Romance – Page 13 – Bitch Flicks

LGBTQI Week: Frida

This review by Editor and Co-Founder Amber Leab previously appeared at Bitch Flicks on March 30, 2012.

Frida (2002)

I’ll confess to being a little bit obsessed with Frida Kahlo. A copy of her journals sits on my bookshelf. A postcard of one of her numerous self portraits gazes at me from a bedroom wall. A quote from the movie about her life made an appearance in my wedding ceremony. Hell, I even named my dog “Kahlo.” Personal bias notwithstanding, I love the film Frida, for a myriad of reasons.

In my opinion, biopic is an extremely difficult genre. A person’s life doesn’t fit the narrative arc of a standard movie, so we typically see parts of a person’s life excised, heteronormative relationships emphasized, and vast simplification of an often-famous personality. The best biopics play with the narrative arc, bring in some element of creativity, and allow formal aspects of the film to reflect the subject’s personality. Frida does a good job at this by incorporating surrealism—a reflection of Kahlo’s work—and skipping most of the first eighteen years of her life, in favor of beginning near her artistic awakening. (Two other biopics that also subvert standard moviemaking immediately come to mind: Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus, about art photographer Diane Arbus, and Beyond the Sea, which looks at the life of singer and entertainer Bobby Darin).

In identity politics terms, Frida tells the story of a disabled bisexual socialist woman of color who became one of Mexico’s most famous painters. That description alone tells you that this isn’t standard fare that the Hollywood machine typically churns out. The film is a decade-in-the-making labor of love for lead actress Salma Hayek, directed by Julie Taymor, and also starring Alfred Molina (as Diego Rivera, fellow painter and husband to Frida), with cameos by Ashely Judd (playing friend, political ally, and photographer Tina Modotti) and Edward Norton (playing Nelson Rockefeller; Norton is also said to be an uncredited writer of the script, and quite a bit of controversy about his role in the making and editing of the film sprung up when he and Hayek ended their romantic relationship).

There is much to admire about Frida as a film, and Kahlo as an artist, for that matter. Although Frida Kahlo was prettied up by the gorgeous Hayek, who did sport Kahlo’s signature unibrow and unbleached/unwaxed moustache, slightly de-emphasized, the difficulties of her life certainly weren’t softened. When Kahlo was six, she contracted polio, which left her with physical difficulties into adulthood. When she was eighteen, she was in a terrible bus accident, leaving her with life-long debilitating pain which required numerous surgeries to resolve (and resolve they never did). The scene below begins with an unconscious Kahlo, immediately following the accident, and takes us through a Day-of-the-Dead-inspired montage of her three weeks in the hospital, until she regained consciousness (warning: the opening image is bloody and disturbing):

Calaca Hospital
Frida — MOVIECLIPS.com

The film isn’t just about living with disability, though; it’s about thriving in spite of it, about having a full life in which disability is only a part. Kahlo does not “overcome” her physical problems; she spends a lot of time painting in bed, she has good times and bad, and all of this she channels into her work. As a person who lives with disability, it’s damn near inspiring to see a character–based on a real-life person–who struggles and who achieves great things. And great things Kahlo did achieve. Her body of work includes 143 paintings, 55 of which are self portraits. One of her paintings was the first work by a 20th century Mexican artist to be purchased by the Louvre in Paris, she had a one-woman show in Paris, and has become significantly more famous since her death in 1958. Her work is intensely personal, representing most often pain and the broken self. Not only is this work autobiographical–depicting her own pain and suffering–but it is also overtly feminist. Kahlo painting herself in surrealistic representations of womanhood and pain legitimizes female experiences as worthy of high art. Like so many culturally valued enterprises (filmmaking, for one), men tend to dominate the art world. Kahlo–and the film Frida–challenges those patriarchal norms.

Le due Frida

While the film certainly highlights her work as the central element of her life, romantic relationships play a major role as well. Kahlo married the older and more established Mexican muralist, Diego Rivera, when she was 21, and they had a tumultuous relationship, divorcing and remarrying, and having plenty of extra-marital affairs. Their marriage, though, is a kind of model of an artistic pairing; both understanding the other’s devotion to painting and belief in “marriage without fidelity.” Kahlo is known to have had affairs with both men and women, and the film doesn’t gloss over her bisexuality, including a scene with a woman who both Kahlo and Rivera had been sexually involved with. Early indication in the film of her admiration of men and women comes in a somewhat playful party scene, in which Kahlo steps in and wins a drinking contest between Rivera and David Alfaro Siqueiros (played by Antonio Banderas) with the prize of a dance with the lovely Modotti (Judd). The super-sexy tango the two women dance is shown below:

Frida and Tina Tango
Frida — MOVIECLIPS.com

The film, like so many, isn’t without its flaws; one could argue the problem of having a major motion picture about one of Mexico’s most famous artists in which the characters all speak English, for example. Since ten years have passed since the film was made, I can’t be sure whether the same would be true today. Problems aside, this is a visually stunning film, made by a woman, about a woman, and it’s remarkable in nearly every way. If you haven’t seen it, what are you waiting for?

———-

Amber Leab is a writer living in Asheville, North Carolina. She holds a Master’s degree in English & Comparative Literature from the University of Cincinnati and a Bachelor’s degree in English Literature & Creative Writing from Miami University. Outside of Bitch Flicks, her work has appeared in The Georgetown Review, on the blogs Shakesville, Opinioness of the World, and I Will Not Diet, and at True Theatre.

LGBTQI Week: Kissing Jessica Stein

Movie poster for Kissing Jessica Stein

This is a review by monthly guest contributor Carrie Nelson.

(Warning: Contains spoilers about Kissing Jessica Stein.)

Ten years ago, I saw Kissing Jessica Stein on a date with my first girlfriend. We liked the movie, but when we walked out of the theater, we laughed and said to each other, “Let’s not end up as dysfunctional as those two!” The irony did not escape us a few months later, when we broke up under eerily similar circumstances as Jessica and Helen, the film’s protagonists. But much like Jessica and Helen, our break-up was the start of our lifelong friendship. I’ve re-watched the film countless times throughout the last decade, and objectively, I don’t think Kissing Jessica Stein is a great movie. It’s filled with too many romantic comedy clichés, and for a film about queer women in a relationship, the film is awfully preoccupied with discussions about men. But in its best moments, it authentically depicts the awkwardness of new relationships, the confusion of unexpected sexual attraction, and the deep friendships that result from failed romances. Kissing Jessica Stein is flawed, but its sincerity and its willingness to address relationships between non-monosexual women keeps me coming back to it, over and over.

Though words like “bisexual” and “queer” are never used, Kissing Jessica Stein is about sexual fluidity. The Rilke quotation mentioned throughout the film makes this theme obvious:

“It is not inertia alone that is responsible for human relationships repeating themselves from case to case, indescribably monotonous and unrenewed: it is shyness before any sort of new, unforeseeable experience with which one does not think oneself able to cope. But only someone who is ready for everything, who excludes nothing, not even the most enigmatical will live the relation to another as something alive.” (Emphasis added)

Much like Alyssa in Chasing Amy, Helen places a personal ad in the Women-Seeking-Women section because she “excludes nothing” sexually. When it occurs to her that, in all her sexually adventurous years, she has yet to sleep with a woman, she decides to give it a try – hence the personal ad. But she’s completely unprepared for Jessica Stein – who Helen later calls a “Jewish Sandra Dee” – to respond. As the film chronicles the rise and fall of Jessica and Helen’s romantic relationship, it tackles some big questions: Can a woman who’s only dated men have a successful sexual relationship with a woman? When, if ever, is secrecy in a relationship acceptable? Can a relationship with high emotional connection and low sexual compatibility survive?

Jessica and Helen in Kissing Jessica Stein

Kissing Jessica Stein provides no easy answers to the questions it asks, which I appreciate. The film understands that sexuality is complicated, and not everyone shares the same capacity for fluidity and sexual experimentation. The film also understands that there is no definitive recipe to a successful relationship, because people are different and have radically different priorities when choosing significant others. Jessica and Helen start out coming from similar places – both of them have identified as straight for all of their lives, and both of them want to question that assumption and explore the possibility of dating another woman. In time, they find that they truly are attracted to each other – more than that, they love each other – but that attraction manifests differently in each of them. While Helen has no insecurities about a sexual relationship with Jessica and longs to have the kind of relationship with Jessica that she’s had with men in the past, Jessica is more interested in her emotional connection with Helen than her sexual one. I don’t think this means that Jessica is straight or that she isn’t genuinely attracted to Helen – we never see her in a relationship with a man, so it’s likely that her sex drive is naturally low. Rather than judging Jessica and Helen for their differences, the film shows both women as they are, and it explores the ways in which their differences both cultivate and destroy their relationship.

The biggest problem that I have with Kissing Jessica Stein is that it simply isn’t as queer as it wants to seem. As Stephen Metcalf wrote in his review at Slate, “It’s a shame that a movie about openness regarding sexual preference recycles so many motifs from the pantheon of great hetero-dating movies.” Though Kissing Jessica Stein addresses interesting questions and themes rarely found in your average romantic comedy, it’s also fairly formulaic. The stakes never feel quite as intense as they should; even when it becomes clear that the relationship is about to come to an end, there’s never any doubt that Jessica and Helen will remain the best of friends. And then there’s the issue of men. Neither Jessica nor Helen identifies as a lesbian, and I like that choice – the film does a great job of dismantling the gay/straight, either/or binary. That said, one would think that women who are attracted to other women might want to spend some time exploring that. There’s nothing wrong with Jessica and Helen discussing which male celebrities fall into the category of “sexy-ugly” (and I completely agree with their conclusion that Harvey Keitel is among them), but I found it hard to believe that they wouldn’t spend more time finding common ground on what they find appealing about women as well. It’s as if too much overt lesbianism would make the film hard for audiences to swallow. Too much of the film makes it feel like it was made for primarily straight viewers, and that feels like a missed opportunity.

Jessica and Helen in Kissing Jessica Stein

When I watch Kissing Jessica Stein now, I’m transported back to a very specific time and place. I remember being sixteen and newly out as bisexual. I remember anxiously anticipating my first kiss from another girl. I remember starting to understand that sexual expression can be flexible and doesn’t have to conform to societal norms. It shouldn’t matter whom we love or what we call ourselves – only that we love at all, and that we express that love in the most honest way we can. Kissing Jessica Stein is not the first film to convey this message, nor does it do it as well as some other films. It’s certainly not as risky as Shortbus, or even Humpday. But it captures a feeling to which many can relate. And even when it fails, it feels far more believable than most comedies of its genre.

———-

Carrie Nelson is a Bitch Flicks monthly contributor. She was a Staff Writer for Gender Across Borders, an international feminist community and blog that she co-founded in 2009. She works as a grant writer for an LGBT nonprofit, and she is currently pursuing an MA in Media Studies at The New School.

LGBTQI Week: ‘But I’m a Cheerleader’

Movie poster for But I’m a Cheerleader

This is a guest review by Erin Fenner. But I’m a Cheerleader, directed by Jamie Babbit, plays with stereotypes. But not like, “haha let’s use broad generalizations to create characters, but never develop them.” No, this film paints everything pink and blue (pretty much literally) and then asks the audience: Really? Is this what gender and sexuality should look like?It’s even in the title. But I’m a Cheerleader is about a teenage girl, Megan (Natasha Lyonne), who’s naïve about her own sexuality because she fits so comfortably into the norm of femininity. She’s Christian, an “all-American girl” and a cheerleader, so she doesn’t suspect that her attraction to women and sexual disinterest with men is a sign that she’s a lesbian.

It takes an intervention and her parents’ sending her to a “pray away the gay” sort of camp, for Megan to realize she’s gay. Her family sends her to the camp “New Directions” hoping she’ll come back straight, but it only instills in Megan a certainty about her sexuality she hadn’t had before. Not only does she realize that being a lesbian is part of who she is, but through falling in love with another girl at the camp, Megan finds out that she doesn’t want to change it either.

This camp, by the way, looks like it came out of Tim Burton’s nightmares: brightly colored, celebrating conformity and bursting with perkiness.

The director of the camp, Mary Brown (Cathy Moriarty), “cures” homosexuality with a five-step-program. This program mostly involves making the collection of not-so-hetero teenagers act out their gender roles. The different campers are encouraged to find the root cause of their homosexuality – usually being a moment in their childhood where they witnessed adults deviating from gender norms. One’s mom wore pants at her wedding. Another’s mother let him play in pumps. Etcetera.

And so, Mary’s process is to push the adolescents into the cartoon versions of manhood and womanhood. The boys work with Mike (RuPaul) by playing football in solid blue uniforms, fixing a solid blue car and acting out war with solid blue weapons. The girls have their own solid pink version of this: changing baby doll’s diapers, cleaning house and painting nails.

And, through this process we can see how outlandish the performance of gender is. The characters themselves don’t fit neatly into their prescribed roles, and that’s what this film has fun with. We are presented with stereotypes that are swiftly debunked.Megan, for instance, is the exemplary feminine teenager: bouncy blonde hair, bubbly and, yes, she’s a cheerleader. But she also happens to be gay. Dolph (Dante Basco) is a jock who presents himself with military formality and is the first to be booted out of the camp for making out with a fellow male camper. On the other hand, Jan (Katrina Phillips) presents herself in a masculine way. She cries out during a group therapy meeting that, “Everybody thinks I’m this big dyke because I wear baggy pants and play softball and I’m not as pretty as other girls, but that doesn’t make me gay. I mean, I like guys. I can’t help it!”The film picks away at our association with gender and sexuality by presenting us with characters across the gender spectrum – reminding us that sexuality isn’t about whether you paint your nails, but who you are attracted to.

But I’m a Cheerleader does fall into some traps. In portraying characters that are outrageous, there are lots of stereotypically flamboyant gay men. It’s less heinous than most portrayals in the mainstream, and seems to at least be trying to have a purpose. We see Mary’s son, Rock, in short shorts dancing around while ostensibly doing landscape work; living up to the most ridiculous and irritating gay stereotype. But, it’s supposed to be over-the-top to reveal the hypocrisy and absurdity of the camp. Also, while the film does a great job challenging the association of gender and sexuality, and presenting a gender spectrum, it doesn’t explore the spectrum of sexuality so much. Bisexuality is invisible.

But overall, the narrative is one that successfully challenges sexism and heteronormativity. Megan’s journey of falling in love and accepting herself looks normal compared to the antics of those who support the camp. It certainly feels more natural and provides a heart to the film that grounds it.

Megan’s romance with Graham (Clea DuVall) has the perfect combination of silly sweetness and teenage angst. While Graham accepts that she’s gay and is sure it is unchangeable, she is willing to stay in the closet to continue getting support from her family. When Graham and Megan are exposed – Megan leaves the camp, and Graham stays.

Reparative therapy has been the butt of many jokes, but it has existed and been validated by hack psychologists who contort research in an effort to prove that being gay is a mental illness. Robert L. Spitzer who published a study that suggested reparative therapy works, recently made an apology to the gay community because the study has been used to back up harmful methodology. But I’m a Cheerleader tackles an otherwise troubling topic, and makes it funny while still remaining critical.

In the film, while some characters make an effort to be straight, it seems clear that all understand it’s a role they are playing to appease their family. The futile effort could be their chance to remain a member of the community they grew up in. Megan knows that choosing to be open about her sexuality could lead to losing her family, but she chooses pride and oh-so-heroically rescues Graham from the altar of straightness (literally.)

But I’m a Cheerleader isn’t trying to be subtle. The absurdity of gender expectations is put on display with a too-bubbly soundtrack. Because: our society’s gender expectations are insane. And, it’s downright crazy to try to force an identity and sexuality on a person. But, But I’m a Cheerleader gives us a little hope at the end of a wacky lace-trimmed narrative. While the camp wasn’t exposed, while the girls weren’t guaranteed their families, Megan still performed a radical action in embracing both her identity as a lesbian and as a cheerleader. She challenged the expectations of her prescribed role, and still got the girl in the end.

———-

Erin Fenner is a legislative intern and blogger for Trust Women: advocating for the reproductive rights of women in conservative Midwestern states. She also writes for the Trust Women blog and manages their social media networks. She graduated from the University of Idaho with a B.S. in Journalism.

Guest Writer Wednesday: Fatsronauts 101

This guest piece by Melissa McEwan is cross posted with permission from her blog Shakesville.

———-

Fatsronauts 101 is a series in which I address assumptions and stereotypes about fat people that treat us as a monolith and are used to dehumanize and marginalize us. If there is a stereotype you’d like me to address, email me.

[Content Note: Fat bias; dehumanization.]

#3: Fat people are jolly/mean, and fat people are shy/loud.

These are a whole bunch of temperamental stereotypes about fat people, but these are probably the most common—and let us note the immediate irony that they can be conveniently grouped into two dichotomous pairs!

Fat people are jolly! Except for how we’re all mean. And fat people are shy! Except for how we’re all so loud and obnoxious.

How can all of these conflicting stereotypes about fat people be true?! Spoiler Alert: None of them are!

Obviously, not all fat people are jolly, nor are all fat people mean, and not all fat people are shy, nor are all fat people loud. Like any sweeping generalization made about any group, these are just garbage observations offered by people who attempt to justify their biases with dehumanizing monolithic narratives. Whoooops your bigotry!

Fat people, being actual human beings and all, experience a spectrum of emotions and have individual complex personalities, most of which can’t be contained in a single reductive adjective.

That said, it’s informative to examine exactly why these particular stereotypes are so ubiquitous.

The Jolly Fatty. The Jolly Fatty is a very recognizable stereotype, especially but not uniquely in the West. Children in many cultures are introduced to the Jolly Fatty in the form of a gentleman you may have heard of named Santa Claus, aka Father Christmas, aka St. Nick—red-cheeked and perpetually grinning, his big round belly jiggling as he “ho-ho-ho”s his way into their hearts.

The Jolly Fatty is also a staple in comedic duos (Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello), trios (The Three Stooges), and troupes (Chris Farley, Horatio Sanz, Kenan Thompson, et. al. on SNL; John Candy on SCTV). Generally, the Jolly Fatty in comedic groups has been a male stereotype, owing primarily to the misogynist stereotype that women aren’t funny, full-stop. But as female comedic groups emerge, the Jolly Fatty Female Edition emerges, too, e.g. Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids and Phyllis Smith on The Office.

Partly, the Jolly Fatty exists because it’s fun to laugh at fat people just because we’re fat. Partly, it exists because it’s fun/amazing to see fat people engaging in exuberant activities that we’re allegedly unable to do. Chris Farley was a master at physical comedy, and the legendary Chippendales SNL sketch with Patrick Swayze is a classic example of being exhorted to laugh at the fatness of, but also the unexpected physical prowess of, a Jolly Fatty. Kevin James routinely plays the hilariously gravity-defying fat guy. After watching Paul Blart, I observed: “[The most depressing thing about the film is] that Kevin James is a fat guy who can move! He can run and jump and do somersaults, and he was kick. ass. on that Segway—had it doing all kinds of tricks. It was so sad that the movie was so rife with fat-hating stereotypes, because Kevin James himself actually defies so many of them!” The Jolly Fatty isn’t meant to break down stereotypes, though: The Jolly Fatty is meant to play to them for laughs.

And partly, the Jolly Fatty exists because real, live, actual fat people who aren’t created by or dependent on the media use a façade of cheeriness as a self-defense mechanism.

That’s not to say there are not fat people who are naturally happy. I’m dispositionally disposed to contentment myself. But that is a very different thing from a consciously constructed veneer of impenetrable ebullience worn like armor into a hostile world. I know the difference—because I have worn that armor myself.

It is terribly easy to slip into the always-accessible costume of the Jolly Fatty, because people are nicer to the Jolly Fatty than to a real, complex, vulnerable fat human being. I’ve said before that being publicly, shamelessly, unshakably fat and happy is an act of both will and bravery—and, the truth is, being publicly, shamelessly, unshakably fat and not-happy about things other than your fatness is even harder.

The thing is, affecting the Jolly Fatty is most useful/necessary around people who are fat-haters, between whom and ourselves fat people feel obliged to construct a deflective artifice of self-protection off of which can bounce the judgment and bullying central to fat hatred.

It’s not a coincidence that it’s fat-haters who most readily pronounce all fat people to be jolly. It’s because their bigotry results in inauthentic interactions with fat people.

The Mean Fatty. It’s also not a coincidence that it’s fat-haters who are most likely to declare all fat people to be mean. The fact is, if you go around treating fat people like shit, it’s no wonder most of us aren’t bundles of joy in your presence.

The Mean Fatty is similarly a familiar comedic staple. John Belushi and Jon Lovitz generally played Mean Fatties on SNL—or some variation of mean, e.g. grumpy, acerbic, bitter. Comedic foils and villains are often rotund—Pee-Wee Herman’s nemesis Francis is an iconic over-indulged, gluttonous, greedy Mean Fatty. The Coen Brothers also love a good Mean Fatty, and Disney routinely associates fat with villainous.

The Mean Fatty is also a more dramatic staple, showing up especially in dramatic fare for kids as a bully who makes like difficult for the thin protagonist—the classic ginger-haired, freckle-faced, chubby bully in his striped brown shirt, hurling snowballs or snarling epithets with a lisp at our long-suffering hero.

Partly, the Mean Fatty exists because it’s fun to hate fat people just because we’re fat. Partly, it exists because it reinforces—and validates—preexisting prejudices against fat people. It’s okay to hate them; look, they’re all nasty, anyway.

And partly, the Mean Fatty exists because there are real, live, actual fat people who are “mean” specifically around their fatness. And by “mean,” I mean defensive.

Which, of course, is meant to be A Terrible Thing—especially since we all know that fat people are supposed to be jolly! Fat people are supposed to make preemptive self-deprecating jokes about our own fat to diffuse the awkward situation of your quietly judging us! We’re not supposed to get all testy about being quietly (or not-so-quietly) judged by people who have decided to make our bodies their business! GEEZ! THE NERVE OF THOSE MEAN FATTIES!

You know the old saying that everything looks like a nail when you’re holding a hammer? Well, maybe every fatty looks mean when you’re a fat-hater.

The Shy Fatty/The Loud Fatty. I’ll take these two together. These are variations on the same stereotypes about members of all marginalized groups, which pivot around an invisible centerpoint of perfection in which the marginalized person is not too quiet/compliant/disengaged from activism around hir identity, but is also not too loud/defiant/engaged with activism around hir identity.

To fail to take a position is too quiet. To take a position in opposition to the narratives, stereotypes, and people which oppress us is to be too loud.

Basically: We are meant to have opinions, but only those which echo the opinions of our oppressors.

(See how that works?)

The Shy Fatty and Loud Fatty function in tandem as a way for people with thin privilege to deflect blame for fat hatred back onto fat people: Shy Fatties don’t speak up and demand better treatment. Loud Fatties are always shoving their fat in people’s faces and making them resentful of fat. Two extremes who fail to find the perfect balance in which fat people command respect in precisely the right tone.

The Shy Fatty and Loud Fatty stereotypes also exist partly because there are a lot of shy fat people whose shyness is inextricably linked with their fatness, who chose to withdraw and be as invisible as possible in an attempt to avoid attention on their transgressive bodies, and because there are a lot of loud fat people whose loudness is inextricably linked with their fatness, who choose to be boisterous and as visible as possible in a rejection of the cultural pressure to take up less space—to hunch, to crouch, to fold, to squeeze, to be unseen.

These stereotypes, when reflected in actual fat people, are reactions to fat hatred. And thus are they seen primarily by people who routinely express fat hatred and/or unexamined thin privilege.

It’s a self-reinforcing cycle of bullshit, which is broken by creating spaces in which fat people can express without fear of shame, hatred, or retribution the full spectrum of their emotional lives.

Presuming all fat people are all one thing—besides, ya know, deserving of respect—is failing to provide that sort of space.

———-

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. Liss graduated from Loyola University Chicago with degrees in Sociology and Cultural Anthropology, with an emphasis on the political marginalization of gender-based groups. An active feminist and LGBTQI advocate, she has worked as a concept development and brand consultant and now writes full-time.

She lives just outside Chicago with three cats, two dogs, and a Scotsman, with whom she shares a love of all things geekdom, from Lord of the Rings to Alcatraz. When she’s not blogging, she can usually be found watching garbage television or trying to coax her lazyass greyhound off the couch for a walk.

Motherhood in Film & Television: Julia Roberts in ‘Steel Magnolias,’ ‘Stepmom,’ and ‘Erin Brockovich’

This is a guest post from Allison Heard.

J.D. Salinger wrote in his famous novel Catcher in the Rye that “mothers are all slightly insane,” typifying motherhood as a feat of strength, bravery, and oftentimes a few glasses of wine. While Salinger and many other legendary authors narrated the triumphs and downfalls of motherhood, film and television brought these stories to life. Who could forget the prim and proper Carol Brady (Florence Henderson) from The Brady Bunch, the slightly kooky Bren MacGuff (Allison Janning) from Juno, or the homemaking, badass witch Molly Weasley (Julie Walters) from the Harry Potter series. Even Robin Williams tosses his hat in the ring for mother-of-the-year in his role in Mrs. Doubtfire while disguising himself as a housekeeper in an outfit so ridiculous it could be a Halloween costume just to spend more time with his kids. Among these, another awesome on-screen mom is Julia Roberts, an actress known for her portrayal of all different mothering sorts.

Steel Magnolias (1989)

One of Roberts first major roles came in 1989 with the release of Steel Magnolias, a film about two mothers both fighting for their children. The films main characters are Shelby Eatenton Latcherie (Roberts) and her mother M’Lynn Eatenton (Sally Fields). The film opens on Shelby and her mother in a local hair salon, preparing for Shelby’s impending nuptials to her fiancé Jackson later that afternoon. Arguing with her mother about whether or not she can bear children, Shelby falls in to a state of hypoglycemia due to her diabetic condition. She quickly recovers, but this proves to her mother that she is in no state to become a mother. Despite the day’s early events, the wedding goes off without a hitch, and several months later Shelby announces that she is expecting a child with Jackson. While Shelby is ecstatic to have a child, her body does not respond well to childbirth. She goes in to kidney failure and M’Lynn donates her kidney to her ailing daughter. While the kidney responds well temporarily, Shelby’s body eventually rejects it and she slips in to a coma. M’Lynn’s friends help her move past the loss of her daughter by celebrating her life instead of remembering her death.

Steel Magnolias shows the undying love of mothers and daughters through disagreements, tragedy and happiness. Shelby exemplifies the young woman desiring to become a mother despite unruly and unpredictable circumstances. Her choice to bear children despite her physical limitations shows that all she wanted was motherhood, despite the cost. M’Lynn exemplifies the experienced mother who only wants to protect her daughter from harm. Both Shelby and M’Lynn make the ultimate sacrifice for motherhood, that being a kidney and a life.

Stepmom (1998)

Nearly ten years after the release of Steel Magnolias, Julia Roberts was thrown into a mothering role once again. This time, however, she was quite different. Stepmom portrays a businesswoman, Isabel (Julia Roberts), who becomes a stepmom after marrying recently divorced attorney, Luke (Ed Harris). Isabel lacks any maternal instinct and is further degraded by the children’s biological mother and Luke’s ex-wife, Jackie (Susan Sarandon). Their disagreements and feuds are only worsened when Jackie is diagnosed with a terminal illness. Jackie doesn’t think it’s fair that Isabel gets to witness her children grow up, while she becomes just a memory, and Isabel is secretly worried she cannot compare to Jackie. The two women eventually admit these fears to each other, and become a true family before Jackie’s death and Isabel’s marriage to Luke.

In this film, Julia Roberts plays an unwilling mother, completely opposing Shelby Eatenton Latcherie and her ultimate desire to become a mother. Roberts represents a sect of women who are thrown in to motherhood through unusual circumstances and come out successful. While there are numerous struggles and hardships for Isabel to become a mother that Jackie approves of, she eventually does so. This film not only shows motherhood as a role of importance, but also the interpersonal relationships between women, despite the circumstances. Jackie and Isabel could have continued their feuding, but settled their differences for the sake of the children, both exhibiting strong maternal traits.

Erin Brockovich (2000)

Possibly Julia Roberts most noted role as a mother, Erin Brockovich tells the story of an unemployed, single mother who loses a personal injury lawsuit after she was in a car accident. Upset by her lawyer’s failure, she demands a job at his firm in compensation. He offers her a position as a file clerk in his office, and she soon uncovers a ring of deceit surrounding a major company. Brockovich eventually reveals that the company has been destroying files and laying off its employees. This discovery leads to a huge settlement that is split between the injured employees.

Again, this film shows Roberts in a different motherly role. This time, she is a single mother struggling to support her three children. Her struggles are only furthered when her accident happens and she loses her settlement case. Despite her uphill battle though, Brockovich overcomes and shows that she can survive amongst the high-powered attorneys and deceitful corporations. Based on true-life events, this story is an uplifting account of motherhood and the struggle to survive it alone.

These three films show a variety of motherhood roles in the film industry. Julia Roberts plays a single mother, an unwilling mother and a woman desperate to become a mother. Amongst all of these films are other mothers trying to protect their children from harm, like Shelby’s mom M’Lynn or Jackie in Stepmom, who also show off their maternal instincts.

Motherhood in film and television, while oftentimes portrayed by actresses who are not real life mothers, offer a narrative for the struggles and triumphs of mothers in the audience and at home. These films offer mothers, grandmothers, aunts, and other caretakers an escape from their real life mothering to feel the comedy, tragedy, drama and sheer bliss of being a mother. Without these film and television portrayals, we would be left without the experiences and stories of other women, whether alike or different from your own personal story.

Allison Heard is a writer for HalloweenCostumes.net, and wants to remind you all that your stepmother is not the Wicked Witch of the West.

Motherhood in Film and Television: Nine Months Forward, Three Centuries Back

Julianne Moore and Hugh Grant in the film Nine Months

This is a guest review by Tyler Adams.

Male Pregnancy

Nine Months, contrary to all expectations, is not about pregnancy. It’s about a man coping with a pregnancy. Yes. Here’s a film whose subject absolutely and biologically requires a woman – and it’s still about a man.

However, Nine Months does achieve sex equality of the most dubious sort – it’s insulting to men and women.

In the world of Nine Months, women have already accepted that their value lies primarily in their fecundity and that raising children is the only thing that matters. And now, it’s time for men to learn the same lesson.

Rebecca, whose unplanned pregnancy kick-starts the plot, knows full well the consequences of pregnancy. And she ignores them. She wants to keep the baby, immediately, after about five minutes of running time where she isn’t even onscreen.

To the film’s credit, it doesn’t demonize Rebecca for subtly, whisperingly alluding to abortion, but the film glosses over it too much to truly be considered ‘pro-choice.’

The conflict in the film’s first act is all about Samuel accusing Rebecca of getting pregnant on the sly. Yes. She tells him she’s pregnant and he turns it into an act of aggression against him. He blames it on her: condescendingly scoffing that birth control could be anything other than foolproof.

Then we get delightful dream sequences wherein Samuel imagines Rebecca as a praying mantis trying to eat him.

As Anita Sarkeesian points out in her excellent video ‘Tropes vs. Women: The Evil Demon Seductress,’ most praying mantis species don’t engage in sexual cannibalism. And neither do women. Except to adolescent men terrified of female sexuality.

Then there’s Samuel’s friend Sean, our childfree Straw-man. His girlfriend says she wants kids, she leaves when he says ‘no’ – a week later, he’s self-admittedly using another woman to ‘get him over the rough spots.’ He describes her breasts, calves, and skin like food, basically making her sound like a golem made of calzones, candy, and cake.

Bobbie, his ‘girlfriend’ is a stereotypically attractive young woman who literally never says a word during the whole film and has no narrative purpose other than temporary eye candy – so the film treats her about as well as Sean does. With Sean, the filmmakers are essentially equating child-freedom with misogyny. Hey, all women want kids, so not wanting to have kids means being anti-woman, right?

There certainly aren’t any major single, childfree, or independent women in the film. Gail is the only other main adult female character, and she has three daughters and one on the way. She talks to Rebecca about how ‘pregnancy is our profound biological right, something men can never experience,’ when Rebecca expresses her one, solitary note of doubt in the film (in a conversation that doesn’t even pass the Bechdel Test, given that it’s all about men and childbirth). This is pretty much the only time the film really deals with Rebecca’s perspective in a way that doesn’t relate to Samuel.

The idea is that it’s a woman’s duty to have children, which is ‘natural’ and therefore good, and a source of female privilege. Gail even frames this in feminist terms, as if Karen Horney’s ‘womb-envy’ concept was a step forward for gender equality (Enlightenment-era chauvinists celebrated women’s fecundity, too – Enlightenment-era feminists spent more time talking about women’s rights), and there’s anything empowering about the idea that women absolutely must have children regardless of their personal feelings, because, apparently, it’s the one advantage they have over men.

Rebecca calls independent single motherhood ‘fashionable,’ and ‘PC,’ basically dismissing it. She says she would rather have a family – as if a single parent family doesn’t count. All Samuel has to do is propose. Why she doesn’t just pop him the question is unexplained. Apparently, even the audience takes it for granted that that’s the man’s decision to make.

Nine Months is trying to celebrate motherhood through the eyes of a reluctant father. Rebecca’s feelings are barely addressed, and Gail doesn’t seem to know how to celebrate motherhood without also demeaning the childfree. She says of Samuel, ‘You have a baby, that means he’s gotta grow up. That’s what he’s afraid of. I mean, the baby’s the fun part…Look at all this stuff.’

She’s referring to the toy store merchandise. Yes. Apparently the joys of motherhood are not bonding with and nurturing other human beings, but buying them things. Gail has the ultimate conservative vision of motherhood – it combines chauvinism and capitalism!

Professional Parents

“What if the baby can see…your penis, coming toward it, that could scare the hell out of a baby…or what if your penis hit it in the head; it could cause brain damage…”

I’m not embellishing. That’s what Rebecca says, five months into her pregnancy, right before she and Samuel have sex. Rebecca is in her thirties, and – well, given the number of biological errors she made in two lines, I’m terrified of what else she doesn’t know about things you should and shouldn’t do during pregnancy.

What does it say about the state of women’s health education that this scene does not read as satire? And if it was supposed to be funny, well – maybe it could work as horror comedy, but I didn’t see any real commentary.

By the way, it should be mentioned that Samuel is a child psychotherapist. Or ‘kiddy shrink’ as Gail calls him. He’s a child psychotherapist and doesn’t know the first thing about pregnancy. He doesn’t know that amniotic fluid in the uterus protects the baby, and the cervix is blocked throughout most of a pregnancy, or you’d think he would have told Rebecca about it during their attempted sex scene.

He’s allegedly successful at his job, but all we see is his being clueless around children, insensitive around women, and ignorant about everything he should be an expert on. The man has to read a book like What to Expect When You’re Expecting, as if he’s never taken any classes on prenatal development. Well, he didn’t know that birth control is only 97 percent effective, so let’s just assume he’s never even taken sexual education at school.

We do see a competent, female gynecologist who more or less helps set Samuel on the right path, but for some reason, we spend a lot more time with bumbling Russian stereotype Dr. Kosevich. All the better to humiliate Rebecca with, I suppose, during her first doctor’s appointment, and later, during the world’s most farcical labor scene where Samuel nearly kills several people trying to get her to the hospital. Oh, and he starts a fistfight during her delivery. How you advocate birth while making it look horrible and playing it for juvenile laughs is anyone’s guess.

Marty and Gail are ultimately the people Rebecca and Samuel turn to for advice. No matter how poorly socialized their daughters are, they’re experts. A child psychotherapist like Samuel has to ask Marty and Gail for help, and as far as the narrative goes, they outrank a gynecologist. Even though Marty believes that you can tell the fetus’s gender by whether the mother’s carrying high or low, and that sexual positions influence sex determination. Although, the anti-intellectualism works well with the film’s overall sneering at creative and professional individuals.

Sean: “…the world is overpopulated; our society has too many starving children.”

Gail: “Well, I would say our society has too many starving artists…this was our parents’ home, but I don’t see you making any contribution…you keep this up you’ll die alone, like a dog, like a bum. Like Van Gogh.”

Sean is an artist, and Gail demeans him for it, because hey, we all know art doesn’t pay. Not like owning a car dealership like Marty, which is a much better contribution to society, of course.

Of course, Sean’s work seems irrelevant. Since he doesn’t ‘have’ a wife and kids, he’s not making any meaningful contribution to the world at all, according to Gail. She equates being single with being isolated, and being childfree with being childish. And the film takes her side.

When Sean argues that she and Marty used to have interests, and are now just obsessed with their children, she doesn’t even deny it. She just affirms that this is the way it should be. After all, earlier Rebecca instantly accepts that she has to quit her job as a dancing instructor – not just take a leave of absence; actually quit. Samuel, after his transformation, says ‘I don’t give a damn about me; I’m in love with my child.’ Apparently, parents of all genders should be denied personhood outside their children, and this is something all women want, and all men should want.

Girl Children

Ashley Johnson as Shannon Dwyer in Nine Months

Marty goes shopping for sports equipment as he’s assuring Samuel he’s having a boy, on no evidence. Apparently, all boys must be into sports, or they’ll be forced to be, and none of Marty’s daughters are athletes or could be.

When Samuel shows his distaste for being hit in the face or punched in the stomach by Marty or his daughters, Marty and the film insult Samuel’s masculinity. Especially when the daughters do it. When Marty gets into a fight with some Barney stand-in over some petty insults, Samuel doesn’t join in until he’s accused of being gay. It’s okay to be genuinely childish, apparently – like beating someone up in public over petty insults – as long as you look appropriately ‘masculine’ while doing so.

When Marty learns he’s having another girl, he complains (at the end, he relents and says, “I guess having another girl isn’t so bad.” Bravo.), and Samuel smirks about his good fortune in getting a boy. Earlier in the film, one of the reasons Samuel comes around and accepts the pregnancy is learning his child is a boy. The film obviously doesn’t value girls any more than it values women.

Samuel’s character arc is not about him overcoming his sexism – it’s about him ‘growing up’ by accepting fatherhood. When he reunites with Rebecca, he says he’s in love with his son, and is in love with her for having him – in love with her as a vessel, not a person, as Eve Kushner at Bright Lights Film Journal astutely observed. He never really misses her when she’s gone, never really asks how she’s feeling, or even has a real conversation with her – when he comes around, he comes around for the baby and not for her.

The film isn’t subverting the tropes that women, family, and children force men to lose personalities, that all women are content to be homemakers, that losing your personality is part of growing up, or that all people’s worth lies in childrearing – the film is just positively endorsing it all.

There’s nothing inherently bad about having children or getting married. One of the problems comes from the sentiment that you need a spouse and kids regardless of personal taste, or even regardless of the spouse and kids. The way many people talk about this is roughly: get a woman, or get a man, or get some kids. Any will do, apparently.

Children are not your unique children you can nurture and bond with – they’re just a burden that forces you to nobly suffer and mature. Marriage isn’t an outgrowth of a loving relationship between two complete individuals, it’s just an item on your life’s agenda to be crossed off, and establish you as an adult with a life worth living. Your spouse and children exist as objects related to you, and since that’s what you were looking for, that’s what you got.

It’s an attitude that not only reduces acceptable lifestyles down to practically nothing, but degrades the lifestyle it should be promoting. It’s a recipe for unhappy children, and unhappy marriages. Good thing Nine Months stops shortly after the nine months, and we don’t see our couple’s future. What we’ve seen – Samuel’s sullen patients, Marty and Gail’s children, as well as Marty and Gail – are evidence enough.

———-

Tyler August Adams is a Master’s candidate in Environmental Science and Policy, and writes decidedly unconventional reviews and reflections on the media at http://nevermedia.blogspot.com.

‘The Five-Year Engagement:’ Exploration of Gender Roles & Lovable Actors Can’t Save Rom-Com’s Subtly Anti-Feminist Message

Violet (Emily Blunt) and Tom (Jason Segal)

I’ve never planned a wedding and I’ve never been engaged. Yet I can relate to the The Five-Year Engagement’s premise. My dream is to move to NYC and become a writer. While my partner is incredibly supportive of me, he loathes NYC and has a life in Boston. So what do two people do when their careers take them in two opposite directions? Who yields? Who compromises? That’s what the romantic comedy The Five-Year Engagement explores.

Violet (the AMAZING Emily Blunt), a psychology PhD grad, and Tom (Jason Segal, who I will forever think of as HIMYM’s adorbs Marshall), a sous chef in an upscale restaurant, are madly in love. They get engaged and begin to plan their wedding with comedic results. When Violet gets a fellowship in another state, trials and tribulations strain and challenge their bond.

I was uber excited to see it. I mean, a film with Emily Blunt, Jason Segal, Alison Brie, Chris Pratt AND Mindy Kaling?? I’m in! Blunt and Segal, who are friends in real-life, have an easy rapport and an effortless chemistry. The movie shines when it focused on wedding preparations: San Francisco vs. London for the wedding locale, religion in the wedding, including Tom’s “Jewish drawer.” While the beginning and ending were cute, albeit predictable, the movie dragged on. But what bothered me most was the subtly anti-feminist message.

When Violet is awarded a fellowship in Michigan (and they both live in San Francisco), Tom is incredibly supportive of Violet. He tells her that it’s her dream so of course they’ll move to Michigan. And it’s only for 2 years. No biggie. Until the 2 years turns semi-permanent when funding for Violet’s post-doc is extended. Then Tom tells her that he hates Michigan (totally understandable…I hate a lot of places too). Then things unravel quickly.

Violet tells Tom she doesn’t want to give up her career and resent him like her mother did when she quit her career after she married her father. Later, when Violet confronts Tom about his disappointment in his career, Tom tells her, “Men and women are different. We don’t sit around and discuss our feelings!” Oh I’m sorry, was someone quoting the book, that fount of wisdom, Men Are From Mars, Women From Venus??? Tom then tells Violet that as the man he should be supporting her. Kill. Me. Now.

Jason Segal, he not only stars in the movie but also co-wrote the script, says the film “reflects” that “gender roles are finally equalizing and some men’s egos are having a hard time catching up with that phenomenon.” He was intrigued by the idea of a gender role reversal:

“A lot of people say, ‘Why would Tom move across country and give up his job so she can pursue her dreams?’ but you would never in a million years ask that question if the roles were reversed. I think it’s actually quite sexist to even ask that question. It’s what we would expect a woman to do for her husband, so why wouldn’t we expect a husband to do it for his wife?”

Wait, he declares something sexist?? Swoon! And he’s absolutely right. Not only do people expect women to follow the men in their lives for their careers, film and TV shows often reflect that too. But Violet, an intelligent, hard-working academic couldn’t have critiqued his retro machismo? She couldn’t have called out his bullshit? Really?? Not buying it.

And don’t even get me started on the fucking hunting scenes. Tom befriends a hunter (Chris Parnell) and starts hunting too. Did we really need a “gag” about an innocent dead deer falling off the roof of the car so he then has to stick the deer in the passenger seat with its head going out the sun roof?? Spare me. Is the hunting supposed to be some kind of reinforcing of Tom’s masculinity? Especially since his fiance’s career is taking off more than his because he chose to follow her to Michigan for her career? Is supporting the woman you love follow her dream really supposed to be emasculating??

Near the beginning of the movie, in a toast at their engagement party, Violet’s sister Suzie (Alison Brie) says she doesn’t “believe in marriage or kids.” But after seeing how perfect Violet and Tom are for each other, she “understands the whole institution.” SPOILER!!! -> As soon as Suzie gets pregnant after a drunken one-night stand with Tom’s best friend Alex (Chris Pratt), she marries Alex, a guy who seems to repulse her and who she barely knows. They have the baby, nary a discussion of abortion or adoption.

A shot-gun wedding, really? Did we take a time warp back to 1942?? That’s right, all women really want to get married and have babies! And the fact that Suzie JUST said that that she didn’t want to get married or have kids; she’s not even going to think about abortion for one moment?? <-END SPOILER Thanks, Hollywood for erasing women’s reproductive choices.

Hands down the funniest scenes is when Violet and Suzie talk in Cookie Monster and Elmo voices (ADORBS!!), asked to talk in Sesame Street character voices by Suzie’s daughter. For one brief moment, Suzie admits that she gave up her career as a kinesiologist and now cleans up poop. Women talking to each other about sacrificing their goals? Yes! But that’s it. That’s as far as it goes. No rousing pep talk by her sister, no advice about following her dreams. Even this brief exchange subtly reinforces the notion that women’s careers shouldn’t matter nearly as much as men’s aspirations.

Hollywood notoriously erases female friendships. Violet never really spends time with female friends. Really? She doesn’t have any close female friends besides her sister? Tom has his best friend Chris Pratt. While they do talk about Violet, they also make jokes and talk about their careers. Yes, Mindy Kaling is Violet’s post-doc friend Vanetha and the two briefly (so briefly, you’ll miss it if you blink) talk about psychological experiments. And yes, we see Violet and her sister talk too…almost exclusively about weddings and men. That’s right, ladies…our lives revolve around men.

Sisters Suzie (Alison Brie) and Violet (Emily Blunt)

Speaking of revolving around men…when SPOILER!!! -> Violet’s professor kisses her in a bar, she tells Tom a few weeks later. Infuriated, Tom tells Violet that she must have done something that made him think it was okay to kiss her. Can we say rape apologism?? Now, I know what you’re probably thinking. You’re thinking how the hell did she jump from a kiss to rape?! But hear me out. It’s the same victim-blaming logic that tells women that their behavior brings rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, street harassment on themselves. <- END SPOILER Rather than questioning the doucheiness of the professor, Tom immediately blames Violet’s behavior.

Lest you think we’ve evolved passed all this machismo bullshit, the professor reminds Tom (and the audience) that we’re all just “cave men acting on impulse” when he justifies kissing Violet. To top it off, SPOILER!! -> Violet’s academic career is completely undermined when we learn that not only was she chosen to become a faculty member over another candidate because she was dating the professor, but he never would have even entertained her psychological experiment had another post-doc student suggested it. <- END SPOILER

I liked that The Five Year Engagement didn’t fall prey to many of the usual rom-com clichés and stereotypes. I liked that Violet was never demonized or portrayed as villainous for pursuing her career (nor should she be). I empathized with both Violet and Tom because I could relate to both sides. The movie shows how easily relationships can unravel and how there is no perfect moment to get married. I really appreciated the film’s message that a perfect fairytale ending is just that: a fairytale. But…

SPOILER!!!-> While I loved, loved, loved that Violet re-proposes to Tom, <-END SPOILER the ending seems to undo the overarching anti-fairytale theme. Violet and Tom don’t resolve or even discuss their problems. They don’t address the breakdown of trust. We don’t know where they will live or if they agree on having or not having children. But it doesn’t matter…love conquers all! Is it really so cynical to think that sometimes love just isn’t enough?

Talking about how many films contend with couples’ competing “career trajectories” either “complicating or ending romantic relationships,” David Edelstein at NPR criticized The Five-Year Engagement, as its “interpretation is reactionary, told largely from the perspective of a man victimized by feminism.” The New York Times’ A.O. Scott liked the film but echoes Edelstein’s complaint:

“It is certainly possible to raise a feminist eyebrow at the way The Five-Year Engagement ultimately answers this question, which is to say with a timid and slightly cynical traditionalism…”

I expected a hilarious skewering of wedding rituals and traditions a la Bridesmaids. Yes, funny moments are sprinkled throughout the movie. And clearly Segal recognizes sexism. But that’s not the sense I got after leaving the theatre. Instead, the movie bore the implication that feminism strains relationships.

Now, it’s easy to dismiss romantic comedies as they’re fun, sentimental and not overly serious. I mean this is just a silly wedding movie, right?? But as the fabulous Chloe Angyal wrote at Jezebel, “they are powerful pieces of popular culture:”

“Rom coms furnish us with ideas and expectations about some of the most important things in life: love, work, friendship, sex, gender roles. And some of those ideas are worryingly sexist and regressive.”

The Five-Year Engagement raised incredibly valid questions regarding gender, career, expectations, goals and sacrifice. But it never answers them or even provides commentary critiquing sexism. Instead it ends up inadvertently reinforcing sexist stereotypes. Over and over again, we’re told men are cave men hunters and women shouldn’t give up their careers. Oh wait…no, they should or their relationships will be fucked up.

Relationships are hard. Unpacking and dismantling gender stereotypes is incredibly hard too. But The Five-Year Engagement doesn’t indict patriarchy. Sadly, while it attempts to explore gender role reversal, it ends up condemning enlightened men and empowered women.

Movie Review: How ‘Vamps’ Showcases the Importance of Women Friendships

Movie poster for Vamps

Vamps, the new indie film directed by Amy Heckerling and starring Alicia Silverstone and Krysten Ritter (the upcoming star of the TV show Don’t Trust the B—- in Apartment 23) takes the vampire genre and turns it into a fun, feminist celebration of youth culture and female friendship. The film is part spoof of the recent onslaught of vampire fare, part romantic comedy, part buddy movie—with women!—part history documentary, with some astute political commentary thrown in, and, ultimately, a film about aging, which pays particular attention to the struggles women face within a culture that values youth and beauty above all else.

Jason Buchanan on Rotten Tomatoes effectively captures the plot as follows: “Radiant New York City vampires Goody (Alicia Silverstone) and Stacy (Krysten Ritter) find their immortality in question after learning that love can still smolder in the realm of the undead. Meanwhile, Russian bloodsucker Vadim (Justin Kirk) prowls the streets in search of the next big thrill, and Dr. Van Helsing (Wallace Shawn) seeks to exterminate the creatures of the night as young Joey Van Helsing develops an unusual fixation on Stacy. As ravenous ‘stem’ vampire Ciccerus (Sigourney Weaver) presides over her dark dynasty with the help of her loyal assistant Ivan (Todd Barry), oddball Renfield (Zak Orth) strives to impress Stacy and Goody by any means necessary. Amidst all of the bloodshed and intrigue, nefarious vampire Vlad (Malcolm McDowell) works to perfect his knitting skills.”

Alicia Silverstone as Goody and Krysten Ritter as Stacy in Vamps

It’s a fun cast of characters for sure, but Silverstone and Ritter shine as the main (women) characters. And for once there’s almost no reason to discuss The Bechdel Test; these two ladies barely talk about men for the first half of the film. Instead, we get to see them playing practical jokes on each other, hanging out in their shared apartment (often texting back and forth while inside their two side-by-side coffins), discussing their fashion choices—which is hilarious, as they struggle to make sure they’re fitting in with the latest 2012 trends (Stacy was first turned into a vampire in the 80s, and Goody lived all the way through the 1800s)—and generally looking out for each other and even (gasp) looking out for other women.

[SPOILER] Case in point: one of my absolute favorite scenes in the film happens early on, when Goody and Stacy head out for their nighttime ritual of club-hopping and imitating the new dance moves of the local youth “Day Walkers” (the term they use to refer to The Living among them). A couple of particularly horrible dude vampires approaches a woman after she bends over, ass in the air, with the word “Juicy” written on her tight pants. The dude vamps merely introduce themselves to her, to which she responds, “I’ll get my coat.” Goody chastises the horrible dude vampires—Goody and Stacy drink only the blood of rodents, not humans—and the dudes respond with, “She’s asking for it,” referring to her “Juicy” attire. It’s a pretty fucking great commentary on the victim-blaming that always accompanies any instance of the rape or sexual assault of women.

Stacy and Goody on the computer

Goody walks over to the woman with the goal of getting her to stay away from the vampires, but she ultimately ends up hypnotizing her; in this film, vampires have the power to erase the memories of Day Walkers. At first Goody says something to the woman (paraphrasing), “Listen, you don’t want to leave with them. They’re really bad guys.” The woman says, “I like bad guys.” Goody begins hypnotizing her, repeating, “No, I like nice guys.” The woman walks away, passing the horrible dude vampires, while saying, “I like nice guys. I like guys who listen to me when I say things.” (I laughed out loud at that.)

This scene makes me so happy for a couple of reasons. First, a woman intervening to help another woman avoid getting killed by two horrible dude vampires—an obvious metaphor for rape in this scene, rarely happens in movies. How lovely to see that! Because women looking out for their friends certainly happens in real life—first-hand experience! Second, while I don’t necessarily like the implication that women always go for Bad Boys, I appreciate the acknowledgment that bros like this, who want to harm, abuse, and assault women, definitely exist.

Stacy, Goody, and Sigourney Weaver as Cisserus in Vamps

Also, get this: I turned 33 six months ago. I still have my crappy 35-dollar Blackberry that my sister’s dog spent an hour chewing on. (There are bite marks on the fucking battery.) Let me just say, I could relate to the commentary about youth culture in this film. Heckerling makes wonderful observations about technology, with constant mentions of Twitter, Facebook, texting (there’s a funny reference to someone being in a “textual relationship” due to lack of real-life communication), and other technological stuff I’m probably forgetting because I don’t know what it is. While the film definitely celebrates youth culture, especially in its appreciation of women’s fashion (which reminded me so much of Heckerling’s famous film Clueless), it also juxtaposes that celebration with a critique of the value our society places on youth. That theme comes into play throughout the film, but the focus on women and aging sharpens with the introduction of the head vampire in charge.

Two words: Sigourney Weaver. Do we not adore her? The Alien films, mainly due to Weaver’s badass role as Ellen Ripley, remain one of the quintessential go-to franchises for getting that much-needed feminist fix that Hollywood movies today seem less willing to provide. (Quick shout out to Hunger Games, though!) And Weaver’s role in Vamps as Cisserus, the head vampire, or “Stem,” as they refer to the few vampires who possess the power to turn people into vampires, displays some feminist qualities—strength, leadership, and ambition, to name a few—but her character isn’t without flaws.

While the other vamps fear Weaver’s character—because she’s In Charge—they mainly fear her because she’s the evil, murderous villain. She obsesses over acquiring the love of young men, and when she doesn’t get it, well, you know, she eats them. In many ways, she reminds me of a vampiric version of Miranda Priestly, Meryl Streep’s character in The Devil Wears Prada. She often summons Goody and Stacy (by psychically speaking to them), and it’s almost always to make them model clothing. (Ha!) See, vampires can’t see themselves in mirrors (invisible!), so Weaver wants to look at these women wearing her very youthful, fashionable clothing so that she can visualize what it possibly looks like on her. Eventually though, Cisserus’ power goes so far to her head that she begins putting the other vampires in danger, and the tagline for the last act of the film basically becomes “This Bitch Needs to Die.”

Vampires hanging out at the club

A woman-in-charge who becomes an evil, power-hungry bitch who ruins lives? Where have I seen that before? (Clue: EVERYWHERE.) I did get the sense from Vamps, though, that it’s making light of that trope rather than relishing in it, and casting feminist film icon Weaver in that role further pushes it toward satire. An interview with Weaver in Collider sheds a bit more light on that:

Collider: What made you decide to jump into the vampire genre with Vamps?

Weaver: Well, I’m a big Amy Heckerling fan, and I also loved the character. She was so unrepentant … I love playing delicious, evil parts like that.

Collider: How does your character fit into the story?

Weaver: She is the person who turned the girls into vampires. So, they have to do her bidding, and she’s very unreasonable and demanding. I would have to say that the one change I made was that I thought she was not really enjoying herself very much, in the original script. I thought, “What’s not to enjoy?” She’s 2,000 years old, she can have anything, she can have anyone, she can do what she wants, so I wanted her to be totally in-the-moment. So, I talked to Amy about it and she just evolved that way. She’s a really happy vampire. She digs it.

(I have to admit, I can kind of get behind a woman—vampire or not—saying, “Fuck it; I own this town.”)

Most of the descriptions and plot summaries I’ve read of Vamps say things like: “Two female vampires in modern-day New York City are faced with daunting romantic possibilities” … (from imdb). True, but not quite. It’s ridiculous to reduce the film to the status of cheesy rom-com because, while both Stacy and Goody somewhat struggle with their hetero-romantic relationships, Vamps ultimately celebrates the friendship and love between the two lead women. (I will say that I have a feminist critique of the ending, but I can’t give it away YET; the movie only recently got picked up by Anchor Bay Films and will be released in theaters around Halloween.)

Stacy and Goody at the club

Overall, it’s pretty significant that I left the theater feeling that this movie—a vampire movie that follows most of the same vampire tropes as all vampire movies—explores something new. It’s also disappointing that I left with that feeling. Because when I thought about it later, I realized what felt so new to me was the depiction of a female friendship that seemed wonderfully authentic. Their dude problems were fairly secondary; their loyalty to each other trumped all other obstacles. Their friendship, in fact, resembled my real-life friendships with women: we don’t fight over men; we don’t sit around endlessly talking about men; we don’t get together and stuff our faces with entire cakes if a man doesn’t call.

That’s why this close relationship between Goody and Stacy is so important to see on The Big Screen in 2012.

In an interview conducted with the director Amy Heckerling by Women and Hollywood, Melissa Silverstein asks the question, “Do you have any comment on the fact that only 5% of movies are directed by women?” Heckerling’s response? “It’s a disgusting industry. I don’t know what else to say. Especially now. I can’t stomach most of the movies about women. I just saw a movie last night—I don’t want to say the name—but again with the fucking wedding, and the only time women say anything is about men.”

Word.

Reproduction & Abortion Week: ‘Girls’ and ‘Sex and the City’ Both Handle Abortion With Humor

(L-R): Hanna (Lena Dunham), Allison Williams (Marnie), Zosia Mamet (Shoshanna) in Girls

Vacillating between vitriolic condemnation and laudable praise, Lena Dunham’s Girls has dominated pop culture dialogue. I eagerly anticipated the serie’s premiere. Yes, the show depicts economically privileged characters. Yes, the incredibly white and homogenous cast should be more diverse. And yes, staff writer Lesley Arfin is absolutely a racist asshole who’s bullshit must be called out. All of these rightfully scathing critiques are not only valid but crucial. But a mere 2 episodes in, Girls portrays potentially nuanced female characters with candid dialogue on sex, friendship, aspirations and relationships. And abortion! Huzzah!

Many critics compare Girls with Sex and the City. Both HBO series revolve around 4 female friends in NYC who talk openly about sex, career goals and relationships. Dunham herself addresses the parallels. Although she feels SATC portrays aspirational female friendships whereas Girls, which is messier and more awkward (kind of like real-life), depicts nurturing friendships still fraught with “jealousy and anxiety and posturing.” It’s also hard not to compare as both trendy series tackled abortion.

In the latest episode of Girls, the hilariously titled “Vagina Panic” (which seriously sounds like something I would declare to my friends), centers around abortion, atrociously bad sex and STDs. When Hannah (Lena Dunham) tells Adam, the despicable douchebag she’s hooking up with that she’s accompanying her friend Jessa (Jemima Kirke, who’s had an abortion in real-life) to have an abortion (we found out she was pregnant at the end of the first episode), she says, “How big a deal are these things actually.” Hannah then talks about not having “sympathy” for people who don’t use condoms. Yet it’s great that she’s still supporting her friend.

Later in the episode, while sitting on a bench eating ice cream, Shoshonna (Zosia Mamet) whips out the book Listen, Ladies: A Tough Love Approach to the Tough Game of Love (yikes!) — a la SATC’s Charlotte and reminiscent of that bullshit book The Rules. Hannah says she “hate read” it and then they start hilariously debating who precisely constitutes “the ladies.” (Hmmm, should I stop calling my female friends “ladies??”) Irritated, Jessa tells Hannah:

I’m offended by all the supposed to’s. I don’t like women telling other women what to do or how to do it or when to do it. Every time I have sex, it’s my choice.”

Yes, yes, yes! It’s great Jessa says a proverbial fuck you to the things she’s supposed to do in life. She declares that what she does with her body is her choice. Hannah then asks Jessa if she’s scared or angry or sad. Jessa tells her she’s not some character from one of her novels and says eventually wants to have children and that she’ll be a great mother.

When the women go to the Soho Women’s Clinic to support Jessa, who’s blowing off her abortion by drinking White Russians at a bar, Hannah, Marnie (Allison Williams) and Shoshanna discuss STDs, the play Rent, infertility, condoms, abortion and virginity. Hannah tells Marnie, who’s pissed Jessa hasn’t shown up:

“You’re a really good friend and you threw a really good abortion.”

The effortless weaving of a frank discussion of sexuality with effacing humor on a topic like abortion felt authentic. Hannah gets an STD test at the clinic and veers off into an awkward, cringe-worthy yet weirdly humorous diatribe on fearing AIDs…and then wanting AIDS, so not funny. Meanwhile, Jessa makes out with a guy at the bar. When she tells him to put his hands down her pants, her tells her she’s bleeding. Girls which “pushes the envelope” the entire episode, ultimately cheats, evading the actual decision as Jessa either gets her period or has a miscarriage.

So how does this portrayal differ from SATC’s? Entertainment Weekly’s Hillary Busis writes:

“SATC uses Samantha’s quest for a Birkin as comic relief after a lot of heavy abortion talk. But in Girls, the abortion talk is the comic relief.”

In SATC‘s “Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda,” one of my favorite episodes, Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) contemplates an abortion after an accidental pregnancy. While telling her friends, Samantha (Kim Cattrall) irreverently reveals she’s had two abortions while Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) had one when she was 22. Even though Miranda doesn’t go through with the procedure (and I totally wish she had), I liked that 2 out of the 4 characters had an abortion. Within that brief episode, we see multiple reactions to abortion. Miranda feels conflicted. Charlotte (Kristen Davis) grapples with infertility. Samantha exudes a casual nonchalance and forthright approach to abortion which I found refreshing. Carrie, who knows she made the right choice, lies to her boyfriend Aiden when he asks her if she’s ever had one, worried he’ll judge her for her choice.

Therein lies the difference between Girls and SATC. What SATC always excelled at was showcasing various perspectives on an issue, albeit from all from a privileged lens. But Girls doesn’t do that here.

While they support Jessa, Hannah and Marnie are critical of people’s choices and mistakes. Hannah apologizes for her seemingly “flippant” attitude towards abortion, saying it stems from her condemnation for people who don’t use contraception. Marnie appears to denounce abortion (all while rallying the women at the clinic) saying it’s “the most traumatic thing that can ever happen to a woman.” Really?? Although maybe from her character’s perspective it is. But the argument could easily be made that if we had seen the SATC characters 10 years younger, the age of Girls’ characters, perhaps we would have witnessed similar reactions. And maybe that’s the point. These young women make so many mistakes; maybe they’ll become less judgmental as they get older. But it still annoys me as it seems to reek of the “I’m pro-choice but I would never have an abortion” attitude that sometimes plagues pro-choice dialogue, playing into the stigma that abortion is bad.

I always adored SATC for the way the women transcended friendship, nurturing and validating each other, and became a family. Girlsmay be more realistic in its depictions of simultaneous annoyance yet support for friends. But ultimately, abortion, which 1 in 3 women have had, doesn’t occur on either show which is unfortunate. But at least SATCcontained 2 characters who had abortions in their early 20s, the same age as the characters on Girls. From what we know, and granted it’s still early on, the Girls characters have not. For a show that revels in bold candor and raw honesty, it would have been fantastic to witness an abortion.

Despite the ending, my friend Sarah at Abortion Gang deems Girls’ abortion plot a success as it engages in abortion dialogue:

“But even if the ending of Jessa’s pregnancy is a copout, we still got close to thirty minutes of frank discussion of abortion. Which means Girls has given us, oh, twenty-seven more minutes of abortion talk than any other show this year, even shows that purport to be about the lives of women.”

Don’t get me wrong. It’s awesome to hear abortion uttered so many times on the show. While I’m delighted Girls talks about abortion so easily and frequently, I’m still pissed and annoyed an abortion never transpired. Choosing not to portray an abortion contributes to its insidious stigmatization.

Audiences don’t often expect weighty issues in comedy. Fem2pt0’s Christina Black asserts the difficulty in finding humor in serious topics like abortion and rape. Girls attempted humor on both issues in one episode; one successfully, the other not so much. But comedy — and other genres like sci-fi, horror, and fantasy — not only entertains. It can reflect our values and critique society.

I applaud Girls for raising the issue of abortion so early on, and I adore that Dunham, who wants to talk about feminism and point out misogyny and sexism (hells yeah!), says she’s excited “the feminism conversation could be cool again.” But I can’t help but feel cheated.

Media shapes our perception of social issues, relationships and ourselves. When film and television so rarely even mentions the full scope of reproductive health, I want abortion depicted honestly, without stigmatization or condemnation. Is that really too much to ask?

Reproduction & Abortion Week: ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ Advocates Abortion and Reproductive Rights

Sandra Oh as Dr. Cristina Yang on Grey’s Anatomy

Warning: if you have not watched up to Grey’s Anatomy Season 7, spoilers ahead!

Abortion is healthcare — a routine, normal and legal medical procedure. Yet most films and TV don’t ever broach the subject. Their characters don’t get abortions, people don’t talk about abortion. That’s why I’m thrilled about Cristina Yang’s abortion storyline on Grey’s Anatomy.

As I’ve shared before, I love the hospital drama. Is it melodramatic? Of course. Is it over the top? Absolutely. But Shonda Rhimes has crafted a show with not only a woman at the center, not only an incredibly diverse cast with open auditions for characters, but a female friendship at its core. Surgeons Meredith Grey and Cristina Yang transcend best friends. They are each others’ soulmates…and frequently say so, telling each other and others that the other is “their person.”

Cristina is a badass — one of my favorite female characters. She’s arrogant, blunt, brilliant, driven, competitive and fearless. And a woman of color…huzzah! She’s never been a woman who wanted “traditional” things. She’s also been adamant that she never wants to have children. Hollywood rarely depicts women who don’t want children. If a character starts out that way, they often change their mind once they fall in love or get married. But Cristina maintained her choice, even after she married her husband Owen.

When Cristina becomes pregnant at the end of Season 7, she adamantly tells Owen that she wants to terminate her pregnancy. Yet he keeps trying to convince her to keep it. Cristina firmly replies:

“No, there’s no way we’re doing this. Do you hear me? No, no I am not this beautiful vessel for all that might be good about the future. No, I’m not hearing your hopes and dreams.”

Owen tells her that they should talk because they “are a partnership.” He says that he loves her, not her incubating potential. He doesn’t want to make her do something that would make her miserable. And yet, that’s precisely what he wants her to do. Owen wants her to change her mind…for him.

Owen: “There is a way to make this work without ruining your life or derailing your career.”

Cristina: “I don’t want a baby.

Owen: “Well, you have one.”

Cristina: “Are you getting all life-y on me?!”

I like that Cristina pointed out Owen’s ~~pro-life~~ anti-choice position. He’s telling Cristina she has a baby when it’s not a baby, it’s a fetus. It also should be Cristina’s choice. When Owen asks her how late she is, Cristina tells him it doesn’t matter. And it doesn’t.

Cristina: “I don’t want one. I don’t hate children. I respect children. I think they should have parents who want them.”

Owen: “I want them. And I believe you could want them too. Your life could be bigger than it is.”

Great. So anyone without a child doesn’t have a meaningful, impactful life?? Well then I’m screwed.

Later, when Owen tells her that he could take a leave of absence, Cristina explains to him that she’s “not a monster,” if she has a baby she’ll love it. He scoffs at her as he tries to look for a compromise. But as Cristina rightfully tells him, “there is no compromise:”

“I don’t want one. This isn’t about work or a scheduling conflict. I don’t want to be a mother.”

Owen keeps telling her to trust him, trying to convince her she would be a great mother. He doesn’t listen to a word she says:

“Have a baby? This isn’t pizza versus Thai. You don’t give a little on a baby…I am saying NO!”

Owen then kicks Cristina out of their house, abandoning her for her choice. She turns to her soulmate Meredith and tells her she’s getting an abortion.

In the next episode, Cristina has postponed her abortion but is still determined to get one. When Meredith questions if she’s hesitated because she wants to be a mother too, Cristina tells her she wishes she wanted a child because it would be easier and her life wouldn’t be a “mess:”

“I don’t want a kid. I don’t want to make jam. I don’t want to carpool. I really, really, really don’t want to be a mother. I want to be a surgeon. And please, get it. I need someone to get it. And I wish that someone was Owen. I wish that any minute he’ll get it and show up for me. But that’s not going to happen. And you’re my person. I need you to be there at 6 o’clock tonight to hold my hand cause I’m scared, Mer. And sad. Cause my husband doesn’t get that. So I need you to.”

Cristina’s plea to Meredith broke my heart. Because it’s not sad that she wants to get an abortion. It’s sad that those closest to her don’t understand or respect her decision to choose what’s right for her body and her life.

Later, Meredith confronts Owen, telling him he’s “punishing” Cristina. Meredith tells him how her mother didn’t want her, how Cristina is kind and that “the guilt of resenting her own child will eat her up” inside. While I like that Meredith calls out Owen’s bullshit, it would have been great if someone reminded him that it’s Cristina’s body and Cristina’s choice, not his.

Owen eventually supports Cristina and accompanies her to the abortion, holding her hand, both physically and emotionally. Although I’ve heard (I’m a bit behind in watching), that he later accuses her of killing their baby. Horrible. As Feministing’s Maya talked about Hollywood’s “rules for abortion,” she asserted that Cristina would probably have to pay for her decision down the road. Sadly, it seems like that might be true.

What I love about this story arc is that it feels honest and raw. Cristina is a married, accomplished, financially secure, career woman in her late 30s. If a character gets pregnant unintentionally, we witness adoption or having a baby as the only 2 viable options, implying that there’s a “right” and “wrong” choice when it comes to reproduction. Cristina isn’t the stereotypical abortion patient depicted in the media. If we see abortion — which happens so rarely as it is — it’s a teenager or a woman in her early 20s. We typically don’t see women choosing abortion in committed relationships. And yet in reality, they do. Teens, single women, married women and mothers all choose abortion. People in all stages of their lives choose abortion. And this isn’t something to shame or hide.

In Shonda Rhimes’ shows Grey’s Anatomy and Private Practice, abortion is shown as the routine medical procedure it is. Rhimes sits on the board of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles (OMG love her even more!!!) In an interview with Vulture, Rhimes discussed her motivation, abortion providers, and the taboo of abortion and abortion storylines:

“You know, it’s interesting because it’s true, I feel like it doesn’t happen often and they don’t talk about it and it feels ridiculous to me because it is a legal choice in our country. But what I was trying to do is, I wanted to portray that character honestly. I really wanted Cristina Yang to stay true to who Cristina Yang is. And I feel like that is a character who has never really wanted to be a mother.”

[…]

“I think for me the point is it’s a painful choice that a lot of women have made in their lives and we just wanted to portray it honestly and with a really good conversation that I think started in the season finale and carries over in this episode. And see what happens after. I try to discuss this a lot. Addison on Private Practiceis an abortion provider. There are only a certain number of abortion providers in the country and she is one of them. And she is a character who in the past had had an abortion and we talk about this issue a lot. And I felt like it made sense; I wouldn’t be doing it randomly, it made sense for the character of Cristina Yang.”

The plotline did make sense for Cristina. Throughout the series, she has vocalized her choice to not have children. I’m an unmarried woman in her 30s who’s chosen to not get married (although maybe someday) and not have children. I’ve never wanted kids and I’ve never wanted to be a mother. Yet I can’t tell you how many times (seriously A LOT) I’ve been told by people that I will eventually change my mind and have children. As if my choice is some cute and trendy passing phase. Thanks for telling me about my life, assholes.

We should stop mandating people’s life choices and start respecting them instead.

As I’ve written before, “through movies, TV series and ads, the media perpetually tells us all women want children. If they don’t, they must be damaged, deluding themselves or they just haven’t found the right man yet. Because you know silly ladies, our lives revolve around men. Tabloid magazines repeatedly report on female actors’ baby bumps. As Susan J. Douglas argues in Enlightened Sexism, “bump patrols” reduce women to their reproductive organs, reinforcing the stereotype that women aren’t real women unless they procreate.”

In fact, the only shows that come to mind where a female character chooses not to have children are Samantha and Carrie on Sex and the City, Elaine on Seinfeld, Emily on The Bob Newhart Show, Jane Timony on Prime Suspect (the original with Helen Mirren), Robin on How I Met Your Mother and Cristina Yang. Of those characters, Samantha(off-screen), Carrie (off-screen), Jane and Cristina choose abortion.

As RH Reality Check’s Martha Kempner points out, there weren’t any “extenuating circumstances” involving Cristina’s pregnancy. She wasn’t in medical danger; the fetus wasn’t in any danger. Cristina chose abortion because she didn’t want to be pregnant.

When asked if writing an abortion storyline is advocacy, Rhimes said that she doesn’t have an agenda but wants to “do what’s right for the characters.”

“It’s not a political agenda as much as me trying to make the world as full and round and as complete with peoples’ opinions as possible.”

The majority of us in this country support abortion and reproductive rights. 1 in 3 women will have an abortion in her lifetime. Yet depicting an abortion because a main character doesn’t want to be pregnant feels radical. But it shouldn’t be. If 30% of women get an abortion, then it’s an experience that should be depicted in media and pop culture. We need more films and TV shows to follow suit and showcase the full scope of women’s lives and women’s choices. And that includes abortion.

No one has the right to tell another person what they should or shouldn’t do with their body. Grey’s Anatomy doesn’t stigmatize Cristina’s abortion. Instead it shows the detriment of not supporting those you love exercise their reproductive rights. Cristina knew herself and made a choice. The series conveys how women are so often silenced when they try to assert autonomy over their body…and the stinging pain when people closest to you don’t respect and support your decision.

Reproduction & Abortion Week: Juno

Juno

This is a guest post by Gretchen Sisson.

When it comes to abortion, Juno is one film all sides of the debate have alternately claimed as their own and picked apart. Screenwriter Diablo Cody managed to earn both points and critics across the political spectrum with her story of a sarcastic, scrappy, pregnant high school student who, after an ill-fated visit to a creepy clinic ends up deciding on adoption, choosing adoptive parents and advocating for closed adoption, giving birth, and blissfully walking away.

Anti-choice activist Jill Stanek declares Juno “the movie pro-aborts will hate,” describing the film’s scene at the abortion “mill” as “hysterical” and the protestor outside the clinic as a “friendly” student with whom Juno engages in “civil conversation.”

In contrast, there are those who argue that by virtue of the film being about Juno’s decision, it is inherently in favor of choice. Pro-choice writer Emily Douglas writes that she enjoys the way Juno normalizes teen sexual activity and, while still describing it as a “suburban fairy tale,” also suggests that “It’s a film for the people who love the many imperfect ways families take shape and people grow up.” Even Ellen Page, the actress who played the title character, proclaimed her own pro-choice credentials: “I don’t want white dudes in an office being able to make laws on things like this.”

There are other issues, of course. Sociologist Arthur Shostak neatly summarizes the movie’s many shortcomings from a pro-choice perspective: an empty parking lot at the clinic, a single, non-threatening protestor outside, an unprofessional over-sharer for a receptionist. Additionally, I have previously written about the many problems I see with Juno’s depiction of adoption. When Juno asks for an “old-school, closed adoption” and the potential adoptive parents readily agree, no one is recognizing the fact that openness in adoption has long-term benefits for not only birth parents, but also adoptees and adoptive families; when Juno rides her bike off into the sunset, she is indeed perpetuating the anti-choice fairy tale that adoption is without grief or long-term consequence of any kind.

The scene at the abortion clinic is an unequivocal disaster; the adoption story is messy and unrealistic; the happy ending is too easy, too over simplistic, too sweet for our sassy heroine.

So why, as feminists, do so many of us love this film in spite of all that?

I view the film as seeing the world through Juno’s eyes. It’s a cartoonesque version of reality, where people talk a bit like Juno and not quite like they do in real life, where characters are parodies and caricatures of stock types, and where there’s a teenager’s desire for what’s right and wrong to be obvious in a messy situation.

Juno at the abortion clinic

The abortion clinic scene, then, is an inaccurate, hyperbolic reflection of how someone who doesn’t want to have an abortion might feel as they arrive at their appointment: confused, intruded upon, looking for an excuse to run toward the door. I don’t believe it’s the way we see the clinic that makes Juno not want an abortion, I think Juno doesn’t want an abortion, and that makes her (and the viewer) see the clinic differently. Perhaps this is a generous interpretation, and perhaps the problems that derive from a false portrayal of a clinic outweigh the possible benefits of exploring Juno’s choice from her own perspective. But the fact that Juno doesn’t really want an abortion before she even arrives at the clinic is what’s most important. She says she’ll “nip it in the bud” when Paulie Bleeker (the baby’s father) seems overwhelmed by the news; she makes an appointment to “procure a hasty abortion” because she, like the high schooler she is, wants a solution fast and this seems to be the prescribed way of handling it. For many high schoolers it may be, and they may quickly know that abortion is the right decision for them. But for Juno it doesn’t sit right, which is why the inaccurate information about heartbeats and fetal pain and fingernails, resonate with her. She wants to give birth, even though she’s scared and even though she knows she’ll be judged, which is why she finds the clinic so alienating. How nice it would have been if the clinic had been portrayed as a welcoming place where she could discuss her options, and get information about a reputable adoption agency that would give her ongoing support throughout the adoption process. The representation is very far from perfect. However, if we view our perspective as coming through the position of an overwhelmed teenager, perhaps we can still find much to salvage about the film’s take on reproductive choice.

Because, in many ways, Juno is a heroine for choice. Her independence is impressive – she doesn’t consult her parents until she’s already made her choice, decided against abortion, found adoptive parents, and arranged a time to meet with them. She makes the plans on her own and then tells them she’s looking for their support (which she receives) but not their permission. For a young woman, that’s exceptionally self-aware and downright empowered.

Juno in high school

She also doesn’t let herself be shamed by her pregnancy. When the ultrasound tech describes young mothers as raising their children in a “poisonous environment” Juno defends herself, with brilliant back up from both her friend and stepmother, who snaps one of my favorite lines in the movie: “Maybe they’ll do a far shittier job of raising a kid than my dumbass stepdaughter ever would.” Later, she jokes about her classmates’ looks, and, in the middle of a fight, reminds Paulie that she unfairly has to live with the stares and judgment while he does not. She recognizes the injustice of others’ scorn and refuses to let it impact her; though a brief moment of tears shows how truly unfair it is. And when her father, in between moments of sincere and endearing support, utters the cutting line, “I thought you were the kind of girl who knew when to say when” she responds without pause, “I have no idea what kind of girl I am.” And that’s the point – she doesn’t need to. She’s sixteen years old. She’s allowed to still be figuring out who she is and what she wants.

Juno and Paulie

In between the hard decisions, quick comebacks, and fierce strength, Juno should still be allowed moments of vulnerability, (or even the gullibility that she shows outside the abortion clinic). And she should deserve the hopeful ending she believes she gets, even if we might think it’s only a brief reprieve or an unrealistic happily ever after. Navigating reproductive choice isn’t easy, even for people for whom the choice is clear, because of all the cultural baggage heaped upon every action. This is why every side will claim Juno as their heroine, and why I think – fictitious and problematic though it may be – Juno should have her happy ending. Because it can give us hope that, at some point in the future, her real-life counterparts might find happy endings as well, no matter what they choose.

———-

Gretchen Sisson is a sociologist and writer whose work focuses on reproductive justice broadly and teen pregnancy, young parenthood, adoption, abortion, birth, and infertility specifically. You can find her on Twitter @gesisson.

Reproduction & Abortion Week: Dirty Dancing

Dirty Dancing

This is a guest post by Meghan Harvey.

I was born in 1977, four years after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land. Though I would see the moral debate play out many times over the course of my life, the legality of a woman’s right to choose was always a non-issue in my mind. It was always just the law. When I say always, I truly mean always. I have absolutely no memory of learning what an abortion was, or why it was so important to have it legal. I just always knew. Mainly because I grew up in the post Roe v. Wade world.

Most women I know around my age (whether liberal or conservative) all agree that despite their personal feelings on abortion, that a woman has the right to choose. Most women all agree, it’s better legal. By better of course, I mean safer.

Part of growing up in this post Roe v. Wade world meant that for us the picture painted of life before Roe v. Wade was different. A world that existed before we were born and it was not a pretty one. No movie or pop culture moment painted that picture clearer than the 80s classic, Dirty Dancing.

For most girls my age it was the first time we saw what “abortion” meant in the days before Roe v. Wade. It was simply “a dirty knife and a folding table.”

For those of you who are not familiar with the legendary movie, here is the main gist of it in a nutshell. Dirty Dancing takes place in upstate New York’s Catskill Mountains in 1963. Frances “Baby” Houseman is visiting Kellerman’s summer resort with her family for the summer before starting college in the fall. Baby, a rich privileged girl with a strong sense of right and wrong, meets Johnny the dance instructor from the wrong side of the tracks with the heart of gold.

When Penny, Johnny’s dance partner, finds herself pregnant Baby steps in to take her place on the dance floor while Penny has a back-alley abortion that almost kills her. Not only does Baby cover for Penny, she also gets the money to pay for the abortion from her Dr. father (without telling him what it’s for).

Many of you who have seen the movie a hundred thousand times like I have may very well be reading that description and realizing that the abortion storyline, though not actually the main part of the movie, is the cornerstone of the movie. Without it there is no movie.

Penny, after discovering she’s pregnant

In fact the film’s screenwriter and producer Eleanor Bergstein was asked by a potential national sponsor (an acne cream company) to remove the abortion storyline from the film out of fear of a backlash and protests. Bergstein told them, “Oh, I’d be so happy to, but as it happens, it’s so into the plot that if I took it out, there’s no reason for Baby to learn to dance. There’s no reason for her to dance with Johnny, to dance at the Sheldrake, to fall in love with him, to make love with him, so the whole plot falls apart, so I can’t do it.” The sponsor pulled out and the abortion stayed in.

An abortion to most of us was an icky medical procedure. You went to a doctor and had it done, end of story. I for one was still too young to understand the moral debate or logistics of abortion, just that it was something that happened.

Dirty Dancing opened an entire generation’s eyes to the fact that it had not always been that simple. For the first time we were seeing it described as being done by a man with a “a dirty knife and a folding table.” Penny’s screams are described as being heard all the way down the hall.

Those screams in Dirty Dancing were the first time my generation would hear those screams and understand that the right to choose was not something that had always been ours. It was the first time that we opened our minds to the reality that illegal abortions were deadly, dangerous and horrific. Suddenly to a generation of young girls the protests outside abortion clinics that were so prevalent at the time seemed different. Suddenly it occurred to us, in the simplest way, that these people protesting must not have seen Dirty Dancing.

They must not have seen the Pennys of the world. Women who didn’t have health insurance, support, or a job with maternity leave. Women who didn’t even the money for an abortion, let alone to give birth to a child. Penny was not perfect, but she was not an evil harlot either. She was a woman in a hopeless situation with no choices. Not that different than our aunts, big sisters, or even our moms. In another time, we could have been Penny. But on some level, my generation understood that part of the message of the movie was just that. No, we would never be Penny. Our generation would never have to face the dirty knife and folding table down the hall. We were the lucky ones, and Dirty Dancing ensured our entire generation understood that.

Eventually that first experience of what a back-alley abortion actually was would help us understand later that the debate raging was much more simple than Women’s Rights. Much less official than Roe v. Wade. Dirty Dancing made that first picture of abortion something that had nothing to do with moral or constitutional implications. There is no discussion in Dirty Dancing about when a fetus becomes a life. In fact Baby’s father, the Doctor, never says one word about whether abortions are right or wrong, just that they are illegal.

This debate was about our lives.

A few years after Dirty Dancing came out I entered high school and took a debate class. One of my first debates was debating whether Roe v. Wade should be reversed or not. I stood up in front of my class and described in detail what a back-alley abortion was. I explained how it was the leading cause of death for young women before 1973. I told the story of the real Pennys of the world. I won the debate.

I have a vintage Dirty Dancing shirt that I like to wear. On the back it has the most famous line from the movie, “No one puts Baby in a corner!” Though what that line means to each one of us may differ, as an adult today I can’t help but think that it’s a line symbolic for all women. It sums up the lesson on abortion that is told throughout the movie.

Our lives mean something. Our choices mean something. And we do not deserve to be pushed into a dark corner to sit quietly. Its not just Baby, it’s all of us.

None of us deserves to be put in a corner.

———-

Meghan Harvey is a blogger, New Media Manager, Mom, and 80s movie obsessed women out the Bay Area. She contributes to SheHeroes.org, Life360.com, MOMocrats, and her personal blog Meg’s Idle Chatter. You can find her on Twitter at @Meghan1018.