just the kind of crazy stuff women do, isn’t it ladies?) I didn’t laugh at Miranda’s unshaved bush. I didn’t laugh at the stereotypical workaholic Mom who won’t fuck her husband (forcing him to cheat!). And I certainly didn’t laugh at Jennifer Hudson’s role as Carrie Bradshaw’s slave. Yeah, I said it. I’m not sure we weren’t meant to take this film seriously. Where’s the evidence of that? Because I’m an intelligent person, I can discern ridiculousness from reality, but I also personally know many people, men especially, who would most certainly walk away with the notion that women actually behave this way. Call me a humorless feminist, but honestly, were there actually any women in this movie?
However, when this film opened, it dethroned Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull for the number one spot at the box office. It seemed as if women (who comprised about 85% of the audience, according to sources that keep track of such things) couldn’t wait to see it, and it’s since been touted as the biggest box office opening for a women-centered film (and romantic comedy) … basically ever. When I read about these female-driven films raking in the money, like The Proposal, for instance, which made tons of money as a woman-centered romantic comedy, I never know quite how to handle it. On one hand, yes! Go women! But on the other hand … seriously? We can’t do better than characters who start off as gung-ho career women who, by the end of the film, ultimately validate the dominant ideology that women are, by their nature, relationship-obsessed?
Sex and the City also wants to claim it’s about female sisterhood, but I couldn’t take that seriously so much. I’ve heard some women in the blogosphere describe this film as nothing more than Pop-Feminism. To me, that might be a criticism of the idea of female sisterhood showing up as shoe-obsessions, clothing-obsessions, (eg “Big, please build me a gigantic closet for all my shoes and clothing,”) obsessions with thinness and fashion in general, and other materialistic obsessions that ultimately become symbols of female empowerment. And let’s not forget, this is also a film about white women. Doesn’t that seem to be the trend, especially in the most recent onslaught of romantic comedies?
Jennifer Hudson in SATC
Jennifer Hudson in SATC
Amber’s response:
While I dismiss the film itself as pure fantasy—in the way that a prince-charming fairy tale is fantasy—you may be right to question that reaction. It’s naïve to think that the Disney princess fantasy is anything but insidious, so why give the adult fantasy a free pass? Hyper-consumerism has become inseparable from female identity in the media, and I don’t think we really need yet another citation of this ideology. Purchasing the right products doesn’t equal empowerment, and while the film half-assedly nods to this fact, its product obsession completely undermines any real effort to argue that friendship is the most important thing in life.However, Pop-Feminism or not, these are women who sincerely love one another–who aren’t conniving against each other, who aren’t in direct competition with one another. Also, they are over twenty-five, have healthy sex lives, and aren’t shamed in any way for being sexual beings. This was a revolutionary element of the TV show when it premiered in 1998, and considering the cultural environment, is no less revolutionary ten years later. Yet, ten years later, we should expect something more than basic “women are human beings” arguments masquerading as feminism. And, yes, we should expect something more than thin, beautiful, wealthy, fashionable, white ladies representing female empowerment.Jennifer Hudson’s role was abominable. Not only was she Carrie Bradshaw’s servant and charity recipient, we didn’t see her character grow and mature. What she learned, apparently, while working as a PA in NYC, is that boys are really important, and that knowledge led her back to her hometown to get married. Hell, maybe working for that vortex of narcissism, I’d run too. But the only thing I see about the inclusion of her character is a cynical instance of tokenism. It’s really as if the filmmakers said, “Hey, there are a whole lot of black women out there–maybe we should try to not completely alienate them. Let’s give Carrie an assistant!” FAIL. Is it just me, or does mass media seem more segregated now than in any other time during our lives? Also, how many sequels do you predict?

The women of SATC
The women of SATC

 

Stephanie’s response:
The reason I refuse to take Sex and the City’s self-proclaimed celebration of sisterhood very seriously is because the women rarely permit one another to slack off on their duty to maintain Fabulous Fashionista status at all times. As I stated earlier, Miranda gets shit for not porn-waxing and Samantha gets shit for gaining weight (from comfort-eating due to her tanking relationship—because that’s another thing we all do, ladies!). They permit Carrie’s days of depression when Big leaves her at the altar, literally feeding her at one point, but I still couldn’t help but cringe at that simultaneous depiction of female-infantilizing coupled with creepy mommy-moment.

Yet I believe they do really love one another. You’re right to point out the refreshing portrayal of women who aren’t in direct competition or who aren’t conniving against one another. One could also point out many scenes where genuine love exists among them—my favorite scene is when Carrie sucks it up and takes the train (but not without fur coat!) to Miranda’s apartment so she won’t be alone on New Year’s. It feels … honest, in a way that so much of the rest of the film doesn’t.

I never saw the television series. From what I’ve heard and read, the women were very much unashamed sexual beings. So I had to ask myself after I saw the movie, “Where the hell is all this sex I’ve been hearing about?” Samantha has sex exactly zero times on-screen. Miranda struggles with sex and her husband’s infidelity—it’s very much implied that he cheats because she won’t sleep with him (another one of her wife-duties shirked). Charlotte claims to have a wonderful sex life, but … where’s the evidence? Perhaps the film wants to show the progression of their lives and the complications that might come with aging, but they chose to do it by regressing to traditional gender expectations regarding marriage and pregnancies and preoccupations with couple-hood.

I get the feeling that the show, while still portraying the women as rich and fashion-obsessed, actually represented their shunning of traditional, more conservative ideas regarding adult womanhood. They didn’t have to get married and have babies and buy houses. They could have sex! And live in the city! And have fulfilling careers! If that’s the case, the film-version seriously dropped the ball.

With scenes like Miranda telling her child to “follow the white person with the baby” when they’re looking for a new apartment in a less-rich neighborhood; with scenes like Carrie showing up to reclaim her metaphorical glass slipper while her metaphorical prince conveniently awaits in her giant, specially built metaphorical (closet)-castle—the film only reinforces good ol’ traditional American values about class, heterosexual relationships, and especially about womanhood.

Ten Years of Oscar-Winning Films: In Posters

We’re coming up on that wonderful time of year when all the studios release their most worthy Best Picture Oscar contenders. This year, we’re in store for such films as the all-star cast of the musical Nine, Scorcese’s Shutter Island, and Eastwood’s Invictus, which have all picked up early Oscar buzz, as have more independent films, like A Serious Man, An Education, and The Tree of Life. So, we thought that, in honor of the upcoming onslaught, we’d take a look at the past ten years of the Academy Award-winning films for Best Picture.

***

American Beauty: 2000


***

Gladiator: 2001


***

A Beautiful Mind: 2002


***

Chicago: 2003


***

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: 2004


***

Million Dollar Baby: 2005


***

Crash: 2006


***

The Departed: 2007


***

No Country For Old Men: 2008


***

Slumdog Millionaire: 2009

***

What do these films have in common?

American Beauty: A man narrates the film, has a midlife crisis, and attempts to seduce and/or rape a potentially underage high school student.

Gladiator: A man in captivity avenges the murder of his wife and son by murdering their murderer.

A Beautiful Mind: A man at the height of his genius suffers from schizophrenia.

Chicago: A singing and dancing man attempts to save singing and dancing female inmates from death row.

The Lord of the Rings: Men go on a quest.

Million Dollar Baby: A man narrates the film, telling the story of his friend’s attempt to train and manage a determined female boxer.

Crash: A cast of characters—male and female—illustrates our society’s inability to distinguish between racism and prejudice.

The Departed: Men violently kill one another.

No Country For Old Men: A hired hitman goes on a killing spree with a captive bolt pistol.

Slumdog Millionaire: A man participates in a televised game-show, thinking it will help him find his long-lost love.

***

I’m interested to see how the 2010 Academy Awards Ceremony will choose to honor this year’s films, especially now that they’ve bumped up the number of Best Picture nominees to ten instead of five. With the amount of women-centered and/or directed films this year—Julie & Julia, Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire, Bright Star, Amelia, and The Hurt Locker, to name a few—I hope women will feel some of the Academy love. Don’t forget to check back in February for analysis of the ten Best Picture nominees!

The Codes of Gender: Documentary Preview


From the Media Education Foundation (MEF):

Communication scholar Sut Jhally applies the late sociologist Erving Goffman’s groundbreaking analysis of advertising to the contemporary commercial landscape in this provocative new film about gender as a ritualized cultural performance. Uncovering a remarkable pattern of gender-specific poses, Jhally explores Goffman’s central claim that the way the body is displayed in advertising communicates normative ideas about masculinity and femininity. The film looks beyond advertising as a medium that simply sells products, and beyond analyses of gender that focus on biological difference or issues of surface objectification and beauty, taking us into the two-tiered terrain of identity and power relations. With its sustained focus on the fundamental importance of gender, power, and how our perceptions of what it means to be a man or a woman get reproduced and reinforced on the level of culture in our everyday lives, The Codes of Gender is certain to inspire discussion and debate across a range of disciplines.

I haven’t yet watched The Codes of Gender, but I imagine it might provide some insight for our continued frustration with movie posters.

We previously highlighted Generation M, another documentary by the MEF, which focuses on the misogyny prevalent in contemporary culture.

As the MEF is a foundation focused on education, you can watch a low-resolution preview of any of their films online (for personal viewing only).

If you’ve seen The Codes of Gender, let us know what you think!