Tag: Stephanie Rogers

Ten Years of Oscar-Winning Films: In Posters

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

***

American Beauty: 2000


***

Gladiator: 2001


***

A Beautiful Mind: 2002


***

Chicago: 2003


***

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


***

Million Dollar Baby: 2005


***

Crash: 2006


***

The Departed: 2007


***

No Country For Old Men: 2008


***

Slumdog Millionaire: 2009

***

What do these films have in common?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Departed: Men violently kill one another.

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

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

***

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

Flick-Off: Taken

So I decided to watch one of those mind-numbingly mediocre action films, assuming I’d walk away from the experience merely mind-numbed and ready to move forward with more serious cinema. The exact opposite happened. Not only is Taken a terribly made film in terms of its pacing, plot points, character development, and dialogue, it’s one of the most offensive, misogynistic films I’ve seen in a long time.
imdb summary: Seventeen year-old Kim is the pride and joy of her father Bryan Mills. Bryan is a retired agent who left the Secret Service to be near Kim in California. Kim lives with her mother Lenore and her wealthy stepfather Stuart. Kim manages to convince her reluctant father to allow her to travel to Paris with her friend Amanda. When the girls arrive in Paris they share a cab with a stranger named Peter, and Amanda lets it slip that they are alone in Paris. Using this information an Albanese gang of human traffickers kidnaps the girls. Kim barely has time to call her father and give him information. Her father gets to speak briefly to one of the kidnappers and he promises to kill the kidnappers if they do not let his daughter go free. The kidnapper wishes him “good luck,” so Bryan Mills travels to Paris to search for his daughter and her friend.

First, the tortured relationship between Kim and her father exists solely to set up the mother as a careless, liberal, money-grubbing asshole. While he gets to be the oh-it’s-too-dangerous-for-my-17-year-old-daughter-to-go-to-Paris-alone “good parent,” the mother gets relegated to the role of oh-just-let-her-go-I-mean-what-could-possibly-go-wrong “bad parent.” Of course, shit goes terribly wrong, and the audience can’t help but be all, “that horrible mother should’ve known better!” Then, as is usually the case, Daddy gets to rush to the rescue while Mommy stays at home sobbing into the arms of her new, rich, conveniently helpless husband.

To make matters worse, the Albanese gang deals in sex trafficking, which is an actual, serious issue in the world, an issue that this film exploits to serve the ultimate, final plot point: Daddy gets to save Kim from the evil Albanese sex traffickers in the moments just before she loses her virginity and remains forever “impure.” The most offensive aspect of all this rests on the fact that Bryan’s (and the film’s) focus never veers from his daughter. So, while we see countless drugged-up young women tied to bed posts, waiting to be raped again, the film treats them and their situation as entirely insignificant; the focus always remains on Daddy’s ass-kicking, murdering attempts to save his daughter’s virginity.

After he finds her friend Amanda dead and tied to a bedpost, he moves on to the next young woman who might help him, a girl who happens to have his daughter’s jacket. He runs from room to room, finding women unconscious, enslaved, raped repeatedly, and he saves that particular girl, not because he’s appalled by what’s happened to her, but because she might lead him to his daughter. He nurses her back to health, and as soon as she can speak full sentences, he interrogates her about where she got the jacket. Basically, the film makes absolutely no attempt whatsoever to comment on the atrocity of sex trafficking—it serves only as a plot device to help Bryan redeem his broken relationship with his virginal daughter.

I hated this film.

Antichrist Roundup

Lars Von Trier’s new film Antichrist opens in select cities on October 23, and already the controversy surrounding the film’s potential misogyny has the web and blogosphere buzzing. Much of it has to do with the Cannes Film Festival giving the director an anti-award. In the article, “Antichrist gets an anti-award in Cannes,” Jay Stone writes:
The ecumenical jury—which gives prizes for movies that promote spiritual, humanist and universal values—announced a special anti-award to Antichrist.

“We cannot be silent after what that movie does,” said Radu Mihaileanu, a French filmmaker and head of an international jury that announced the awards Saturday.

In a statement, Mihaileanu said Antichrist is “the most misogynist movie from the self-proclaimed biggest director in the world,” a reference to a statement by Danish filmmaker Lars Von Trier at a post-screening news conference. The movie, Mihaileanu added, says that the world has to burn women in order to save humanity.

And, the New York Times article, “Away From It All, in Satan’s Church” by Dave Kehr summarizes the film as follows:

Antichrist is the story of a woman (Ms. Gainsbourg) who blames herself for the accidental death of her young son. With her husband (Willem Dafoe), a cognitive therapist, she retreats to a cabin in the woods with the hope of working through her debilitating grief. But rather than a source of calm and comfort, the forest manifests itself as an infernal maelstrom of grisly death and feverish reproduction. Seeing herself as another “bad mother,” Ms. Gainsbourg’s nameless character identifies with this nature, red in tooth and claw, and descends from depression to insanity. “Nature is Satan’s church,” she proclaims, before moving on to acts of worship that will have some viewers looking away from the screen (if not fleeing the theater).

Great, another film about a woman falling victim to the Bad Mother complex while her husband desperately tries to save her from her inability to not get all irrational and insane and shit. But what I find so interesting about the controversy surrounding Von Trier’s latest probable woman- hatefest (see Dancer in the Dark and Dogville for similar themes) is that many people who’ve seen it argue that Antichrist actually takes religion to task, illustrating its harmful contribution to the continued second-class citizenship of women.

I haven’t even seen this yet (will I?) and I’m skeptical to say the least. A film that, according to Cannes judges, positions a woman as essentially evil, unapologetically physically abusive to her husband, and in the end, so self-loathing that she cuts off her own clitoris, well, yeah, I’ve got some skepticism about the whole “but he’s merely exploring misogyny!” theme. However, through my web and blogosphere research, I’ve found that many reviews and articles attempt to argue that exact point—Von Trier’s latest film has nothing to do with misogyny.

Take a look at some of the following excuses I mean apologies I mean theories about Antichrist and the description of how it actually (heh) portrays women (or how it doesn’t intend to say anything about women at all).

Landon Palmer at Film School Rejects writes:

Antichrist has received many an accusation of being misogynistic. There’s certainly an argument to be made there, and the film will no doubt become a central text in feminist film theory and criticism, coupled with von Trier’s history of treating his lead actresses in not the most respectful manner (many of which have consequently resulted in some of the best performances of their careers, including Gainsbourg’s). But to call Antichrist misogynistic is like saying American Beauty is a movie the champions pedophilia. Just because the idea is introduced and explored does not mean the standpoint of the film, the filmmaker, or how we perceive the film simply and directly runs in line with that. To make such an accusation is dismissive and simplistic, ignoring the many of ideas going on in a film whose central flaw lies in its very ambition. That the message of Antichrist is confused and muddled is a reaction to be expected, but the accusation of misogyny entails a frustrated preemptive refusal to explore the film any further. If Antichrist should be lauded for anything, it’s the many debates on sexism, the depiction of violence, the responsibility and influence of the filmmaker, and the important differences between meaning intended by the filmmaker and meaning interpreted by the audience. But the only way these debates can be constructive is if one genuinely attempts to view this film outside its now-notorious knee-jerk reactions at Cannes and take it at face value.

I agree—the debate is refreshing. We’re actually talking about misogyny. In film. But why the desperate attempts to defend Antichrist against accusations of misogyny? Have these defenders gone to the movies lately? You can’t even see a movie that doesn’t on some level reflect our cultural values and beliefs, and unfortunately, we live in a society that still strongly portrays women in film through embarrassingly and unapologetically sexist, misogynist stereotypes. And they especially run rampant in the supposed oh-so-inoffensive, “perfect date movie!”: the romantic comedy. (To be honest, I often wonder if these supposed film critics can even identify misogyny.)

But perhaps more important than the apologism of critics like Palmer: Von Trier actually hired a misogynist consultant who took part in an interview regarding her role in researching centuries worth of misogyny (so that he could include it in the film). In the interview, she says:

Antichrist shows completely new aspects of woman and adds a lot of nuance to von Trier’s earlier portraits of women, but you can’t really tell from his films what his own actual view on women is, just like you can’t conclude from Fight Club that Palahniuk wants to promote more violence in society. Art doesn’t work that way. The good question is why it is such a provocation for so many to be confronted with the image of woman as powerful, sexual and even brutal?

If that weren’t enough, she also wrote her own piece, arguing that:

The indictment against women I composed for Von Trier sums up the many misogynistic views all the way back to Aristotle, whose observations of nature led him to conclude that “the female is a mutilated male”. Should we avoid staring into that abyss or should we acknowledge this male anxiety, perhaps even note with satisfaction that women are mostly described as very powerful beings by these anxious men?

Many of the defenders of Von Trier’s portrayal of women argue that he really attempts to explore people’s relationship to nature, or problems with psychiatry and an over-medicated society, or depression, or how we’re all inherently evil, or that it’s just too brilliant a film to even warrant analysis—it just needs to be experienced. Even Roger Ebert says:

I cannot dismiss this film. It is a real film. It will remain in my mind. Von Trier has reached me and shaken me. It is up to me to decide what that means. I think the film has something to do with religious feeling. It is obvious to anyone who saw “Breaking the Waves” that von Trier’s sense of spirituality is intense, and that he can envision the supernatural as literally present in the world.

But others came away from the film with an entirely different interpretation of being “shaken.” One of the most thought-provoking pieces I came across was an article in The Guardian, which asked several women—activists, artists, journalists, professors, and actors—to respond to Antichrist. Surprisingly, I felt like most of them dodged the “Is it misogynistic?” question by either choosing not to go there at all or barely glossing over it. Julie Bindel, however, had this to say:

No doubt this monstrous creation will be inflicted on film studies students in years to come. Their tutors will ask them what it “means”, prompting some to look at signifiers and symbolism of female sexuality as punishment, and of the torture-porn genre as a site of male resistance to female emancipation.

It is as bad as (if not worse than) the old “video nasty” films of the 80s, such as I Spit On Your Grave or Dressed To Kill, against which I campaigned as a young feminist. I love gangster movies, serial killer novels and such like. But for me they have to contribute to our understanding of why such cruelty and brutality is inflicted by some people on others, rather than for the purposes of gruesome entertainment. If I am to watch a woman’s clitoris being hacked off, I want it to contribute to my understanding of female genital mutilation, not just allow me to see the inside of a woman’s vagina.

Alas, I haven’t seen the film. And because of that, I don’t have much commentary to offer, other than the opinions of the critics who have seen it, and to say that getting people talking about misogyny in film certainly pleases me. However, the over-intellectualization of films like Von Trier’s (and Tarantino’s and other misogynist directors) irritates me not only because it tends to dismiss accusations of misogyny with “but you just don’t get it!” language, but critics who use that language also fail to convey what, for them, would actually qualify as misogyny.

I personally can’t name the last film I watched where I couldn’t identify at least some form of misogyny, the most “harmless” of which (romantic comedies, bromances, Apatow) get rave reviews from critics with rarely a mention of the extremely detrimental portrayals of women as one-dimensional sidekicks, either virgins or whores, love interests, nagging wives, irrational/insane and conniving, etc. So, maybe another question to ask is, why should I trust them in this debate at all?

Regardless, check out the links below for more commentary on the film.

***


Antichrist shows that men have objectified women as being closer to nature because of their roles as mothers and their natural cycles; and while that can sometimes be seen as a positive stereotype Antichrist makes the case that this particular objectification also renders women terrifyingly alien to men by linking them to the darker aspects of nature that men universally fear.

***


The notion of the ‘punishment of women’ in his work is not only the outworking of themes dealing with patriarchal oppression, but it juxtaposes the brutality of the world (power, money, hatred, etc) with the spiritual (forgiveness, love, transcendence, etc). While there’s nothing original about this, it seems (judging by reviews) that many people simply don’t get it.

***


Some critics say that the film is misogynist because the mother takes on to herself all the guilt and blame for the loss of her child, while the father seems almost completely untouched by it. I’d say that sounds rather more like misandry, but what do I know?

***


Like a number of Von Trier’s films, Antichrist too can and has come under the scanner for its alleged misogyny. While the aggressor in this film, be it in terms of sex or violence, is the woman, seeing her as the Antichrist would do the film a great deal of injustice. Von Trier has certainly moved on from the helpless Golden Heart(ed) girl as a protagonist, and this time around, he doesn’t have an agenda.

***


Just as much as Antichrist is sure to provoke debate, it is likely to provoke disdain. Despite providing a historical context (both in the film and in his own body of work) to explain his misogynistic premise, von Trier has already been attacked as a misogynist. Such a reading of Antichrist is oversimplified. This is a movie that dares audiences to declare either one of its characters an aggressor, especially since it situates each of them in a realm that shows nature to be just as aggressive itself.

***


If Antichrist escapes being labelled a misogynist film, Gainsbourg’s fiercely committed screen presence will be the main reason—you sense she’s in control of this character in a way Von Trier isn’t. Indeed, that’s the other reason it’s hard to call Antichrist misogynist: Von Trier made it on such an instinctive level, apparently even incorporating images from the previous night’s dreams into that day’s shooting, that I’m not sure he consciously intended it to be either misogynistic or feminist.

***


Dafoe elaborated: “It’s not saying anything about women. It doesn’t speak. It’s telling you a story that evokes many things. It’s telling you things about the relationship between men and women. I think Lars has a very romantic idea about women, and in this configuration the man is the rational guy, the fool who thinks he can save himself, and the woman is susceptible to things magical and poetic. And she also suffers from an illness. He’s identifying with women.”

He added that just because misogynistic things might happen in the movie, it doesn’t condone or encourage that attitude. “A woman being self-hating can happen, without saying that’s the nature of women.”

***


Here is a film that explicitly confronts the director’s intertwined fears of primal nature and female sexuality. But does a fear of femaleness automatically equate to hatred? I’m not convinced that it does. Yes, the “She” character is anguished and irrational; a danger to herself and those around her. And yet for all that, she proves more vital, more powerful, and oddly more charismatic than “He”, the arrogant, doomed advocate of order and reason.

***


The actresses who have worked alongside Von Trier often attest to his bizarre relationship with women. Kidman famously asked the director why he hates women, while Bjork was so disturbed on set that she began to consume her own sweater. All that highly negative press is probably what led to Von Trier hiring a misogyny specialist for his latest film, ‘Antichrist.’ But he needn’t have bothered. Anyone in their right mind (i.e. none of the characters in the film) would realize this movie is not about men or women, at all, but about the repercussions of depression. Misogyny requires a certain commitment to hating women while anyone who knows anything about depression is aware that those afflicted with it have no attachment to anything at all.

***

Ripley’s Rebuke: Phoebe in Wonderland

Phoebe in Wonderland. Starring Felicity Huffman, Elle Fanning, Patricia Clarkson, and Bill Pullman. Written and Directed by Daniel Barnz.


For a film that wants to explore the difficulties of marriage and motherhood and, essentially, what it means to exist as a woman in a society that places so many demands on wives and mothers, I found it disconcerting to say the least that this film only barely passes the Bechdel Test. If it weren’t for one scene, where Felicity Huffman’s character, Hillary Lichten, engages in a brief conversation about her daughter, Phoebe, (played by Elle Fanning) with her daughter’s drama teacher, Miss Dodger, (played by Patricia Clarkson), then this entire movie, a movie about women, would plod along without one woman ever speaking to another woman.

imdb plot summary: The movie focuses on an exceptional young girl whose troubling retreat into fantasy draws the concern of both her dejected mother and her unusually perceptive drama teacher. Phoebe is a talented young student who longs to take part in the school production of Alice in Wonderland, but whose bizarre behavior sets her well apart from her carefree classmates.

Well, on the surface, the movie is about Phoebe and her struggle to fit in with her peers. But it quickly turns into an examination of motherhood and parenting in general, when Phoebe’s odd behavior gradually worsens: she spits at classmates, she obsessively repeats words and curses involuntarily, she washes her hands to the point that they bleed—and she explains to her parents over and over again that she can’t help it. However, her mother (and father), being academic writer-types (Hillary is actually attempting to finish her dissertation on Alice in Wonderland), merely choose to see their daughter as nothing more than eccentric and imaginative.

The caretaker role falls exclusively to Hillary. She’s a stay-at-home mom trying to write a book while also attempting to care for two young daughters. While her struggle to play The Good Mom definitely lends sympathy to her character—I mean, honestly, what the hell is a good mom?—I couldn’t help but despise her selfishness and blatant disregard for Phoebe’s needs. Even though both parents decide to (finally) get Phoebe into therapy, it’s Hillary who refuses to accept the doctor’s diagnosis, even going so far as to remove Phoebe from therapy, deliberately hiding the diagnosis from her husband.

The problem here, and where the movie most succeeds, is that Hillary feels alone as a parent. She believes that her children’s struggles will ultimately reflect poorly on her as The Good Mom, and she even says at one point that she doesn’t want her daughter to be “less than.” Obviously, we live in a society that mandates the over-the-top importance of living up to an unattainable standard of proper mothering (see: any celebrity mother and the scrutiny she faces, with barely a mention of celebrity fathers), and Hillary definitely effectively represents that unattainable standard.

The movie also successfully portrays the societal trend of the working father: he pokes his head in when necessary, checking in on his daughters, and demonstrating just the right balance between quirky annoyance at their neediness and curiosity about their daily lives—he shows up to parent/teacher conferences, he consoles Phoebe when she gets in trouble at school, and he genuinely wants to participate; he’s just not required to maintain the role of The Good Dad—it doesn’t exist.

In many ways, Miss Dodger, the drama teacher, saves Phoebe from herself, at least for a while. Clarkson’s character complicates the film further by positioning Miss Dodger as somewhat of an Other Mother—they’re kindred spirits, and Miss Dodger attempts to create a safe space for Phoebe in the theater, realizing that she doesn’t feel safe anywhere else. But in the one main interaction between Hillary and Miss Dodger, Hillary confronts Miss Dodger about Phoebe’s penchant for self-injury, even blaming her for not paying close enough attention (which is nothing more than a projection of Hillary’s own feelings about failing at the role of The Good Mom).

At first, the film explores Hillary’s inability to separate the weaknesses she perceives in her children from her (real or imagined) personal failings as a mother. And that theme deserves recognition. Hillary is a complicated character, after all, and how often do we get to watch complicated women struggle with real issues on-screen? The issue I struggle with, though, warrants discussion as well: how long does Phoebe have to repeatedly self-harm before her mother acknowledges the doctor’s diagnosis?

What could’ve been (and actually was, at first) a feminist investigation of the plight of motherhood and marriage in a society that still treats women as second-class citizens (even if it pretends not to view them as such), somehow turned into an indictment of The Selfish Mother. Just because Hillary says out loud (something along the lines of): “I don’t want to look at my life when I’m 70 and realize I did nothing important. But at the same time, I wouldn’t mind. My daughters make me live,” well, that doesn’t negate the fact that she waited until her daughter jumped off a fucking theater scaffold before she decided that, okay, something might be wrong with her.

The film makes it almost impossible not to hate that mother: in one scene, she comforts Phoebe after a nightmare, realizes Phoebe has horrible bruises all over her legs, and listens (once again) to Phoebe cry about how she can’t help hurting herself. While Phoebe continues her obsessive compulsions, which result in removal from the play at one point, her mother continues to ignore the doctor’s diagnosis of Tourette’s Syndrome.

My point is, what the fuck? Am I supposed to believe that part of the feminist complications of motherhood include the struggle to not seriously neglect (and consequently, abuse) your child? Perhaps in some warped way, the film wants to illustrate how motherhood in our society really is a double-edged sword: she can choose to help her daughter, and risk feeling like a failure as a mother (because she would have to acknowledge her daughter is “less than”), or she can hope that her child really is an imaginative eccentric who shouldn’t be medicated and drained of her creativity.

While Hillary clearly buys in to both the cult of motherhood and the demonization of disability, the filmmakers really only succeed in showcasing the latter, resulting in a somewhat interesting examination of how we, as a society, often react to what we perceive as different or Other. But because the film also attempts to examine motherhood simultaneously, I found it virtually impossible not to read it as anything more than a deliberate, over-the-top, worst case scenario metaphor for the consequences of Bad Mothering.

Movie Posters: Are You Ready for Death/Love/Prison?

The Throat

Ladies, if you want to marry, date, fuck, and/or kill a man, getting dangerously close to the jugular is totally the way to go. That way, you can scare him into loving/dying (it’s apparently the same thing). Also, hold him down or push him against the wall; that’s the best way to ensure he’s freaked out enough to effectively fall into your loving and/or borderline stalker-murderous-psychotic arms.

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

The Back

Awww, girls, look how quirky-cute you are, with your legs wrapped around your man (you can’t get away now, boys!) or your breasts on the verge of popping out of your mini-tank slash sports bra into the face of the guy you’re using as a tabletop. And these posters tell me so much about the films, too! Really:

1) your man is going to carry you away from your god-awful once man-less life
2) you’re going to ride the shit out of your man while … possibly selling your body?
3) boobs

********************************************
The Rope

First of all, the women of Blind Dating clearly represent all women that a man might potentially have the pleasure of one day blind dating. There are no female stereotypes in this poster at all whatsoever. And my god isn’t he so completely gorgeous and worthy of all this hot-girl worship? This poster doesn’t remind me at all whatsoever of films with average-joe male leads who somehow end up in a clusterfuck of girl-stalk. That would, in fact, be a ridiculous concept in general, one that would definitely never hold up as an actual movie plot. And Four Christmases, thanks for the Christmas present illustration. I’m not quite sure which obvious rom-com bullshit I’m supposed to take from that—their relationship is a gift? they’re in it together? ohmigod don’t leave me?—but thanks. Seriously, thanks.

********************************************
The Gag

See what women do, boys? Emasculate. Dominate. Take away your ability to, you know, speak. And don’t they look like they’re having a blast doing it?

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

The Tie
Pretty Woman and Ghosts of Girlfriends Past are separated by, what, twenty years? Yet it’s the same. fucking. poster. Well, the newer version contains the bachelor’s previous girlfriends, looking all suspicious and conniving, like women do. But both posters still give off that grab-your-man-by-the-leash vibe. He needs to be tamed. By you. Before he can settle down and give you that nuclear family and ultimate feeling of completeness that all women desire. And Jennifer Aniston, every guy’s girl-next-door-girl, will totally either strangle Ben Stiller or help him loosen up and have fun! You go girl! If he needs changing and/or saving, you’re certainly the woman to do it.

Movie Posters: A Bitch Flicks Verbal Beatdown

Dear Filmmakers, Movie Promoters, Marketing Teams, Poster Designers, et al:

Recently, I spent some time gathering movie posters for several of last year’s top-grossing films. I noticed that in movies with male leads, the posters usually featured them prominently, with either up-close shots of their faces (smiling in a mocking “I’m hilarious!” way, or looking pretty bad-ass, like they’re about to do some shit). Or, the posters showed full-body shots of them already engaged in some kind of action.

That led me to wonder about the movie posters with female leads and whether they would contain the same elements. I did some research, looking for movie posters that featured lead actresses, and making it a point to leave out the most offensive posters (extreme close-ups of body parts, etc) of which there were many. I specifically looked for posters where the female lead took up most, if not all of it, and I tried to favor facial close-ups.

In case you weren’t aware, many of the less offensive promotional movie posters featured below still led me to believe at least one of the following about the lead actress’s potential role in the film:

A. she will spend most of her time in the movie trying to fuck someone

B. she will spend most of her time in the movie trying to get fucked by someone

C. she will spend most of her time in the movie trying to kill someone

D. she will spend most of her time in the movie trying to avoid getting killed

E. she will spend most of her time in the movie trying to avoid killing herself

F. she will spend most of her time in the movie being adorable

I’m curious as to whether this was intentional, or if you’ve internalized so much of our cultural hatred toward women that you subconsciously cast them as passive objects rather than active subjects, even in cases where the actresses play very active roles in the films. (Case in point: The Pelican Brief. In this film, Julia Roberts spends some of the time trying to avoid getting killed and the rest of the time completely blowing open a government fucking conspiracy. Yet the poster merely suggests ohmygod fear.)

I will concede that there are certainly cases where the lead actress actually plays a passive object, but for the most part, that’s not the case. And for the record, using these posters to portray the leading ladies as seductresses and/or sexy yet crazed-looking potential serial killers does not constitute an active subject. Please advise.

Love,

Bitch Flicks

P.S. It’s fine with us if you want to put more women of color on movie posters. But that would require giving them their own movies, wouldn’t it?

Movie Review: 500 Days of Summer, Take 1

500 Days of Summer. Starring Zooey Deschanel, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Geoffrey Arend, Chloe Moretz, Matthew Gray Gubler, and Clark Gregg. Written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber. Directed by Marc Webb.Within the past few years especially, independent films have developed a certain easily identifiable “indie charm,” and 500 Days of Summer most definitely fulfills the criteria. These films used to be termed “independent” due to budget constraints, but just like the big studio films, indie movies have essentially become marketable, targeting a very specific audience to the point that indie elements have basically become indie clichés:

—amazing alterna-soundtrack? check.
(see also: Juno, Garden State, Away We Go)

—strangely cartoonish, bubbly-lettered and/or pencil-sketched movie poster? check.
(see also: Juno, Away We Go, Wes Anderson movies, Napoleon Dynamite)

—quirky female lead? check.
(see also: Juno, Garden State, The Royal Tenenbaums, Reality Bites, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)

—at least one scene that occurs in a ridiculous location? check.
(see also: Juno [furniture on the lawn scenes], Away We Go [department store bathtub scene, trampoline scene, stripper pole scene], Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind [most of the scenes])

—tortured love, tortured souls, tortured existences? check.
(see also: every indie film ever made)


For interesting reading about independent film clichés, coupled with a good review of Away We Go, read this.

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

Despite the fact that 500 Days of Summer is pretty much guilty of perpetuating all of the above indie clichés, I really liked it. Despite the completely conservative ending, I really liked it. Despite my two-week long depressive episode following my viewing of this film, alone, in a theater in Times Square, in the middle of the day, alone, I really liked it. And, for whatever reason, despite my initial ambivalence after leaving the theater, this movie managed to linger with me. Why?

Well, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, for starters. The distilled plot: he falls in love with a woman who doesn’t believe in love, which leads to his inevitable heartbreak. I hated watching Joseph Gordon-Levitt get his heart stomped on by [insert quirky hipster female love interest] Zooey Deschanel! Joseph Gordon-Levitt starred in Mysterious Skin! And Brick! And Third Rock from the Sun!

We love him!

The truth is, though, while I enjoyed watching a romantic comedy that changed-up the genre by turning the leading man into a mushy, self-loathing disaster who attempts to accept the reality of unrequited love, I hated how much the film still turned the female lead into a sidekick. In traditional romantic comedies, problematic as they are, the films at the very least focus on the couple, and you get to know the characters individually (The Break-Up, Eternal Sunshine, etc) by watching their interactions and conflicts as a couple.

But in 500 Days of Summer, the plot unfolds exclusively through the perspective of Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character, Tom. Zooey Deschanel’s character, Summer, (haha, get it?) exists merely as a vehicle to further the audience’s identification with Tom. We never learn much about her. She likes Ringo Starr. She likes The Smiths. She likes karaoke. She doesn’t believe in true love.

Thankfully, we also know that she identifies as an independent woman who refuses to be tied down. She might even identify as a feminist, though she never explicitly states that.

I loved one scene in particular where she gets angry with Tom because of some performative alpha-male attempt to “defend her honor” in a bar fight. He might be defending himself a little too; after all, the initial punch happens after the other man says to Summer, “I can’t believe this guy is your boyfriend.” Harsh. But I would’ve loved the scene even more if it hadn’t been undercut by Summer showing up at Tom’s apartment later, soaking wet from the rain, to apologize for getting angry with him.

In fact, the biggest issue I take with this film is how often it undercuts Summer’s independence. The conclusion, which I won’t give away here, completely disappoints in that regard. Not only is it an easy, throwaway ending, but it doesn’t do justice to Summer’s independent-woman persona, and instead (and again), exists only as a plot point that encourages the audience to sympathize with Tom.

We barely know Summer, but why does the little bit we do know about her have to get unnecessarily lost in the end?

There are also no other important women characters. Tom occasionally solicits advice from his younger sister, who’s like, twelve, and I found it appropriately cute and indie-funny. And he goes on a blind date once, where he spends the entire time complaining to his date about Summer. (To the film’s credit, the woman he’s on the date with defends the shit out of Summer, rather than veering off into traditional rom-com female competitive-jealous territory.) Other than those few women though, it’s all about Tom.

However, if this movie can claim anything, it can claim inclusion of some seriously awesome meta shit. Movies within movies within movies, oh my! We get clips and parodies of The Graduate, Persona, and some other French films I didn’t recognize. And one can’t ignore the hilarious bursting-into-song scene, complete with full group-dance sequence and cartoon birds. The film also uses a style of storytelling that moves back-and-forth within time, and that works too, keeping the viewer slightly off-kilter and in the same headspace as its hero.

With all this film fun, you ask, then what’s my problem?

I think it has much to do with what I wanted for Summer. For her to go on being her quirky, independent-hipster self, unabashed and unapologetic. For her to never come across as potentially manipulative or dishonest, because she isn’t either of those things. And for the writers and/or director to have taken as much care in creating a 3-dimensional female lead as they did in creating a fully fleshed-out male lead who picks himself up, dusts himself off, and goes out and accomplishes shit.

They’re calling it a romantic comedy, after all. Even in the traditional “girl meets boy” then “boy breaks girl’s heart” then “boy realizes he really loves girl” then “boy and girl live happily ever after” bullshit, and its pointless variations, the male and female characters get mostly equal screen time. In cases where that might not happen, the audience at least comes to understand each of the characters’ motivations at some point.

(I’m by no means defending the rom-com, but at least in most female-driven rom-coms, like Pretty Woman and He’s Just Not That Into You, I know that I’ll have the pleasure of watching both of the characters one-dimensionally participate in a recreation of 1950s gender roles, ha.)

But in 500 Days of Summer—the female love interest exists, but she exists in the background as a supporting character, her main purpose being to help flesh out the hero. In turn, she becomes nothing more than an extension of him, just a quirky after-thought, another one of his personality traits.

500 Days of Summer could’ve (and should’ve) found a way to avoid that.

Yet at the end of the day, despite its shortcomings, I couldn’t help but really like this “story about love.” It felt authentic, at least in its illustration of relationship conflicts, from the initial courtship phase to the inevitable dissolution. Deschanel maintains her complete adorability and Gordon-Levitt, well, we love him! Their on-screen chemistry, intermingled with all kinds of mopiness and feel-goodness and splashes of The Smiths and Regina Spektor … look, who cares about my criticisms? You should probably just go see this.

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

Check out some insightful reviews here, here, here, and here.


Movie Posters: Bad Boys vs Bad Girls

The Spirit has all kinds of shit wrong with it. According to these movie posters, Samuel L. Jackson apparently plays a gun-wielding, trench coat wearing badass, who most definitely takes an active role, probably killing people who made the unfortunate mistake of trying to face his power. On the other hand Eva Mendes plays … um … a woman, who … um … has a long neck and um … pretty lips … and um … she has been a very, very bad girl.

For a while, I thought Sin City and The Spirit were the same movie. Same marketing. Same brooding male action hero with a gun, risking his life in the rain for god’s sake. Same beautiful and, don’t forget, merciless woman who will obviously take people down with her tongue and her manipulative vagina. In the rain.

Yes, I realize these posters aren’t from the same film. But I believe they’re relevant to each other, in that these actors both star in these movies, and receive top billing. Also, the posters feature them both holding some seriously gigantic guns, and something tragic with America is probably occurring … flags, Las Vegas, extinction, “public enemies,” evil, etc. Yet we get Depp in a full suit, complete with trench coat, black leather gloves, and a hat, while Jovovich barely made it off the stripper pole in time to grab a couple of guns and destroy some shit. And watch out, she might be coming to do bad things to you, boys, hehe! (But what the hell is Depp looking at?)

Star Trek, revised taglines:

Man: I’m going to murder the fuck out of you.

Woman: I’m going to fuck the shit out of you.

What’s with the men on these posters looking away (Depp, this guy, Law, Owen) while most of the women stare head-on? I’ll tell you: the male gaze, baby! These women are straight-up going to do you. Men have more important things on their minds, like taking action, looking for action, or looking right at you in that “I’m about to kill some bitches” kind of way (which, yes, is problematic in its own right). But in fairness, even though the G.I. Joe poster objectifies the woman by depicting her entire backside, the poster with the man isn’t much better. Check out his chest! I’ll admit it; this poster sorta makes me want to do him.

Are You Ready to Get Ridiculous?

In response to my previous post about pay discrimination in Hollywood, an anonymous commenter pointed out the following:

“Although I agree that women should be paid the same in all industries, your breakdown of the top grossing movies fails to recognise that apart from Sex and the City there were major male actors in each of the films, whereas the male movies listed featured the men as the main star of the film surrounded by a supporting cast.”

That got me thinking. While it was impossible to account for every single factor that might’ve contributed to the actors’ salaries more than doubling the actresses’ salaries (actors/actresses who produced rather than starred in a film, actors/actresses who released more than one film in the previous year, actors/actresses receiving residuals from past work, worldwide box office gross versus US box office gross, etc), my main goal was to illustrate the fact that lead actresses didn’t seem to be fairly compensated for their films based on skill-level (measured by Oscar nominations and wins), US box office gross, and the overall critical reception of their work, when compared/contrasted with the male leads’ compensation.

But, like I said, that anonymous commenter got me thinking. Is it possible that male leads are usually the main attraction in their films, surrounded by an anonymous supporting cast, while female leads tend to star in more ensemble-driven films, surrounded by a cast of prominent male actors?

So I decided to use the list of films from my previous post on pay discrimination to attempt to get to the bottom of this. My ultimate goal: to discover if a trend exists where male leads star in their “own movies” whereas female leads tend to blend in with the rest of their cast (which often includes major male actors). Or, do we merely view male leads differently than female leads, seeing the female leads the way our society sees women in general: as helpers, partners, and assistants rather than leaders?

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

Kung Fu Panda: Angelina Jolie’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $215,395,021
Cast: co-starring Jack Black, well-known ensemble cast, including Dustin Hoffman, Ian McShane, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, and Lucy Liu

Analysis: Most of the posters only featured the Panda, and the previews did the same, mainly focusing on Jack Black in the title role. While Angelina Jolie is an Oscar-winner, as is Dustin Hoffman, and they are by no means minor players in the film industry, it’s safe to characterize Kung Fu Panda as a Jack Black movie, since it was essentially marketed as such.

Verdict: Jack Black movie, supported by a prominent male and female cast.

********************************************************************
Marley & Me: Jennifer Aniston’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $143,084,510
Cast: co-starring Owen Wilson as love interest, well-known supporting cast, including Eric Dane, Kathleen Turner, and Alan Arkin

Analysis: The promotional posters either featured the dog only, or they featured all three: Aniston, Wilson, and the dog. I’m not sure how to characterize this movie, as the dog seems to carry as much star-power as the actors. Given that Aniston and Wilson both have some box-office draw, I’ll call this what it is: a draw. (But I really just want to give it to Marley.)

Verdict: Aniston/Wilson movie, supported by a prominent male and female cast. And a dog.

********************************************************************
Mamma Mia!: Meryl Streep’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $143,704,210
Cast: well-known ensemble cast, including Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Stellan Skarsgard, and Amanda Seyfried

Analysis: Meryl Streep is in this (and many film posters exclusively promoted Amanda Seyfried).

Verdict: Meryl Streep movie (with special shout-out to Seyfried) supported by a prominent male cast.

********************************************************************
Sex and the City: Sarah Jessica Parker’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $152,595,674
Cast: well-known ensemble cast, including Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis, Cynthia Nixon, Chris Noth, Candace Bergen, and Jennifer Hudson

Analysis: Even though this is an ensemble comedy, Sarah Jessica Parker narrates, and most of the promotional posters focused on her. The film also benefitted from its success as a TV show, where SJP’s job as a columnist took center stage.

Verdict: Sarah Jessica Parker movie, supported by a prominent female cast.

********************************************************************
What Happens in Vegas: Cameron Diaz’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $80,199,843
Cast: co-starring Ashton Kutcher as love interest, anonymous supporting cast, including Rob Corddry, Lake Bell, and Jason Sudeikis

Analysis: Who cares? This movie sucked and Diaz/Kutcher could’ve been replaced by other actors and it probably wouldn’t have made a difference. They both got equal billing and promotion, and since it’s a rom-com of sorts, and rom-coms rely on, you know, a romantic relationship, it too is a draw.

Verdict: Diaz/Kutcher movie, supported by an anonymous cast.

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

(Sandra Bullock: did not star in any films in 2008)

Analysis: From what I can gather, she produced several films/owns a production company, so that’s where her loot came from.

********************************************************************
Four Christmases: Reese Witherspoon’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $120,136,047
Cast: co-starring Vince Vaughn as love interest, well-known supporting cast, including Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek, Jon Voight, and Jon Favreau

Analysis: Same deal—it’s a rom-com, so yeah. I’d like to argue that Reese Witherspoon’s Oscar win trumps Vince Vaughn’s whole schlubby-funny-guy thing, but the unfortunate reality is that the success of rom-coms doesn’t usually depend on the actual quality of the actors/acting.

Verdict: Witherspoon/Vaughn movie, supported by a prominent, mostly male cast, with the exception of Spacek.

********************************************************************
Australia: Nicole Kidman’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $49,420,849
Cast: co-starring Hugh Jackman, anonymous supporting cast, including Shea Adams, Eddie Baroo, Ray Barrett, and Tony Barry

Analysis: Love, or something. I never bothered to see this gem, given the reviews, but if the movie poster is anything to go by, I’m pretty sure it’s about love and Australia. Nicole Kidman has won two Oscars and everyone loves her, so I’m tempted to call Kidman the main attraction. Except! Hugh Jackman is totally Wolverine!

Verdict: Kidman/Jackman movie, supported by an anonymous cast.

********************************************************************
Beverly Hills Chihuahua: Drew Barrymore’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $94,497,271
Cast: well-known supporting cast including Piper Perabo, Andy Garcia, George Lopez, Cheech Martin, Edward James Olmos, and Jamie Lee Curtis

Analysis: Um.

Verdict: Talking Chihuahua movie, with Barrymore’s voice supported by a prominent male cast (and Jamie Lee Curtis).

********************************************************************
Leatherheads: Renee Zellweger’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $31,199,215
Cast: co-starring George Clooney and John Krasinski, anonymous supporting cast, including David de Vries, Rick Forrester, Malcolm Goodwin, and Matt Bushell

Analysis: Zellweger barely got mentioned in the promotion of this film and seems to have been relegated to the infamous barely-there role-as-female-love-interest. Didn’t they show her in the previews literally cheering from the sidelines?

Verdict: George Clooney movie, supported by an anonymous male cast.

********************************************************************
Indiana Jones: Cate Blanchett’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $316,957,122
Cast: co-starring Harrison Ford and Shia LaBeouf, reasonably well-known supporting cast, including Karen Allen, Ray Winstone, and John Hurt

Analysis: I actually think this is a tough one. Blanchett = brilliant Oscar-winning actress, so it’s hard to exclusively call this for Ford. But in reality, would people have gone to see this if Cate Blanchett’s role-as-villain had been played by another actress? Yes.

Verdict: Harrison Ford movie, supported by a prominent actress (Blanchett) and a mostly male cast.

********************************************************************
Get Smart: Anne Hathaway’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $130,246,343
Cast: co-starring Steve Carell, well-known supporting cast, including Dwayne Johnson, Alan Arkin, James Caan, and Bill Murray

Analysis: I watched the first fifteen minutes of this before turning it off, and it appeared as if Carell and Hathaway had a whole equal partnership going on. But I have to admit, I was only talked into watching it because someone reminded me that Steve Carell is hilarious. When I realized it was the worst fifteen minutes of a film I’d ever seen, I lamented that Hathaway chose to be a part of it.

Verdict: Carell/Hathaway movie, supported by a prominent male cast.

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

(Halle Berry: did not star in any films for 2008)

Analysis: I don’t know man, I don’t know.

********************************************************************
The Other Boleyn Girl: Scarlett Johansson’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $26,814,957
Cast: co-starring Natalie Portman and Eric Bana, anonymous supporting cast, including Jim Sturgess, Mark Rylance, David Morrissey, and Kristen Scott Thomas

Analysis: This film was all kinds of offensive. The marketing mainly focused on the casting of Portman/Johansson as vengeful sisters, (fighting over a man) so I’m only barely giving it to Johansson, since she’s the actual “Other Boleyn Girl” … and the supposed heroine.

Verdict: Scarlett Johansson movie, supported by Bana, Portman, and an anonymous, mostly male cast.

********************************************************************
The Reader: Kate Winslet’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $34,111,418
Cast: co-starring Ralph Fiennes, anonymous supporting cast, including Jeanette Hain, David Cross, Susanne Lothar, and Alissa Wilms

Analysis: I had no idea who else was in this besides Kate Winslet. And she won an Oscar (finally) for this role.

Verdict: 100% Kate Winslet movie, supported by Fiennes and an anonymous, male/female cast.

********************************************************************
Indiana Jones: Harrison Ford’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $316,957,122
Cast: co-starring Cate Blanchett and Shia LaBeouf, reasonably well-known supporting cast, including Karen Allen, Ray Winstone, and John Hurt

Analysis: We already went over this. Blanchett. Brilliant. Doesn’t matter.

Verdict: Begrudgingly given to Ford.

********************************************************************
Bedtime Stories: Adam Sandler’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $109,993,847
Cast: co-starring Keri Russell and Guy Pearce, reasonably well-known supporting cast, including Russell Brand, Richard Griffiths, Lucy Lawless, Courteney Cox, and Carmen Electra

Analysis: Adam Sandler was the only person in this film they even attempted to promote, which is good news for all the other actors associated with this piece.

Verdict: Adam Sandler can have it, with support from a prominent female/less prominent male cast.

********************************************************************
Hancock: Will Smith’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $227,946,274
Cast: co-starring Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman, anonymous supporting cast, including Jae Head, Eddie Marsan, and David Mattey

Analysis: It’s a Will Smith action movie, what more can one say? Sure, Charlize Theron is an Oscar-winning actress who plays the role of “very important sidekick” next to a world famous action hero, but just check out the ridiculous movie poster if you need confirmation.

Verdict: Will Smith movie, supported by Theron and random men I’ve never heard of.

********************************************************************
Meet Dave: Eddie Murphy’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $11,644,832
Cast: co-starring Elizabeth Banks, anonymous supporting cast, including Gabrielle Union, Scott Caan, Ed Helms, Kevin Hart, and Mike O’Malley

Analysis: Has Eddie Murphy ever been in a movie that isn’t an Eddie Murphy movie? Again: movie poster. (Bonus points for anyone who can find me a film poster that features a female lead like this. Hint: one of the films on this big ass list does it.)

Verdict: Eddie Murphy movie, supported by Banks and less well-known actors.

********************************************************************
Knowing: Nicolas Cage’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $79,911,877
Cast: anonymous supporting cast, including Chandler Canterbury, Rose Byrne, Lara Robinson, D.G. Maloney, and Nadia Townsend

Analysis: I think the phrase “anonymous supporting cast” is enough of an analysis.

Verdict: Nicolas Cage movie, supported by an anonymous male/female cast.

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

(Tom Hanks: did not star in any films for 2008)

Analysis: I’m pretty sure Tom Hanks makes money just by existing.

********************************************************************
Tropic Thunder: Tom Cruise’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $110,416,702
Cast: cameo/supporting role by Cruise, well-known ensemble cast, including Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, and Ben Stiller

Analysis: No one really knew Tom Cruise was in this, and many people didn’t recognize him even as they watched. I kind of love that. Were there any women in this movie?

Verdict: I’ll give it to any one of the other prominent male cast members who isn’t Tom Cruise.

********************************************************************
Horton Hears a Who!: Jim Carrey’s highest grossing film of 2008
Gross: $154,388,002
Cast: well-known ensemble/supporting cast, including Steve Carell, Carol Burnett, Will Arnett, Seth Rogen, Isla Fisher, Jonah Hill, and Amy Poehler

Analysis: They promoted this as a Jim Carrey/Steve Carell comedy, but Jim Carrey is Jim Carrey and Steve Carell made Evan Almighty. It’s a kids film, though, so maybe none of that matters.

Verdict: My 4-year-old niece doesn’t give a shit, so neither do I, supported by a prominent male/female cast.

********************************************************************
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Brad Pitt’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $127,490,802
Cast: co-starring Cate Blanchett as love interest, reasonably well-known supporting cast, including Julia Ormond and Taraji P. Henson

Analysis: Cate Blanchett’s performance in this captured me much more than Brad Pitt’s performance, but I guess the Academy feels like they’ve already given her enough Oscars. Ultimately, the stand-outs were the women: Blanchett and Henson. But Brad Pitt has a bunch of kids with Angelina Jolie and he even dressed up in some kind of old man disguise for this film, so I really don’t know what to do here. I’m taking a cue from the movie poster.

Verdict: Pitt/Blanchett movie, supported mainly by a female cast of mommies and love interests.

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

(Johnny Depp: did not star in any films for 2008)

Analysis: Remember when Johnny Depp wore that cut-off-at-the-waist football jersey in Nightmare on Elm Street?

********************************************************************
Burn After Reading: George Clooney’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $60,338,891
Cast: well-known ensemble cast, including Frances McDormand, Brad Pitt, Richard Jenkins, Tilda Swinton, and John Malkovich

Analysis: I just watched this five days ago and was totally surprised by the focus on McDormand and Swinton. All these people have either been nominated for Oscars or won Oscars, and it’s definitely an ensemble-driven film. So, sorry Clooney, this doesn’t exclusively go to you.

Verdict: Everyone, equal weight given to a prominent male/female cast.

********************************************************************
Body of Lies: Russell Crowe’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $39,380,442
Cast: co-starring Leonardo DiCaprio, anonymous supporting cast, including Mark Strong, Golshifteh Farahani, and Ali Suliman

Analysis: I actually couldn’t remember what the hell this movie was, so I looked it up and even then I still didn’t remember it ever existing. But apparently it made money. So who do I give it to, Crowe or DiCaprio? The suspense!

Verdict: Who cares—didn’t this go straight to DVD? (Men supporting men.)

********************************************************************
Iron Man: Robert Downey Jr.’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $318,298,180
Cast: co-starring Gwyneth Paltrow as love interest, well-known supporting cast, including Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Paul Bettany, and Jon Favreau

Analysis: Oscar-winner Gwyneth Paltrow! Oh wait, that doesn’t mean anything? Just check out our review of this movie here.

Verdict: Robert Downey Jr., supported by Paltrow and a prominent male cast.

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

(Denzel Washington: did not star in any films for 2008)

Analysis: I love you, Denzel.

********************************************************************
Four Christmases: Vince Vaughn’s highest grossing film for 2008
Gross: $120,136,047
Cast: co-starring Reese Witherspoon as love interest, well-known supporting cast, including Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek, Jon Voight, and Jon Favreau

Analysis: See above. Even though Vaughn could be a good actor if he wanted to, it doesn’t really matter in the simplistic world of rom-com.

Verdict: Witherspoon/Vaughn movie, supported by men and Spacek.

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

So, did I learn anything from this exercise? What the hell was I trying to do again? Oh yeah, depress the shit out of myself, and this:

… discover if a trend exists where male leads star in their “own movies” whereas female leads tend to blend in with the rest of their cast (which often includes major male actors) …

Well, the male leads who star as the “main attraction,” surrounded by a mostly anonymous supporting cast include George Clooney in Leatherheads (this one’s tricky since Zellweger and Krasinski co-star and probably don’t count as “anonymous” ha, but whatever), Adam Sandler in Bedtime Stories, Nicolas Cage in Knowing, and Eddie Murphy in Meet Dave.

One could argue that films like Iron Man and Indiana Jones and Hancock and The Other Boleyn Girl—films that relegate prominent lead actresses to the status of sidekick and/or love interest (and for that matter, go on ahead and add The Curious Case of Benjamin Button to that list)—while the men go off and save the world and/or run the world and/or do shit in the world, and shit, might as well fall into the male-lead-as-main-attraction category.

I think maybe I just convinced myself that they do. Fuck.

Okay, so, the female leads who manage to star as the “main attraction,” surrounded by a mostly anonymous supporting cast include, um … Kate Winslet in The Reader?! That’s it? I guess Ralph Fiennes isn’t even anonymous, but neither are Zellweger and Krasinski, and I gave Clooney Leatherheads! Take that, film industry!

I’m depressed.

It appears, from this list at least, that female leads either co-star with a male lead in romantic comedies, or star in films that include a prominent supporting cast, (Mamma Mia!, Sex and the City). Clearly, we could use more Tomb Raiders and Changelings (go Angelina!) and whatever other movies our actresses have starred in as the “main attraction” who’s surrounded by a mostly anonymous supporting cast.

Can we make a list, please? Because I’m pretty sure I was wrong when I suggested that the audience might only be viewing female leads as helpers, partners, and assistants; the film industry actually fucking treats them that way.

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

Bonus Movie Poster

Movie Preview: Sorority Row

Sorority Row. Starring Briana Evigan, Leah Pipes, Rumer Willis, Jamie Chung, Margo Harshman, and Julian Morris. Written by Josh Stolberg, Pete Goldfinger, and Mark Rosman. Directed by Steward Hendler.
imdb synopsis: College juniors Cassidy, Jessica, Claire, Ellie, and Megan are sorority sisters sworn to trust, secrecy and solidarity, no matter what. But their loyalty is tested when a prank at a raucous house party goes terribly wrong and Megan ends up brutally murdered. Rather than confess to the crime and risk destroying their bright futures, the girls agree to hide the bloody corpse and keep their secret forever.

And then they all get stalked by some mysterious killer in a hood (Scream) who knows their secret and sends them videos and pictures of their secret (I Know What You Did Last Summer and I Still Know What You Did Last Summer and … is there another one)?

What the hell? I realize this is a remake of the 1983 film The House on Sorority Row, but does every misogynistic horror film from 1983 really need a remake? Here’s what I’m betting on: gratuitous nudity, possibly in hot tubs, girl-on-girl hate, or, you know, murder. I’ll just stop there.

Look, let me be the first to admit that I don’t exactly have a high opinion of most sororities in general, especially given many of their well-known hazing techniques (body-shaming one another by circling “problem areas” in marker, etc). But this film will most certainly take on a they-all-deserve-to-die theme, with the audience identifying exclusively with the killer, as the killer picks off the girls in one hilarious bloodbath after another.

While a film like Mean Girls tries to take a decidedly feminist slant in the end, at least in the way it addresses the issue of female competition for men, female slut-shaming, and the subsequent abandonment of sisterhood (I have some problems with this film, but that’s for another post), a film like Sorority Row promises to use the idea of sisterhood as some kind of commentary on … what? Female incompetence?

Face it, when women get together man, I mean, watch the fuck out! You might, like, die!

Of course, we can’t ignore Carol J. Clover’s “Final Girl” theory. She argues in her book Men, Women and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film, that slasher films are obsessed with feminism in that they force male viewers to identify with the Final Girl, the one lone girl who doesn’t die, who gets her shit together, who kills the killer.

And all the men in the audience cheer!

I get that. And I like her theory. But I don’t have high hopes for this particular film to live up to her theory. As I said above, when these girls do a stupid, shitty thing, and one of their sorority sisters dies as a result, I suspect that a major element of you-deserve-what-you-get-haha-bitches will overtake any potential empowering “Final Girl” resolution. I hope I’m wrong.

Pay Discrimination in Hollywood, Who Knew?

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

Please note the following:

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

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

1. Angelina Jolie: $27 million

1 Oscar win, 2 Oscar nominations

2. Jennifer Aniston: $25 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

3. Meryl Streep: $24 million

2 Oscar wins, 15 Oscar nominations

4. Sarah Jessica Parker: $23 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

5. Cameron Diaz: $20 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

6. Sandra Bullock (tie): $15 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

7. Reese Witherspoon (tie): $15 million

1 Oscar win, 1 Oscar nomination

8. Nicole Kidman (tie): $12 million

1 Oscar win, 2 Oscar nominations

9. Drew Barrymore (tie): $12 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

10. Renee Zellweger: $10 million

1 Oscar win, 3 Oscar nominations

11. Cate Blanchett: $8 million

1 Oscar win, 4 Oscar nominations

12. Anne Hathaway (tie): $7 million

0 Oscar wins, 1 Oscar nomination

13. Halle Berry (tie): $7 million

1 Oscar win, 1 Oscar nomination

14. Scarlett Johansson: $5.5 million

0 Oscar wins, 0 Oscar nominations

15. Kate Winslet: $2 million

1 Oscar win, 6 Oscar nominations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actresses

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business Trip Wishes

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

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

Dear Business Trip filmmakers,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck!

Love,
Bitch Flicks