Rachel Redfern – Page 4

Oblivious Hollywood and Its New Movie ‘Oblivion’

Written by Rachel Redfern

Tom Cruise’s latest movie, Oblivion, is exactly that, a movie about Tom Cruise; upon watching, it felt as though any other character had been thrown in as an after-thought, which obviously denied them of any personality or importance to the plot. This of course leaves one with the odd idea that had they just nixed everyone else from the film and had Cruise be the only actor, it might actually have been a better movie.

Oblivion is the latest Sci-fi action movie blockbuster from Hollywood, directed by Joseph Kosinski and starring (the somehow never aging) Tom Cruise, Andrea Riseborough, Olga Kurylenko, Morgan Freeman, and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (hello, Jamie Lannister!). The plot: Jack (Cruise) and his partner Victoria (Riseborough) are clean-up and maintenance crews for the energy-creating and defense units that are left on Earth after everyone moves to Mars (basically like Wall-E except not as good). Of course, Jack is a curious sort of fellow, and mystery abounds when a spaceship crashes on Earth with a curiously familiar woman inside and the sudden reveal of Morgan Freeman (who, sadly, has basically 10 lines for the whole movie).

Tom Cruise saving the day in Oblivion

While some of the ideas could have been unique regarding the mystery and eventual climax of the film, for the most part it all feels very stock and trade. The whole movie is just watching Cruise go from one location to the next, kick someone’s ass, save someone, and have an inordinately pretty woman make love eyes at him. (Seriously, Cruise has to fly the jet, destroy the evil machines following them with his amazing skills, and shoot one-handed to pop off the ones that get too close, all while the female lead sits in the passenger seat looking scared and confused?) It feels flat and familiar and lacking in any kind of interaction with the other actors or scenery; it’s really a very static film with only one dynamic actor and everything else a fancy prop.

It’s a shame that the rest of the characters weren’t interesting, unique, or even had many lines. There were some great male actors in the film, specifically Coster-Waldau and Freeman who were sorely underused. Beyond that, their plot lines were unexplained and vague, lacking in development, explanation or screen time.

That’s not even the worst though; let’s consider the women of the film. The female characters were a type that I haven’t seen in a while, being so wholly lacking in personality that it was like watching a 70’s action movie. They were fairly helpless, dashingly clueless, often naked for no reason, and sent longing looks in Jack’s direction a lot—with ever-so-slightly-parted, lingerie model lips. Really, is it impossible to close your mouth when you’re in love?

Olga Kurylenko looks longingly at Tom Cruise in Oblivion

I was actually surprised at how lackluster and generic the women were; lately it seems that Hollywood is at least trying to have one interesting woman in a film, but the lack of effort here was laughable. Again, EVE, the female robot in Wall-E was a thousand times more interesting and developed with a far more fascinating and distinct personality.

The effects and the landscape were, as in most big Hollywood blockbusters, impeccable. As is the lead actresses clothes, hair, make-up. But that’s the problem; it’s all so soulless. The technology has a lot of rounded corners and blue, floating touch screens and it’s all very pretty and it’s all very unoriginal. The lead actress is tall and thin, has the ends of her long hair curled and wears a nice 4-inch high heel shoe—the poster child for how to dress for a job interview.

Andrea Riseborough looking impeccably dull in Oblivion

I just want to see something new: a less-sterile spaceship, some messed-up hair, maybe a square corner on a computer screen, hell I’d settle for a power cord. It’s just monotonous. Where is the vibrancy, the life, the touch of grit? Could there at least be one pair of ill-fitting jeans? How about some sense of relatable emotion like embarrassment, rejection, disappointment? What if the technology malfunctioned? Or the Macgyver-ing of the wires just didn’t work?

I don’t know, Hollywood; what if something new happened? Do what you haven’t done in a while and surprise me.

———-

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.

No "Gentleman" Is Psy

Written by Rachel Redfern

K-pop is the standard term for the most substantial part of South Korea’s massively prolific popular culture. Within K-pop there are an elite group of top ten bands that release a new single every few months, a song which then proceeds to dominate every single radio station, YouTube advertisement, and TV show for a week. Even elderly Koreans have the songs as their ringtone just as much as any young person does. For years Korea has been trying to bring that K-pop into the west, but its bubble-gum nature and pre-packaged commercialism has not fared well; Psy suddenly, explosively, changed all of that.

Psy’s surprising viral rise to the top of every musical chart in the world marks a huge moment for Korean culture; in a country often overshadowed by the magnitude of China and the familiarity of Japan (and even its crazy northern neighbor, North Korea), Psy has become the first truly international Korean symbol, an ironic fact considering that his music is not a standard representation of K-pop (click here and here if you would like to see what K-pop normally looks like).

Still from Psy’s latest music video, “Gentleman”

As an American expat currently living in South Korea I see Psy every day. He’s on the side of buses, and buildings, he dances across commercials, and is on every talk show. The next person (either in South Korea or anywhere else in the world) to ask me if I know who Psy is might just lose a limb. For a while he was hailed as a clever entertainer and songwriter, one who’s last song, “Gangnam Style,” satirizes the materialistic culture of one of Seoul’s wealthiest neighborhoods.

However, perhaps Psy’s overwhelming success might need to be tempered a bit, especially in our enthusiasm for his newest video, “Gentleman.”

Korea is, for the most part, a very conservative culture, one where, despite some very short shorts, most female pop stars remain much more covered in comparison with their American contemporaries. Therefore, I was a bit shocked when halfway through the video, K-pop star and lead female in the video, Ga In from “Brown-Eyed Girls,” sucks on a hot dog with cream bubbling out over the edges in one of the most blatant visual representations of oral sex I’ve seen in a while. Oddly enough, KBS, the national broadcasting network in Korea, even banned the video, though not for this scene; rather, the video was banned because he destroys public property.

Psy’s music video “Gentleman” and K-pop star, Ga In

There has been some controversy about how the video treats women, some calling it simple “irony,” others saying, “irony gone too far.” Perhaps the first situation is the case; perhaps it’s only meant to be a funny, silly video about how people treat each other. On the most basic level the video seems problematic and sets a bad example; Psy acts like a jerk and intentionally treats women badly. Of course, the lead female thinks it’s funny and returns the favor, and the two end up together, finally having found their soulmate. Going one layer of analysis under this surface level suggests that he is actually mocking that behavior; perhaps the video was meant as a satire for the way “gentlemen” still treat women? Or perhaps he was trying to comment on the problematic nature of gender politics in the modern world?

And then I read an English translation of the lyrics: Nope, he’s not making that commentary.

I don’t know if you know why it needs to be hot
I don’t know if you know why it needs to be clean
I don’t know if you know, it’ll be a problem if you’re confused
I don’t know if you know but we like, we we we like to party

Hey there
If I’m going to introduce myself
I’m a cool guy with courage, spirit and craziness
What you wanna hear, what you wanna do is me
Damn! Girl! You so freakin sexy!

[lengthy chorus where the following line repeats]

I’m a, ah I’m a
I’m a mother father gentleman

I don’t know if you know why it needs to be smooth
I don’t know if you know why it needs to be sexy
I don’t know if you know darling, hurry and come be crazy
I don’t know if you know, it’s crazy, crazy, hurry up

Hey there
Your head, waist, legs, calves
Good! Feeling feeling? Good! It’s soft
I’ll make you gasp and I’ll make you scream
Damn! Girl! I’m a party mafia!

[Chorus again]

Gonna make you sweat.
Gonna make you wet
You know who I am Wet PSY
Gonna make you sweat.

Gonna make you wet.
You know who I am
Wet PSY! Wet PSY! Wet PSY! Wet PSY! PSY! PSY! PSY!
Ah I’m a mother father gentleman

I’m a, ah I’m a
I’m a mother father gentleman
I’m a, ah I’m a, I’m a mother father gentleman
Mother father gentleman
Mother father gentleman

*translation from Huffington Post

Consider one of the main lines, “It’ll be a problem if you’re confused,” followed by, “What you wanna do is me” and “I’m going to make you sweat/I’m going to make you wet.”

These lyrics and the rampant arrogance that comes with the video does present a problem for me. While the actions of pulling out a chair and just being an asshole to women are annoying, to me they are less problematic than the hyper-sexualization and the obvious objectification shown to all the women in the video, most notably in the close-up on Ga In and the hot dog.

Still from Psy’s latest video, “Gentleman”

This scene and the lyrics put Psy in place as the sexual instigator and idolizes his own arrogance and behavior; according to the lyrics, he’s a dirty asshole who will “make you wet,” with the women only being playthings–sex objects and static recipients of his desires. For me, the mocking and disrespect compounds until “women as funny toys” just gets tied into “women as funny sex toys.”

There are problematic performers and songs running around on the Internet every single day, and I usually try not to support those entertainers. After this video, I don’t think I want to support Psy anymore either, cause Psy, you’re just not all that.

What do you think? Is “Gentleman” funny and forward-thinking satire? Or irony taken too far?

Also, I’m not linking to the music video in this article because I just can’t stand to hear the song one more time.

———-

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.

Sex Acts: Generational Patriarchy and Rape Culture in Gurfinkel’s ‘Six Acts’

Written by Rachel Redfern

Jonathon Gurfinkel’s debut film, Six Acts, winner of the TVE Another Look Award at the San Sebastian Film Festival, is premiering in the United States at the 2013 Tribeca Film Festival. The film is the product of six years of research and filming on the part of newcomers Jonathon Gurfinkel and screenwriter Rona Segal, who spent a substantial amount of time interviewing and speaking with young teenagers, asking about their experiences and stresses.

Six Acts (which can also be heard as ‘sex acts’) is about a young Israeli girl, Gili (Sivian Levy), who has just moved to a new school in an affluent suburb where she begins to engage in sexual activity with a number of her peers, essentially being passed around from boy to boy. While Gili holds the title role and the film is about the things that happen to her, in reality, the film is very much about portraying the generational behaviors of patriarchy and entitlement that allow rape and sexual assault to go unnoticed.

Perversely, Gili is raped again and again during the course of the film; she has just been convinced that she wanted it and that she enjoys being used for sex. These rapes are delicately portrayed in the way that Segal has scripted these scenes: Gili is pressured again and again and her repeated statements of “No” are not directly ignored, but brushed aside as the boys play angry when she refuses, clearly manipulating her. It’s significant that in each scene she is pressured and physically held or pushed until she finally gets quiet and the act is performed ending with kisses and the question, “Baby, did you like that” afterwards. At which point she smiles a little, looks away and tries to convince herself that she did. The two main boys in the film play a deceptive game; the first one, Tomer is quiet and seemingly arrogant; the second boy, Omri, is friendly and charming. Their characters are so finely crafted however, that for most of the movie, you find yourself still intrigued by these boys. Gurfinkel acknowledged the difficulty in filming these scenes saying,

“Some might say that the boys can’t be at fault because Gili seems like she’s actively cooperating, like she might want it. But this touches on the psychological formula of the strong against the weak, and the film shows how people take advantage of the weak, not just in a sexual way.”

Sivian Levy as Gili in Six Acts

Continuing with that goal of displaying the “psychological formula of the strong against the weak,” Omri’s father, his father’s friends, his brothers, and his own friends are all complicit in encouraging their aggressive and disrespectful behaviors. Cleverly, the film does a wonderful job of showcasing how Omri’s father’s conduct has influenced him into believing that such actions are how men should treat women. It’s frustrating to see how this cycle is repeated as Omri passes on his knowledge of exploitation to his much younger brother. It’s indicative to see the way that even Omri’s father’s friends look at Gili as she enters the room; they case her up and down and smile suggestively.

Shockingly, even Omri’s mother shrugs off the fact that her husband discusses his flirtations in front of her and merely closes her office door to her 13-year-old son’s conversation with his friends about how they should “fuck Gili.”

In fact, in many ways, the film is also a huge indictment about modern parenting, since no mother or father seems to take particular care as to where their children are or what activities they are doing, merely serving to enable them in the destructive and violent behavior that happens in their houses even while they’re present.

These scenes offer insight into the troubled lives of teens, specifically those living in Israel, though the film was also intended to tell a universal story. I have little experience with Israel, so it would be interesting to hear whether it’s portrayal of Israeli life is an accurate one.

The film’s setting is then of particular importance; while I expected discussion about religion and regional politics, there were none. The film literally takes place from the self-centered viewpoint of the universally common, affluent, and entitled suburban teenager. None of these issues plays a role because none of the characters care; the only things that matter are cars and poker and sex and money and drugs and sports. Minus the Hebrew being spoken, this film could have taken place in London, Los Angeles, Tokyo, or any other city with a stable middle-class.

Sivian Levy as Gili in Six Acts

The world of flash, materialism, and ambition exists completely out of sight of the self-aware and moderate, with no such positive characteristics being shown by any character. The drive for the immediate is all that matters, and each of the boys is obviously the product of a family and cultural attitude that enables them to act upon this drive without consequences. In fact, after one of the many assaults enacted upon Gili, the young boy demands a kiss and then offers to buy her fast food on the way to the pharmacy. He then demands that she take a morning after pill, driving her there and giving her two packs just to make sure she’s not pregnant, regardless of the fact that she tried to leave and said she would handle the situation on her own. The fact that she could be pregnant is his only possible consequence, and even in that she is forced to comply with his demands (not that I’m against the morning after pill, just other people telling women when they should and should not take it).

One thing that I think could be potentially problematic in discussing a film like this is of course the trap of blame. In a few of the reviews that I have read so far there have been some people intent on blaming Gili for her actions, or at least pushing her as the impetus for these actions: she sent the boys a photo, she answered the call when they asked her to come over. One reviewer even went so far as to say that there’s “no point in feeling sorry for her” because she is rude to one of the boys before he rapes her. However, Segal’s intentions in writing the film belie such destructive victim blaming, as she states in an interview with regard to Gili’s character, “You can ask anyone and they will recall having a girl in their class who was always known to be ‘loose.’ I wanted to show that her decisions are not so black and white.”

Similarly, during my experience of watching the film, it seemed to me that I was merely watching the sad and terrifying journey of a girl who was too trusting and too naïve to see how terrible her new friends really were, and who lacked any responsible figure willing to step in and protect a minor.

Though Gili’s character is not without its problems: Gili’s desperate need for acceptance and love is painted in broad strokes, and it’s easy to see how easily she gets caught up in self-destructive behavior. The realization that her new friends are no friends at all is, as it is in real life, hard to see in the moment. On a very personal note, it was sad to see some of myself in her, to see the ways she so easily became devalued; it’s unfortunate that so many women will probably feel the same as I did when I watched the movie.

Sivian Levy as Gili in Six Acts

The music is lovely but very much a part of the background; the cinematography is bold and engaging, highlighting the harsh situations that Gili has found herself in. Nothing is softened.

Six Acts premiers on April 18, 2013 at the Tribeca Film Festival at a point when sadly, a multitude of rapes and startling attitudes about rape culture have been exposed: incidents such as the Steubenville rape case, the problematic media aftermath, and the brutality of the gang rape in Delhi, just to name a few. While not always an easy movie to watch, I believe that Six Acts could be a very important film for these issues. I truly hope that it will reach a wide audience.

For information about additional screenings continue on to the 2013 Tribeca Film Festival website.

———-

Camp and Culture: Revisiting ‘Earth Girls Are Easy’ and ‘Contact’

Written by Rachel Redfern

As a film-lover, revisiting old movies and watching obscure films from the 80’s is something that I spend far too much time doing. However, it’s usually worthwhile for the unfamiliar and familiar stories I get to connect with. So this week I decided to highlight two older films, one that you’ve probably seen but probably deserves to be re-watched and one that you’ve probably never heard of before.

Earth Girls Are Easy

Geena Davis and Jeff Goldblum in Earth Girls Are Easy

Earth Girls Are Easy is a very, very little known musical comedy film from 1988 starring Jeff Goldblum, Geena Davis and (at the time) two unknown comedians named Jim Carrey and Damon Wayans. Despite the absurdly sexist-sounding title and the campy nature of the film, I sort of love it, and it has a surprisingly smart, satirical message.

“Earth Girls Are Easy” is actually a song written by Julie Brown, the singer, comedian, writer and actress who became famous for her satire in mocking “valley girls” and the superficial character of Los Angeles. After the song was released, Brown actually wrote a screenplay based off the song for a film of the same name and Julien Temple was hired to direct it (be warned, the song itself is pretty out there).

The plot however, is pretty straightforward (click here to watch the trailer): Valerie (Geena Davis) catches her fiancé cheating on her and kicks him out and only a day later, three furry aliens, Mac (Jeff Goldblum), Zeeblo (Damon Wayans) and Wiploc (Jim Carrey), crash land in her pool. The aliens get a makeover and Mac and Geena fall in love, high-jinks and a few musical numbers ensue, and Valerie cuts her ex-boyfriend out of her life and goes for the good guy, Mac.

Everyone in the film is ridiculous, with over-blown stereotypes representing both men and women. For the most part, the film is just what it appears to be, lighthearted camp; however, there are some moments of more subtle commentary, particularly in the two musical numbers. Both of the film’s songs mock superficial standards of beauty as well as the mentality surrounding much of the beauty industry with lyrics such as, “You’re cute and fresh and wholesome/but science has a cure/the natural look is nowhere” from the song “Brand New Girl.”

Video of “Brand New Girl”

Other songs are critical of reductive behavior, such as the infantalization of women with one of my favorite lines in the whole movie, “I talk like a baby/ And I never pay for drinks” in “I Am A Blond.” The glorification of women who act like children has long been problematic, and I appreciate Brown’s awareness of it and her parody of its consistent presence. And while much of the plot centers around the sexual objectification of women (the reason the aliens crash land in Valerie’s pool is because they spotted her sunbathing from space) it’s done in an over-the-top, satirical fashion with a lot of tongue-in-cheek breast-jiggling and intentional flashing of Davis’s thigh.

Video of “I Am A Blond”

While the blatant satire can seem reductive in its own sense, showing pretty much all of Southern California as uninformed slackers and self-absorbed beach bunnies, it is an accessible and very mainstream sort of commentary. Much of Brown’s songs are reminiscent of the hilarious Pink song, “Stupid Girls,” which portrays a lot of the same problems with the media that is currently aimed at women.

In the end, the parody of sci-fi genres, romance movies and much of Western society, was an added bonus to a movie that’s just the best kind of goofy, ridiculous, 80’s entertainment.

Contact

Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey in Contact

This 1997 film directed by Robert Zemecki’s does have its moments of self-righteous preaching about the nature of truth and life; however, it’s far more cerebral consideration of alien visitors makes this 90’s film definitely worth revisiting.

In case you don’t remember the plot, here’s a little review: Ellie (Jodie Foster) is a young, brilliant SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) astronomer who listens for extraterrestrial life in New Mexico and, of course, finds it one day. Subsequently, plans for a transportation device are discovered encoded into the radio transmission sent by the aliens, and this unleashes a storm of media, government fear, distrust and discussions about god. Ellie wants nothing more than to be the person strapped into the transporter, but she has to battle bureaucracy and sexism to get there. Despite how it sounds, one of the things that I love about this movie is that aliens actually play a very small role in the film; mostly this film is about humanity in times of crisis.

One of the reasons that I think this movie is great for feminists, though, is that Jodie Foster is intelligent and driven. The focus of the movie is not on how she looks (ninety percent of the movie has her in jeans and a t-shirt with a messy ponytail) but rather on her intense search for truth and scientific discovery. Her excitement for her career and the passion with which she pursues it is admirable, as is her bravery. In fact, Ellie’s character explicitly points out that it is not faith that drives her to attempt the transportation machine of the aliens but rather a sense of adventure (a characteristic we should be actively cultivating in young women today). While there is a side-plot of a relationship with Matthew McConaughey, it’s never the core of the film; the crux of the movie is the point where she encounters and believes in something greater than herself.

Jodie Foster as Dr. Ellie Arraway in Contact

The film also passes the Bechdel Test in that two women, with names, talk to each other about something other than a man for more than thirty seconds. While the majority of the characters are still male, which is understandable in some facets since most of politics and science are still dominated by men, the main staffer at the White House is a woman, and she too plays a strong role in the development of the plot.

For me, the greatest point of this movie is how it shows a female protagonist dedicated to scientific discovery and the fulfillment of her dreams. Often when women are portrayed as ambitious and career-oriented, they are simultaneously shown as cold, evil, and downright heartless (think Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada). In Contact, however, Foster is genuine and polite to the people around her, much like successful women really are.

In fact, in preparation for the film, Jodie Foster met with Dr. Jill Tartar, one of the senior SETI scientists, to discuss her life in the sciences, sexism and what SETI researchers really do. One of the best aspects of this movie is the portrayal of sexism in Ellie’s career without ever really addressing it, just showing how commonplace it is and how gracious she is in dealing with it (again, a far cry from the usual ice-queen portrayal of a successful woman).

The movie also offers a discussion of science versus religion and whether the two can coexist, or how much their goals might even have in common; I think it’s a great addition to the film, in that it is a constant ongoing discussion in our society and would surely be discussed in the event of aliens. Though even without the aliens, the parallels to our own current national debates on same-sex marriage, revolving between the door of religion and science, is provocative. In this way, unlike so many science-fiction films, there is a strong sense of cultural context and philosophical consideration, which pulls the film away from action-based plot lines and into a far more relevant space in drama.

———-

It’s Our 5-Year Blogiversary!

BF co-founders Steph and Amber at the 2010 Athena Film Festival

We can’t believe it, but today marks five years since we started Bitch Flicks.

In March 2008, we started a blog with the wink-and-a-nudge name, Bitch Flicks. In that first year, we wrote a whopping seventeen posts, eight of which were actual film reviews.

In 2012 we published 557 posts–and “we” consisted of a dozen people, not to mention numerous guest writers.

We want to thank our Editor and Staff Writer Megan Kearns.

We want to thank our staff writers: Erin Fenner, Robin Hitchcock, Leigh Kolb, Carrie Nelson, Rachel Redfern, Amanda Rodriguez, Lady T, Max Thornton, and Myrna Waldron.

We want to thank everyone who has ever contributed to Bitch Flicks, whether by writing a post, designing a logo, donating, commenting, or sharing a piece you read with someone else.

Everyone mentioned here has been a part of what has made this project continue.

Finally, we want to thank every one of you reading this–and we hope you’ll stay with us in years to come.

–Steph and Amber

Strippers and Republicans: Political Satire in ‘Butter’

Written by Rachel Redfern

I love films that have unsympathetic characters; Unsympathetic characters just buck the traditions of stereotype and pull in far more complicated personalities and situations. Butter, a 2012 film by Jim Field Smith, is unexpectedly about the lives of three very different women, two of whom are fairly unpleasant people.

I hadn’t seen any trailers for this film, or noticed its release; I only managed to find it while scrolling through the itunes movie lists during an evening of procrastination. Despite the fact that this film went fairly unnoticed in 2012, it has a substantial cast of actors: Jennifer Garner, Hugh Jackman, Olivia Wilde, Alicia Silverstone, Ty Burrell (Modern Family), Kristin Schaal, amongst a few other recognizable faces.

The film centers around Destiny (Yara Shahidi), a ten year-old orphan in Iowa who has just been fostered to Alicia Silverstone and her husband and Laura Pickler (Jennifer Garner) who is the wife of butter-sculpting genius, Bob Pickler (Ty Burrell). As butter sculpting king and queen, Bob and Laura have been asked to step down from their thrones and give someone else a try in the next competition, a situation that Laura refuses to accept and so enters herself. Destiny also decides to enter into the same competition and is a butter prodigy, matching Destiny and Laura into an epic battle. Along the way, Bob starts a relationship with a grumpy stripper named Brooke (Olivia Wilde) who joins as well to piss off Laura and to intimidate Bob into paying her the money he owes for his last session. Confusion, sex, extortion, bribery, sabotage and other political behaviors ensue.

Butter is obviously a political satire, and unfortunately, it’s not subtle in its political agenda. This, more than anything, brings the film down since it can feel a bit like you’re having the opinions of the screenwriter (Jason Micallef) shoved down your throat and doesn’t allow for the complexities surrounding a lot of political issues.

Also, not every character is compellingly untraditional; it’s more of a mixed field. Some unconventional and interesting characters thrown in with total clichés, and while the ending was trite and unimaginative, a few of the characters we meet in the middle of the film, still made this film enjoyable and worth discussing.

Jennifer Garner sculpts the assassination of Kennedy as Laura Pickler in Butter

For the good then: Laura Pickler (Garner) is unsympathetic character number one; She is ambitious and uptight and obsessed with her social status. When she’s asked to step down, along with her husband, she decides she can’t let anyone else have the glory and so proceeds to try to stomp on the competition. And when she catches her husband in the back seat of their van with Brooke, she T-bones the van with her suburban. She’s also a liar, using sex to get hunky car salesman Boyd Bolton (Hugh Jackman) to help her win a competition.

Basically, you’re supposed to hate her and the fact that she’s pretty obviously a republican, but I sort of loved her; she’s determined and forceful and naughty and beyond that, she’s a bit lonely and maybe in need of a few friends. Even here, in this film that’s supposed to portray a leftist agenda, the woman who is ambitious and tries to dream big (she later becomes a candidate for political office) get’s a bad rap and labeled as a ‘bitch.’ So I guess, I was rooting for her, as least she had a unique personality.

Olivia Wilde draws a scarlet letter as Brooke in Butter

Unsympathetic character number two: Brooke, the stripper. The stripper with the heart of gold is a pretty common trope, but Brooke was a pretty good mix. She’s obviously lying to and manipulating Bob (and he’s naïve enough to fall for it), soliciting sex, extorting and even bullying him into giving her more money. She even sleeps with Bob’s teenage daughter in exchange for Kaitlin Pickle (Ashley Greene) stealing money from her father and giving it to Brooke. Of course, Brooke then gives the money to Destiny to help her beat Laura and is then redeemed in the audience’s eyes. It’s a pretty twisted web, but I liked how unapologetic she was about her profession, her motives, and her behavior.

Yara Shahidi begins her butter sculpting practice as Destiny Butter

Destiny of course, is the good guy, the sweet orphan who helps to redeem both of these characters, and that’s cool. But, that’s not always what happens in the world, sometimes there are just nasty people who aren’t always redeemed. I think it’s just as important to show those kinds of people, as it those who do learn from their mistakes. Besides, it would have been a far more effective political satire with the ‘bad guy’ winning at the end; rather the ending to Butter just feels like pandering.

Most of the movie’s moments of comedy come from the self-centered and uncouth things that Laura and Brooke say and do, but there are a few clever dialogues involving Destiny (Shahidi). Shahidi, is a great young actress and her introductory rant about her past foster homes is hilarious, as is an exchange with her foster father, Ethan (Rob Corddry), about all the bad things that could happen if she enters the competition: attacked by “racist ninjas” and “republicans” being two legitimately funny answers.

Butter, as a film, will win no awards, and really, the ending is annoying; however, it does have some moments of good comedy and wacky characters. I appreciated its off-beat sort of humor and crazy ladies, and for a Sunday afternoon film, it’s just fine. Besides, I did learn something: there are some intense people out there carving butter for film productions and state fairs and these people are amazing artists.

Lust, Love, Duty, Sex: Female Experience in ‘The Deep Blue Sea’

Written by Rachel Redfern

Terence Davies’ 2011 film, The Deep Blue Sea, is based off the 1952 Terence Rattigan play of the same name and while it wouldn’t pass the Bechdel test, it is a film full substantive consideration, both strengths and flaws, of its female character; the film’s main premise hinges on the choices of it’s protagonist Hester Collyer, brilliantly acted by Rachel Weisz.

Hester is a women of education and status in 1950’s post-war England who is married to an affectionate and older high court judge, William (Simon Russell Beale). Hester’s marriage is one of comfort and companionship, surrounded by the consistent affections of her husband, but it lacks passion. Hester then begins an affair with a younger RAF pilot, Freddy (Tom Hiddleston): a heady, wild romance ruled by emotion and embodied by all the lust and anger that such a relationship brings. Ultimately, Hester leaves her husband before he agrees to give her a divorce and move in with Freddy (scandal!) a decision that places her between the devil and ‘the deep blue sea.’

Within the film, it could be seen as problematic that even though Hester is the main character, her choices, and even her world, revolve around the two men in her life and of course her choice between them; however, this slow, character-romance, deserves a deeper look.

Rachel Weisz and Tom Hiddleston

The film is told in one day at the flat Hester shares with Freddy through a series of flashbacks; these flashbacks follow on the heels of a suicide attempt, an event, which then becomes the impetus for her break-up with Freddy and another choice she must make about her future. It’s a grisly catalyst that highlights Hester’s sense of desperation and I think, a feeling of being lost.

Hester is a woman craving life and passion but who is, of course, bound by duty; a plot that might seem overly familiar in its use, but because of its frequency we should consider the sad truth of its existence and representation as a struggle for many women. The Hours, Stephen Daldry’s excellent film (story by Michael Cunningham) about four women, presents the same familiar situation of the restlessness and searching for something more that was and is such a huge part of the female experience. It even put me in mind of Bette Friendan’s The Feminine Mystique and everything that she tried to piece together and understand about the frustration and extreme sense of duty that many women have felt throughout the years.

It is important to note that, as in so many of these stories, it is Hester’s sexual desire that also leads her into the mess and at the same time, out of dreary dark of her early life. Perhaps this is a function of the time in which the story was originally written (1952), but I would instead hope that it was more of a recognition of the great need for larger sexual experiences that influenced its central place within Rattigen’s story. The fact that many women still lived in a fairly sexually repressive society during this time (and unfortunately still do in many places) is no secret; Hester’s experiences with sexuality, lust and intimacy are a significant part of her transformation and the beginning of her journey into a (hopefully) more self-aware life.

Rachel Weisz in The Deep Blue Sea

The Deep Blue Sea’s brilliance as a film is in the maddening silences and in the horrific feeling of helplessness that Hester emotes as she moves about her apartment and interacts with the small cast; these obvious feelings of entrapment are often shown by the limited space in which Hester resides and her long deliberations at the dingy window. There is a lack of light present throughout the movie: a literally dark look to the setting and an abundance of shadows which contribute to Weisz’s own performance as a woman suffocating and dying from a lack of something (the something of course being both a lack stability and passion and something additionally indefinable).

As the film progresses though and the flashbacks bring us closer to the end of this long day, things begin to unravel further: I appreciated that the film was able to explore the binary that exists between choices that we can control and choices that are made for us. For instance, in one scene, Hester begs Freddy to return home with her and as the audience, you can’t help but shout at the screen, “No! Don’t go down that road, keep your dignity, don’t be the girl who begs!” but deep down there’s the recognition that while uncomfortable to see, it is also Hester’s way of trying to hang on to the one thing in her life that made her feel alive for a little awhile, even if it is the very thing that makes her want to die at the same time. It is the intersection of these choices that creates potential for the future and unravels Hester’s present choices.

It’s apparent by the end of the film that Hester’s choices have completely pushed her out of a comfortable, if numbing life, and she must attempt to finally pull the pieces up around herself in order to move forward. I believe it’s very telling that the final shot is of Hester walking away, fully alone, as she goes into the future without the desires of her husband or lover influencing her. I love these sort of endings though; endings that, while not necessarily the girl-and-boy-happy-together-forever ending of so many romantic comedies, show a character moving into a space of possibilities of their choosing, a moment of an independent future where the character is finally choosing for themselves.

Rachel Weisz in The Deep Blue Sea

The Deep Blue Sea and Rachel Weisz were nominated for several different awards in the categories of Best Film and Best Actress at the Golden Globes, New York Film Critics Circle (won), the London Film Critics Circle, and the BFI London Film Festival among others. The film is beautifully shot and wonderful in its ability to conjure up a feeling of recovering, post-war England; likewise the acting is beautiful without being heavy-handed and Rachel Weisz is incredible in her role as Hester. The film does move slowly however, and I personally would have liked even more flashbacks, especially in showing the development of Freddy and Hester’s relationship and how that affected her.

While again, some viewers could see it as problematic that so much of Hester’s character revolves around the men in her life, I think it’s a worthwhile exploration of romance and duty and the way that the two often interact, especially from a female perspective. Besides, romance, lust and love are massive emotions that do dominate a significant portion of our lives; I think its productive and important to tell stories that highlight such a substantial aspect of humanity.

Penetrating History in ‘Hysteria’

Written by Rachel Redfern

When I first saw the trailer for Tayla Waxter’s 2011 period comedy, Hysteria, I was incredibly excited; I awaited it’s US release for the past year hoping that it would fulfill my need for clever comedy with smart female characters. However, we might as well just get it over with–Hysteria fell short of my expectations.

The plot of this small independent film is a fictionalized account of the creation and distribution of the personal vibrator, an appliance that unbelievably has it’s roots in 19th Century England and was actually designed to abate the symptoms of female hysteria. Hysteria was considered a real condition during that time period and was assigned to troubled women (a quarter of the female population) who must then be driven to orgasm. Seriously.

I would suggest that everyone do a little Wikipedia search for ‘female hysteria’ because it’s some of the most entertaining and offbeat information I’ve ever heard. Doctors and midwives used to ‘massage’ women into orgasms (yes, male doctors and female midwives—how’s that for Victorian homoeroticism) to help with their anxiety, loss of appetite and even insomnia. During this period, it seems hard to believe that no one started some sort of morality campaign against the doctors who were pleasuring their wives in the name of science, but there you have it, folks. The fact that the entire European and American medical establishment willfully ignored the obvious logical conclusions about female sexuality (you know, that women like, need and enjoy sex just as much as men do) is both tragic and hilarious at the same time.

One hopes that this advertisement for an ‘Electro-Massage Machine’ was a bit tongue in cheek

One would believe then (or at least I did) that a film about such a ‘tragic and hilarious’ situation like female hysteria would be both comedic and portray some of the complications and harm that affected women because of these early medical beliefs. This of course leads to my fallen expectations: Hysteria was at most sweet and lighthearted, though from my viewpoint, naïve and lacking in any real substance.

Despite it’s very feminist-looking trailer and plot, the film still centers around the men who invent the vibrator and is, at it’s core, a romantic comedy with the guy getting the girl at the end of the day. The film lacks any kind of subtlety in the political messages that’s it’s pushing, nor does it expound upon complexities or gray areas. Maggie Gyllenhaal portrays the fiery, feminist, saintly Maggie Dalrymple who is a very positive representation of a ‘feminist’ character, though is what I would call Hollywood feminist ‘lite’: a glossy stereotype who strangely has few lines and a lack of screen time. Felicity Jones is prim and proper like a good English girl and then does an abrupt about-face into an independent modern woman just like a good character should, but without much struggle or enthusiasm. Hugh Dancy is the brilliant doctor, dashing but dull, who in a surprisingly original ending still saves the day and Maggie Gyllenhaal (sarcasm).

Maggie Gyllenhall and Hugh Dancy

There are some redeeming characters though: a lusty prostitute turned housemaid named ‘Molly the Lolly’ and Rupert Everett as the wealthy eccentric inventor who steals the show with his dialogues about the queen and the telephone (make of that what you will).

Sheridan Smith as Molly the Lolly and a vibrator

However, the movie is well made, well acted, with some clever dialogues and funny situations, which is really too bad because the plot and the idea of the movie had some incredible potential. While I know that not every movie needs to be The Hours, Hysteria was about as original as my title for this piece. The problem of the film is instead of exploring some of the more problematic and comedic situations, the film took the safe, clichéd route and left itself sweet, but mediocre.

The first test of the vibrator with Jonathon Pryce, Rupert Everett, and Hugh Dancy

2013 Oscar Week: Best Actress Nominee Rundown

Written by Rachel Redfern.

This year’s nominations for Best Actress in a Leading Role has the most diverse age of any Best Actress nomination field. Ever. With Emmanuelle Riva leading at the graceful age of eighty-five and Quvenzhané Wallis blooming at the energetic age of nine, can we just say, ‘Yes!’

I enjoy the Academy Awards for what it is: big dresses, nice tuxedos, and a (slightly) staged attempt to decide the best films of the year; however, I often do feel like the films, directors, actors and actresses that are nominated, are not surprising choices. There’s a sense sometimes, that it’s the same five directors, actors and actresses that are nominated every year; Steven Spielberg for instance has been nominated for a Best Director award EIGHT TIMES and has won twice. Not that Spielberg isn’t a great director, but I feel like we’ve been here before.

Let’s be honest, the academy could use with a bit of shaking up and while an old and young actress being nominated at the same time is hardly going to cause a riot, it’s a step in the right direction.

So here it goes, a run down of this year’s Oscar nominations for Best Actress in a Leading Role.

Emmanuelle Riva nominated for Amour

Emmanuelle Riva

It’s a well-known fact that the percentage of women over the age of forty in movies, is pretty low compared to the substantial portion of the population that they should actually represent. To whit, google ‘Women over forty in Hollywood’ and the majority of the articles that will pop up look something like this, “40 Foxiest Women Over 40,” or “Sexiest Women Over 40” and so on and so on. So basically, if you’re over forty in Hollywood and you can’t pass for thirty-two, then we just don’t want to hear about you.

That’s not to say, that there aren’t older actresses playing roles in movies, because there are, but just not important roles. The point in their lives that this age group has reached, is no longer interesting, despite the fact that Liam Neeson keeps running around beating up wolves and being mighty kick-ass for a man well past his fortieth year.

But, not this year. Emmanuelle Riva is the oldest Academy Awards nominee for Best Actress in the event’s 84-year history and she’s being nominated for Best Actress, meaning, one of the (if not the) main character in a film. Riva has been making movies for over fifty years, even starring next to Juliette Binoche in Krzysztof Kieslowski’s critically acclaimed film Three Colors: Blue. After having been such a stalwart actress and prolific artist, it’s wonderful that she’s finally been recognized for her contribution and skill.

Riva is being nominated for her role as Anne in the French film Amour, a beautiful film about love and aging and hope and even the scary thought of love in the face of death.

Naomi Watts nominated for The Impossible

Naomi Watts

Let’s continue on with our theme of age. (I mean, why not? Chronology is as good a method as any to organize this post). Coming in at bright young age of forty-four, Watts has been producing movies for over twenty-five years and has starred in a fairly eclectic mess of films. She’s most famous for her role as Betty Elms in David Lynch’s thriller, Mulholland Drive, a film that garnered Watts a few awards back in 2001. However, this is Watt’s second Academy Award nomination for Best Actress, the first being for her work in 21 Grams; She’s also starred in big blockbusters such as, The Ring and King Kong.

Watt’s latest nomination for Best Actress is for playing Maria Bennet in The Impossible, a controversial film based on the true story of a family touring in Thailand when a tsunami hits and they’re separated. Go here to read Lady T’s take on the film.

Jessica Chastain nominated for Zero Dark Thirty

Jessica Chastian

Jessica Chastian is a fast-moving young actress who has exploded into the top tiers of Hollywood, probably most noticeably for her part in The Help and Terence Malick’s The Tree of Life. Two years ago I’d never even heard of her; today, Chastain has been nominated for one of the highest awards in film and is at the center of a divisive controversy involving her role in Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty. Zero Dark Thirty’s portrayal of torture, and Chastain’s involvement in those scenes has a few people boycotting the actress and encouraging others to do the same.

However, Chastain’s experience of filming Zero Dark Thirty in Jordan speaks well about her commitment to her art since, as she says of her situation during that time, “with regard to the way women are treated,” she says, recalling a particular incident when soldiers insisted that she walk to the prison instead of being driven. “They don’t see women that often. I was like, ‘I’m not getting out of this car, how dare these guys’, but then you think: this woman had to live in Islamabad and all these places when she was doing this job – and had to experience the same treatment of women where she had no control.”

Jennifer Lawrence nominated for Silver Linings Playbook

Jennifer Lawrence

The twenty-two year old queen of this year’s unbelievably popular, Hunger Games, Jennifer Lawrence is next on our list of Oscar nominees for Best Actress and startlingly, this is already her second nomination for the award. She was first up for the award in 2010 for her role in the amazing, Winter’s Bone, (Seriously, read about it, watch it, love it) and at the time was the second-youngest actress to ever be nominated.

After a ridiculously short non-award-winning break of one year, Lawrence has been nominated this year for starring alongside Bradley Cooper in Silver Linings Playbook, another film about age and love and death and mental illness, though at the other end of the chronological spectrum from Amour. Lawrence has only been acting for six years and has managed to achieve some hefty success and play a wide-variety of roles: a poverty-stricken young girl from the Ozarks in Winter’s Bone, Mystique in X-Men First Class, Katniss in the Hunger Games and now, widow and sometimes sex addict, Tiffany Maxwell in Silver Linings Playbook. Whether she wins the Academy Award or not, I’m pretty sure that this will not be Lawrence’s last nomination.

Quvezhane Wallis nominated for Beasts of the Southern Wild

Quvenzhané Wallis

Quvenzhané Wallis. I wish I knew how to pronounce that name correctly because it just looks absolutely lovely. This pint-sized powder keg of delightful talent was a mere six years-old when she started shooting Beasts of the Southern Wild, and at the age of nine, she’s the youngest nominee for Best Actress that the competition has ever seen. Tatum O’Neal however, was a pretty close second since she was only ten when she won the award for Paper Moon in 1973 (an amazing movie starring Tatum’s father Ryan O’Neal and one of my favorite actresses ever, Madeleine Kahn). Interestingly enough, Wallis isn’t even the youngest nominee in academy history; Justin Henry was only eight when he was nominated for Best Actor in 1979 and Jackie Cooper was nine for his role in Skippy.

Beasts of the Southern Wild is Wallis first film, though the actress is already slated to appear in Steve McQueen’s new film Twelve Years A Slave later this year. Here’s hoping that she continues to act and thrive in Hollywood and that hopefully, she’ll be able to rush us into a new age of films filled with women of character and distinction.

Who do you think deserves win? Who do you think will win? (Two very different questions to my mind). Do you think that the oldest and youngest nominations for Best Actress falling in the same year is revolutionary? Or just a usual kind of year for the academy?

———-

Bitch Slapped: Female Violence in ‘Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters’

Written by: Rachel Redfern

Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton in Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters

Watching the trailer for this year’s latest fairy tale redux, Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters it, wasn’t a difficult thing to judge the film as a clichéd action movie with a bad plot and a ridiculous title: we were not wrong to do so. However, the large amount of female characters makes it at least an interesting movie to review. While the world of Hansel and Gretel does feature men, few of the main characters are and in an interesting twist for an action movie, female characters outnumber the male ones. The movie even passes the Bechdel test ironically.

So, here’s a quick breakdown of the film, which probably isn’t necessary except for the sake of a well-organized essay. Hansel (Jeremy Renner) and Gretel (Gemma Arterton) are siblings who are led out into the forest by their parents where they are promptly abandoned. Hansel and Gretel kill the evil witch who tries to eat Hansel and become famous witch hunters, until they end up in a town where multiple children have been taken by a trio of witches to be used for an evil ritual. Violence and one-liners ensue and Hansel and Gretel come to understand themselves and their own history better.

The film plays out like a video game: it’s violence graphic and exaggerated. Personally, I haven’t seen this many heads blown off of bodies since an ill-fated viewing of Rambo IV (2008). People are ripped to shreds, brutally beaten, squished to death, explode and any number of implausible and gory ways to die.

Jeremy Renner taking part in an improbable action scene

But again, despite Hansel and his overwhelming hatred of witches (of which there seem to be only women—no evil warlocks in this franchise), the only other men featured are a simple mayor, an abusive sheriff (Peter Stormare), a pleasant troll and an overzealous fan of Hansel and Gretel’s work (Thomas Mann).

Gemma Arterton is the other side of the bad-ass Hansel and Gretel team, starring as an appropriately aggressive Gretel. I like a spunky heroine and while Hansel does have to save her towards the end of the movie, she does drive home the final killing blow, so overall I suppose there was great equality in their violent slaughter of the witches.

On to the point, I am not opposed to female villains: I support equal-opportunity in my evil masterminds and if you’re going to have a lot of classic male villains (Lex Luther in Superman, Scar from The Lion King, Batman’s Joker), there should also be some equally evil females running around (Ursula in The Little Mermaid, the Borg Queen from Star Trek, Poison Ivy for Batman).

However, in this respect Hansel and Gretel is over the top, just as it is in pretty much every other way. But it is interesting, the violence committed by these female villains and against them is jarring and explicit, however, the filmmakers obviously did everything that they could to distance the witches from being thought of as women. Physically every witch is monstrous, with scaly skin and pointed teeth, unrecognizable as women for the most part.

So not only do they not look like women, they don’t act like maternal loving women, again making it hard to identify with them and I suppose on some level, making it easier to stomach the horrific amount of beating they all seem to receive. There are dozens of evil female witches running around dragging children from their beds in order to sacrifice them for immortality and literally consume them.

Famke Janssen as her monstrous self in Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters

There is one woman though who isn’t the same as the rest of the witches; Famke Janssen (X-Men) is a grand-witch and therefore able to change her appearance. She can appear as a normal human woman or can shift into her more natural, monstrous self. Interestingly enough, at one point of the movie she is, of course, being beaten up by Hansel and to try and stop him from strangling her she shifts into her beautiful human self and begins to beg Hansel for mercy. Hansel knows that she is still evil and that the beauty is just an act and so finishes her off. The moment is almost meta, as if the filmmaker was acknowledging the fact that had the women been human-looking, such gratuitously violent acts against them would have perhaps been unacceptable to audiences.

There are good witches in the film however, maternal loving women who are healers and sacrifice for their children, and are of course, physically beautiful. Though this doesn’t prevent them from getting the shit beat out of them either, just in a more socially acceptable way and one where there is swift retribution from one of the nice males in the film.

One thing that was interesting though, the film is based off the classic fairy tale of Hansel and Gretel in which Hansel and Gretel are abandoned in the forest because their evil stepmother doesn’t want to take care of them anymore. However, in this film version, Hansel and Gretel hate their mother (no stepmother) for abandoning them, only to realize later in the film that the only reason she abandoned them was to save them. It was a moment of explanation for a character who’s been demonized as a bad mother for years, but instead of playing into that, the film actually gave her a reason and a cause, humanizing her for once.

For the most part the whole film is a travesty of plot and character and feminism; it’s one redeeming feature being the amazing soundtrack, but I suppose that at the end of the day, the movie is at least honest since it never pretended to be anything other than what it was: a clichéd Hollywood action movie.

The Transformative Journey of Sex in ‘The Sessions’

Written by Rachel Redfern

Ben Lewin’s little known independent film, The Sessions, has unfortunately been lost in this year’s Hollywood shuffle, a true shame since the film is engaging, lighthearted and uplifting. The award-winning film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and after a standing ovation and winning the Audience Award for US Drama and a special Jury Prize for Ensemble Cast, it’s now being recognized on an even larger scale. Helen Hunt has been nominated at the Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actress and John Hawkes was nominated for Best Actor in a Drama at the Golden Globes (though that award went to Daniel Day Lewis for Lincoln).

The Sessions follows the adventures of one Mark O’Brien (John Hawkes), a poet and survivor of polio who, at the time of the film, is in his thirties and lives his life in an iron lung. Unable to move any part of his body beyond his head, his life features caretakers and friends and a loyal priest (William H. Macy), but no lovers. So, in an attempt to move himself forward, he decides to start seeing a sex surrogate, Cheryl (Helen Hunt), in order to lose his virginity.

John Hawkes as Mark O’Brien in The Sessions

The film is based on a true story and Mark O’Brien’s own account of his experience with a sex surrogate, which he chronicled in an article in The Sun Magazine, an essay that you can still read online.

At first glance, the main theme of the movie appears to be sex, which of course it is, and which of course is so much more than that, being about love, relationships and taking chances. However, I appreciated the very frank, forthright way that the film dealt with sexuality, a facet that was spurred on by Helen Hunt’s lovely portrayal of the straight-talking sex surrogate, Cheryl. Clinical terms for genitalia are thrown around easily and Hunt’s unashamed interaction with nudity and the acts of sex are really refreshing.

It was wonderful to see so many disabled actors with similarly frank discussions of their sexual habits, a surprising and sweet element to the film that really grounded it’s central theme: sexuality. Sexuality as an experience that binds us all with it’s mysterious and yet, overwhelmingly normal nature. His discussions with his caretakers as they commiserate about their own sexual experiences make the similarities between their interactions with that part of life apparent as do the difficulties for O’Brien to do something so simple that it is often taken for granted.

Because of O’Brien’s disability, the film gives ‘the body’ a really fabulous consideration, as of course, O’Brien must become comfortable with his body’s own limitations. There is a really lovely scene when Cheryl (Hunt) holds up a full-length mirror so that O’Brien, who hasn’t seen his own penis since he was six, can finally see himself: all of himself. His self-consciousness about his body drives him to a sense of self-loathing and deep insecurity about his own deservedness for sex and love, a theme not uncommon in our society.

The scene with the mirror is beautifully linked however with Cheryl’s own considerations about her body. Cheryl has decided to convert to Judaism and during the process she must immerse herself in a pool of water as a symbol of transformation, a situation that involves her disrobing in front of an older woman who remarks that Cheryl is unusually comfortable getting naked, unlike other, younger woman she encounters. This woman states that this is a true shame, since our body is so important and is the thing that God has crafted just for us. After this simple comment, with a look of sadness on her face, Cheryl immerses herself in the water, obviously aware of her body’s health; this action triggers the recent memory of holding up the mirror for O’Brien and we see the two scenes as a parallel.

Religion plays an important part in the film as well as sexuality since O’Brien is an active Catholic and his priest, despite the church’s concern for sexual immorality, actively encourages him to have this experience; an action that shows a positive influence on O’Brien’s life and state of mind. However, O’Brien’s parents and their teachings on sex, or rather their complete avoidance of the topic, imbue O’Brien with a deep shame for his own sexual nature; a problem that often causes him to blame any sexual difficulties that he has with Cheryl on his unworthiness and a belief that he’s being punished for his sins.

The film features a bit of nudity, specifically on the part of Helen Hunt, a fact that got quite a bit of notice since there’s a few scenes of Hunt full frontal (gasp!) but scenes that were handled very well, again with Hunt’s very straightforward character which really translated well on screen.

Helen Hunt as Cheryl in The Sessions

In an interview with Hawkes he stated that the nude scenes in the film embodied a very body-positive perspective, one where the body is, “not something that’s dirty or to be ashamed of or laughed at. That’s her job. I know that Helen got it through talking to Cheryl, the real surrogate, that she’s not ashamed of her body. She’s always talked, ‘Sex positive, sex positive.’ I feel like she’s a technician. She just figures out how to get past the sexual issues. Helen embodied that.”

Hunt is definitely deserving of an Oscar for a great performance as both the straightforward sex surrogate and the wife, mother and woman who begins to care very deeply for O’Brien and the experiences they’ve shared.

O’Brien’s experiences, being his search for love and his belief that having sex will get him there, an innocent belief that many of us share, become the transformative events that push him into stronger relationships. In the end of course, the final thought is that it’s not the sex itself, but the journey with the people that he meets that makes him a stronger, more whole person.

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

2013 Golden Globes Week: The Evolution of ‘The Big Bang Theory’

Kunal Nayyar, Johnny Galecki, Jim Parsons, Simon Helberg, Kaley Cuoco

Written by Rachel Redfern.

The Big Bang Theory, the show that legitimizes the nerd in all of us and tickles that small (or large) part of us that gets the Star Trek jokes. The writers of the show are like geeky unicorns who can finally tell that nerdy joke you’ve been trying for years and who make you smile with superiority when you manage to understand one of the many scientific concepts thrown around.

For the second time, The Big Bang Theory has been nominated for a Golden Globe award in Best Television Comedy Series. This is also the second Best Actor in a Television Series-Comedy or Musical nomination for Jim Parsons, the hilarious actor who plays Dr. Sheldon Cooper, an award that he won back in 2011. Similarly, Johnny Galecki was nominated for the same award in 2012.

Instead of just being another rendition of ‘Friends’ and ‘How I Met Your Mother,’ The Big Bang Theory has a unique foundation in its scientist main characters. The main characters Leonard Hofstadter (Johnny Galecki) and Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons) are brilliant, but struggle socially, embodying the traditional nerd stereotype in their love of science fiction shows, fantasy card games, comic book mania, and gamer lifestyle. In the typical sitcom, these kinds of characters are usually background extras that provide the comedic situation for a bad date; while definitely quirky, each of The Big Bang Theory characters’ intelligence and desperate need for affection provide the necessary comedic relief.

The show’s contrasting use of pop culture and advanced scientific concepts is engaging and is augmented by guest appearances from Star Trek alums LeVar Burton, Will Wheaton, and a voice-over by the unparalleled Leonard Nimoy, as well as scientific celebrities Stephen Hawking and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, to name a few.

However, despite the unique nature of the show and it’s legitimately hilarious dialogue there are problematic elements to The Big Bang Theory and it’s a problem I’ve mentioned before: the use of stereotypes. Stereotypes are obviously an important part of comedy; the stereotype is a relatable way to demonstrate a familiar funny situation (or an unfamiliar one since I know few people as smart and neurotic as Sheldon Cooper). However, the stereotypes used in The Big Bang Theory often pigeon-hole women who aren’t physically appealing into socially awkward nerds with latent lesbian tendencies and traditionally beautiful women into uneducated sluts with bad taste in men.

Kaley Cuoco plays Penny, the third main character on The Big Bang Theory, who is a beautiful, young waitress and a bit of an airhead. There are a few disturbing moments on the show when Penny is condescended to by the male characters and is given lines to reflect an “I’m hot but stupid” mentality. Now, this isn’t to say that there aren’t some people in the world who are probably like this, but perhaps it wouldn’t be so noticeable on The Big Bang Theory if it wasn’t used so often with it’s female characters.

Kunal Nayyar, Melissa Rauch, Simon Helberg, Jim Parsons, Mayim Bialik, Johnny Galecki, Kaley Cuoco

In the first three seasons it’s especially noticeable as all of Penny’s beautiful friends are given similar characteristics, as are the beautiful women that the boys date. Even Bernadette (Melissa Rauch), Howard Wolowitz’s fiancé, who has a Ph.D in microbiology, is often typecast as an airhead who doesn’t understand a common sense principle as well as the boys.

Perhaps this is a good transition into the sexist mess that was the early Howard Wolowitz character. One of Sheldon and Leonard’s close friends, for the first four seasons Howard played the role of a disgusting, probably should be on a sex offender list somewhere, horny aerospace engineer. His goal was to get laid and so he lied to women, hired prostitutes, chased them down in a park, and was in general, completely repugnant for laughs. While the character has improved since the introduction of the Bernadette character and their marriage, for the first four seasons, Howard’s character ran rampant through the show, completely unchecked and without any repercussions for his behavior. If anything, there was a congratulatory sense to his actions, as if him hiring a prostitute and going back to his old ways of disrespecting women after a small breakup was something the audience should be sympathetic toward.

Howard’s character displays what I like to call the ‘Mad Men Principle:’ is a show sexist because it portrays sexist situations, or is it instead brilliantly self-aware and exposing sexism? In the case of Mad Men I would argue that yes, it is self-aware and exposing the massive amounts of sexism that was commonplace in the 1960’s. Does the same hold true for The Big Bang Theory?

I would say that in the early years of the show, no, it was sexist. For instance, take the episode “The Killer Robot Instability,” during this episode the sexually rapacious and unethical Howard Wolowitz says something incredibly inappropriate, wildly sexual and completely disrespectful to Penny for about the millionth time, yet when she tells him off, she’s the one who has to apologize for being rude. Despite the fact that Penny has now put up with Howard’s constant pick-up lines and overt sexual come-ons, when she finally stands up for herself and informs him that his behavior is inappropriate, she is the one in the wrong; this action validates Wolowitz’s inappropriate behavior and paves the way for him to continue being disgusting without consequences.

Or again, how Wolowitz treats his mother badly and demands that his girlfriend and wife cook and clean and care for him: the lovely Bernadette looks confused by his constant insistence that she do so, but continues to participate in his illusions about how she’s going to behave.

However, the show has gotten better the past few seasons; the characters feel more well-rounded, there are fewer jokes at Penny’s expense, and the “quick, try to bone every woman in sight” attitude from Wolowitz has subsided since his involvement with the Bernadette character. In fact, there was a moment of acknowledgment and apology for his past behavior in season five, an act of redemption that has put the show on the good side of the ‘Mad Men Principle’ for me.

Simon Helberg, Jim Parsons, Johnny Galecki, Kunal Nayyar

In fact, the season four episode, “The Roommate Transmogrification,” started a clever role reversal featuring Wolowitz and Bernadette as she is offered a high-paying job at a pharmaceutical company. This job will make Bernadette the main ‘breadwinner’ in their relationship and spawns a situation where Bernadette treats him like a trophy wife. Similarly, in season five’s “The Shiny Trinket Maneuver,” Bernadette tells Wolowitz that she’s not sure she wants children, a problem that’s resolved by her compromise to have children if Wolowitz will stay home with them so she can continue her career. It’s obvious that this compromise is unacceptable to him, a fact that I appreciated since it was automatically assumed in the episode (as it so often is in life) that it’s the wife’s duty to give up her career and stay home with her children.

It seems glaringly obvious to make this point about a show who’s title references evolution, but the great evolution and development of The Big Bang Theory makes it, in my opinion, a well-thought out and intelligent sitcom. I’m hopeful that this deserving show will win a golden globe this year and that I’ll continue to laugh like the giant geek I am at every brilliant Star Trek joke that Sheldon Cooper makes.

—