Sundance – Page 2 – Bitch Flicks

How many movies have you watched in which rape is a notable, if not integral, part of the plot? Not sure? Well, I started thinking about it and poked around. The short list I compiled is at the end of this article.

Amazing, right? I personally have spent probably hundreds of dollars and entire weeks of my life paying for and watching these movies. Given the list below, it is clear that we do not shy away from movies in which jarring and often graphic rape scenes are featured. The most recent and extraordinarily explicit example, of course, is The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. War movies, in particular, often feature or allude to rape. Indeed, militarism and sexual violence seem to go hand in hand — but we don’t usually think of the rape being intra-military. In addition, these films are almost always fictional, edifying tales of retribution that leave audiences entertained and emotionally satisfied. But what about real rape — especially rape in the military?

Every four hours a sexual assault or rape is reported in the United States Military. *

You don’t see any blockbusters on the list about that. So, in return for the hours of entertainment pleasure that you may have derived from some of these films, take just two minutes and watch this:

The Invisible War, which premiered at The Sundance Film Festival on January 20th, is a groundbreaking investigative documentary about one of our country’s most shameful and best kept secrets: the epidemic of rape within our military. Focusing on the powerfully emotional stories of several young women, the film reveals the systemic failure of the military to confront these crimes and follows their struggles to fight for justice.

In 2009, 16,150 service members were assaulted (addition details for service academies can be found here at Stop Military Rape.) Although both men and women are subject to assault, women in the military are now more likely to be raped by fellow soldiers than they are to be killed in combat. In a 2005 study of 540 female veterans, 30 percent reported assaulted by a male colleague and/or supervisor. Of these, 14 percent reported having been gang-raped and 20 percent reported having been raped more than once.

Estimates indicate that anywhere from 8 percent to as high as 37 percent of the victims of sexual assault and trauma cases reported last year were men. The Pentagon believes that fully 80-90 percent of assaults (of men and women) are not reported. Only 1 in 15 men report assault, versus 1 in 5 women. It is harder for service men (and civilians), who face the real risk and consequences of being stigmatized as weak and “not masculine” to report assault. In this way, the military is a sluggish, tradition-bound, concentrated distillation of prevailing cultural norms. The portrayal of rape in the media and our culture at large (everything from victim-blaming to exaggerated claims of false accusations) contributes to the difficulty of getting accurate information about men being victimized. Sexism, misogyny and hetero-normative standards result in rape being largely understood as forcible vaginal penetration of a woman by a man. Trigger warning for this link: “Rape [for a man] is a very emasculating thing,” says Rick Tringale, who was the target of a military gang rape and came forward with his story.

This is compounded in the military, which values and demands uber-masculinity and for which “male” aggression is vital to survival. Don’t forget, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was in place until one year ago. Until we have a broader cultural acceptance (not just in the military) of the link between homophobia and misogyny, male abuse will continue to be under-reported, ignored and misunderstood. Ironically, it is the addition of more women into military service that has allowed men to come forward in greater numbers every year.

Military survivors of assault report several additional factors in explaining their reluctance to come forward.

They believe that nothing will be done to address their assault
They fear reprisal and are often penalized for pursuing justice.
Often, the perpetrator is their ranking officer (1/4 of victims indicated that they did not report for this reason) or a ranking officer’s friend (1/3rd of victims).
They don’t want to cause harm to their unit’s cohesion
They often, rightfully, expect to be shamed, ostracized and ridiculed for pursuing prosecution. A slut-shaming, victim-blaming response is common: “You’re probably just a little slut,” “If you tell anyone … I’ll tell them you’re a dyke.” That last threat was a grave one prior to the revocation of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “You’re a momma’s boy.” “How cold you possibly tarnish a good serviceman’s career. Take an aspirin.” And many other jarring examples that are too graphic to include here.

Sexual assault is is deeply traumatizing and stigmatizing for any victim, but for military survivors of assault the effects can be significantly worse. In the first place, they cannot quit their jobs but instead have to continue working with their rapists, sleeping with their rapists, eating with their rapists, being “led” by their rapists and, in many cases, protect their rapists from harm and expect them to do the same. Given the power dynamics, sometimes the closest analogy is parental rape of a child.

Military Sexual Trauma is the Department of Veterans Affairs’ term for the effect of intra-service sexual assault or repeated, threatening sexual harassment on a veteran. Survivors suffer higher rates of PTSD, anxiety, depression, increased risk of homelessness and alcohol and substance abuse. Female military personnel report getting pregnant (some are raped while pregnant), having to find difficult to access abortifacients and often starting birth control to prevent the possibility of pregnancy in the face of the high likelihood that they will raped again. This is an environment where female service members sleep with knives to protect themselves from their fellow soldiers.

Yet another intensifier is the military’s handling of rape claims. Here is a particularly troubling description of a rape and how it was handled:

Beth, a major in the U. S. Army Reserve, was sexually assaulted by a noncommissioned officer during a scud missile attack during Operation Iraqi Freedom. She followed reporting procedures, including undergoing the collection of evidence during another scud missile attack. Emergency contraception (EC) was “simply handed to me as a lot of pills to take. I went on birth control pills in the event that this happened to me again.”

Even recent changes in The Defense Department’s military rape policies have been criticized by both Protect Our Defenders and the Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN) as insufficient.

What happens when people report this crime?

Only 8 percent of rape complaints get prosecuted, only 2 percent result in conviction. This isn’t a slap on the wrist — it’s a slap in the face to victims: 80 percent of perpetrators and the accused are discharged with honor, while 90 percent of victims are eventually “involuntarily” discharged. (In the general population conviction rates are 40 percent for prosecuted and 6 percent for all cases reported.)

The military chain of command has a vested interest in not escalating complaints. Unit commanders’ depend on obedience, harmony and cohesion — all of which are threatened by soldiers’ accusing other soldiers of assault and the fallout of those accusations. There is no incentive to resolve complaints legally and systematically in ways that will enter the official record. It means paperwork, investigations, dishonor, admission of responsibility, a loss of reputation and possibly rank.

In November, 2011 California Congresswoman Jackie Speier introduced the Sexual Assault Training Oversight and Prevention Act–the STOP Act, H.R. 3435, which would take the reporting, oversight and investigation of these cases away from the military’s normal chain of command and into the jurisdiction of the the newly created, autonomous (civilian and military expert) Sexual Assault Oversight and Response Office.

In February of 2011 a landmark lawsuit was filed on behalf of 17 active duty service members and veterans, 2 men and 15 women. It accused the Department of Defense of cultivating a culture that fails to prevent and prosecute rape and sexual assault, violating plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. The case named Robert M. Gates and Donald Rumsfeld as heads of institutions that trivialized, denied, openly mocked the claims of rape victims and failed to take preventive measures to stop further assaults. This landmark case was dismissed last December.

Lawyer Susan Burke filed an appeal for the case in early January (2012). The plaintiffs in this case are 28 current or former members of the military who allege that they were raped by coworkers and, similarly to the above cited case, that the defense secretary’s failure to act on the issue of sexual assault in the military amounts to a violation of their constitutional rights.

Some people feel that talking about these rapes, prosecuting them and seeking legal recourse weakens our military. It is the exact opposite. The persistent drumbeat of denial and blithe dismissal is dangerous and harmful. Not revealing, admitting and fixing the problem of rape in the military, and our culture at large, is what undermines cohesion and hurts soldiers.

“We will continue the legal battles until the military begins to punish and dishonorably discharge the sexual predators, rather than retaliate against those who report the crime,” explains Burke.

As far as I’m concerned, one rape is too much. I know, pie in the sky for some people — but a matter of life and death for others. From my perspective, it’s a shame we can’t sue our entire culture since, in actuality, the military’s rape statistics aren’t that radically different from the nation’s.

You can follow the release of the movie at @Invisible_War or check out the Take Action list on The Invisible War website.

Movies That Include Rape and Sexual Assault

This is a short list of movies in which rape occurs. I couldn’t even begin to compile a list in which rape is implied or threatened. Multiple iterations of IMBD searches consistently resulted in anywhere between 2,000-4,500 titles, depending on whether or not you included TV. Interestingly enough, however, some of the movies that involve the assault of boys and men did not appear on the first pass list of movies including rape.

9 ½ weeks

The Accused

American Psycho

The Astronaut’s Wife

Bastard Out of Carolina

Blue Velvet

Cape Fear

Cider House Rules

Clan of the Cave Bear

Clockwork Orange

The Color Purple

Dead Man Walking

Death and the Maiden

Deathwish I, II and II

Deliverance

Devil’s Advocate

Eve’s Bayou

Eye’s Wide Shut

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

Forrest Gump

The General’s Daughter

Gia

Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

G. I. Jane

Gladiator

God and Monsters

The Good Girl

The Green Mile

Last Tango in Paris

Lawrence of Arabia

Lolita

Moulin Rouge

Once We Were Warriors

Platoon

Precious

Pulp Fiction

Rob Roy

Robin Hood

Rosemary’s Baby

Saturday Night Fever

Schindler’s List

Shame

The Shipping News

Thelma and Louise

Traffic

Soraya Chemaly writes feminist satire. She is a regular contributor to The Good Men Project and The Huffington Post (where this piece originally appeared). She is also the creator of the retired blogs: Poog, a Goop Spoof and The Guide to Manic Moms.

Ava DuVernay Wins Directing Award at Sundance Film Festival

Ava DuVernay, director of Middle of Nowhere

From Essence Magazine:

Congratulations are in order for filmmaker Ava DuVernay, who over the weekend became the first African American woman to take home the U.S. directing award at the Sundance Film Festival.

DuVernay received the award for her second feature film, “Middle of Nowhere,” which tells the story of a young woman who struggles to maintain her identity while her husband serves an eight-year prison sentence.

YES!

Here’s a wonderful interview with Ava DuVernay in which she discusses Middle of Nowhere:

Bitch Flicks’ Weekly Picks

Stephanie’s Picks:

Sundance, Women In Film Promote Female Filmmakers from Boston.com

Naomi Watts, Judi Dench–The Women of J. Edgar from ClickTheCity.com

The Rise of the Female-Led Action Film from The Atlantic

The Bigger Picture: What Happens When We Find “The Line” as Viewers? from HitFix.com [Trigger Warning for discussion of rape]

Top Ten Kickass Movie Women from Time

Amber’s Picks:

Five Female-Directed Films that Deserved Oscar Nominations from Canonball

Bridesmaids‘ Melissa McCarthy: Hilarious Performance, Not Oscar Worthy from Time

It’s a Good Time to Be a Black Woman, Except on TV from Jezebel

I Write Letters: Dear Parks and Recreation from Shakesville

Three Women Red Tails Left Out from The Root

Megan‘s Picks:

The Oscar Noms: It Sucks To Be a Female Filmmaker Part 2 from Women and Hollywood

What Bigelow Effect? The Number of Women Directors in Hollywood Falls to 5 Percent from Women and Hollywood

5 Black Actresses Who Deserve an Oscar from Clutch Magazine

What Charlize Theron Doesn’t Get About Black Hollywood from The Daily Beast

What have you been reading–or writing–this week? Leave your links in the comments!

Quote of the Day: Julie Dash

Julie Dash speaking at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival

In 1991, Julie Dash won the Sundance Excellence in Cinematography Award for Daughters of the Dust. Set in 1902, the film examines the lives of a family’s Gullah (also sometimes called Geechee) culture, which still thrives on the Sea Islands, off the coast of South Carolina and in coastal Georgia.

Recently restored, Daughters of the Dust screened at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, and Dash was interviewed by Nelson George.

George: You grew up in a household with this [Gullah] culture around you even though you grew up in New York City. What’s the journey from there as a child to you deciding to make the film?

Dash: Once I decided I was going to tell stories through film, and once I decided that I was not going to be a documentary filmmaker, but I was going to tell narrative stories (because I was excited about the literature of Alice Walker and Toni Morrison and all the poets of the time), I decided that I wanted to tell a story that was authentic to African American culture – authentic to the point where it was not like something you could turn on the television and see. I wanted it to be more like a foreign film and so deeply into the culture that it appeared to be foreign.

I’m fascinated by her statement about wanting Daughters to be “more like a foreign film.” While it’s safe to say that Gullah culture might be “foreign” to some people in the U.S., I think she’s saying something more. It’s not simply a lack of familiarity, a different language, or a setting outside one’s home country that makes a “foreign film.” It’s a certain quality, a certain uniqueness. When Dash speaks of authenticity, what remains unspoken is reference to depiction of African American experience in other films–she speaks of novelists and poets–and, perhaps, that is what she’s talking about when she talks about the desire for Daughters to appear foreign.

More than 20 years after Julie Dash made Daughters of the Dust, how many “authentic” films do we see?

Preview: Meek’s Cutoff – A Feminist Western?

Shirley Henderson, Zoe Kazan, and Michelle Williams star in Meek’s Cutoff

I’ve never really talked about my love for Westerns here, or all of my jumbled ideas about the genre and feminism (someday I’ll write a long post about it, or an essay, or a book). But, let me try to (briefly) sum up my interest here, and express how excited I am about Meek’s Cutoff.

The Western genre is traditionally tied up in all kinds of rugged masculinity, and of all film genres, maybe best exemplifies the dominant way the United States collectively imagines itself: sturdy, adventurous, self sufficient, brave, and, well, pretty butch. The problem is, however, that this narrative leaves out a significant number of people, and a significant portion of the story. The Western (and the story of the U.S. West) tries to be the story of the United States itself, and reveals ideology so clearly where it fails–namely, in its depiction of women, indigenous peoples, immigrants, and African-Americans. The genre is, in other words, ripe for retellings and allegory.

Directed by Kelly Reichardt (who also directed Wendy and Lucy and Old Joy), Meek’s Cutoff opens this weekend in New York, followed by a limited-release roll out. The critical consensus is positive, and Reichardt is already being praised for making an artistic and accessible film. Not-so-subtle connections are also being made between the film’s title character and a certain former U.S. president who may have also been overconfident in his ability to lead.

Mahohla Dargis has called the film “unabashedly political,” and J. Hoberman of The Village Voice, writes

Having split off from a larger wagon train, the party elected to follow Stephen Meek (Bruce Greenwood), an extravagantly hirsute, self-regardingly loquacious guide who, in his most obvious misjudgment, brings them not to the foothills of the Cascade Mountains but the shores of a great saline lake. Is he “ignorant or just plain evil?” the Williams character asks her husband (Will Patton). “We can’t know. . . . We made our decision,” he tells her. “I don’t blame him for not knowing—I blame him for saying he did,” she replies, establishing herself as the party’s moral compass.

In a NYT piece, “Oregon Frontier, from Under a Bonnet,” Nicolas Rapold writes

“There was a quote I remembered that I had liked when I was 18 or something, that popped into my head: ‘I’ll go where my own nature would be leading,’ ” Ms. Williams said of her character, Emily Tetherow. The verse, by Emily Brontë, which continues, “It vexes me to choose another guide,” proves peculiarly apt for Mrs. Tetherow, who emerges as Meek’s prime skeptic and becomes an unusually vocal opponent. The actual diaries of women migrating West were also a source of inspiration for Ms. Williams. She said she marveled at the effort spent on writing at “the end of the longest day you could imagine.”

The forbearance and point of view in the journals comes out in Ms. Reichardt’s shading of events through the women’s perspective. Besides the constant visual metaphor of the obscuring bonnets, there are the intervening moments devoted to their chores (laundry, grinding coffee) and wide shots from their point of view that suggest their exclusion from major decision making, like when Meek and the men consult upon arriving at a lake that proves unpotable. But it’s also Mrs. Tetherow who first spies an Indian (Rod Rondeaux) who becomes another competing voice of authority as they drift along in increasing distress and disagreement.

Watch the official preview:

Documentary Review: The September Issue

The September Issue (2009), directed by R.J. Cutler.

Fashion is a bit of an anomaly in capitalist enterprise, in that its major players are primarily women and gay men. Anna Wintour, editor-in-chief of Vogue, is the “single most important figure in the 300 billion dollar global fashion industry.” The September Issue chronicles the assembly of the massive 2007 fall fashion issue of the magazine.

Before getting into any specifics about the film, I want to say a thing or two about fashion, because it’s a subject–and an industry–about which I feel a great deal of ambivalence. Last March, when Stephanie and I reviewed Sex and the City: The Movie for this website, I struggled to pinpoint my perspective on fashion, and left it at this:

I like fashion. It’s an art form, and its creators are capable of beautiful design and cultural statements. It’s also an industry, and like all major industries, has a very ugly side. I liken it to professional sports: I watch from the sidelines, aware of the way I’m being manipulated, but enjoy it nonetheless—all without expressly participating.

I don’t think my perspective today is as sunny, nor would I necessarily choose the same sports metaphor. Yes, fashion is an art form, and designers truly do create magnificent works of art. Its “ugly side” isn’t so easy to overlook, though–particularly the endless number of rail-thin, anorexic-looking models reinforcing society’s ideal body type, which is unachievable for a vast majority of women. Fashion magazines not only perpetuate the idealization of the stick-skinny model, but also tell women, in page after page, that they aren’t good enough, and that they need to spend massive amounts of time, energy, and money on looking (read: being) better.

Here’s the thing, though: Despite my problems with the industry on display, I really like The September Issue, for a number of reasons.

Sitting down to watch TSI, I expected the film to explore the glamorous life of Anna Wintour. At least I expected that to be a major element of the film, but viewers actually learn very little about her–there isn’t a lot of insight into her life or her motivations, aside from what appears in the film’s trailer (which appears at the bottom of this post). Perhaps it was foolish to believe that this notoriously private woman would reveal herself in a documentary focused on her magazine, but we do get a few poignant moments of insight amidst all the meetings, photo shoots, disagreements, and jet setting.

Anna Wintour has Power. She jokes that her siblings find what she does for a living “peculiar,” because maybe editing a fashion magazine doesn’t affect world politics, or cure diseases, or save the world. But high fashion is art, and art is peculiar. Amid the ads for cosmetics (which probably contain ingredients that no one should be putting on her or his skin) and accessories few of us can afford, there are stunning photographs of beautiful clothes. Most of the clothes aren’t really meant to be worn in Real Life, but they are pieces of art, and the people who make this wearable art fall all over themselves hoping that Wintour will notice them. They cater to her every whim, her every pointed critique.

Perhaps Wintour finds her position a bit peculiar, as well. There’s a drive viewers can see in her, and it seems as if she’s blindly plowing ahead, following success after success with little reflection about the why of it all. Her daughter appears to have no interest in the fashion industry, even though there’s a simple, ready-made path for her there. Like her mother, she doesn’t elaborate on her opinions, but knows that the industry isn’t for her. Wintour herself doesn’t really have much to say about what she’s achieved; she’s not the type to wax philosophically. Instead she states–and shows viewers–very plainly that she works hard and that the magazine has earned her a lot of money.

Fortunately, the movie also features Wintour’s team at Vogue, one of whom emerges to become the real star of The September Issue.

Grace Coddington is a former model and the creative director at Vogue. She even started working there on the same day as Wintour. She is intelligent, reflective, and an artist to Wintour’s manager persona. Coddington isn’t afraid to stand up to Wintour (whose lack of empathy was famously fictionalized by Meryl Streep in 2006’s The Devil Wears Prada) either, and flawlessly uses her every resource, including the documentary film crew, to her advantage. Viewers may see her as being cutthroat, but she’s an artist fighting for her vision, her work, and she’s earned it. She’s 68 and has spent her whole life in this industry, working for British Vogue and Calvin Klein before joining Wintour. Gawker points to one of my favorite moments in the film, in their piece “How Grace Coddington Stole The September Issue from Anna Wintour”:

Eventually, Coddington gets so palsy-walsy that she puts one of the September Issue cameramen into a last-minute photo shoot as a prop. The resulting pictures are fresh and fun and even manage to make Anna smile, although it’s not clear if she likes the pics or is just enjoying telling a middle-aged cameraman that he’s too fat. When Coddington hears that Wintour wants to Photoshop out his belly, she gets on the phone and threatens the art director and tells him that he has to leave it alone. “Not everything can be perfect in the world,” she rails. It is the climax of the movie, where Coddington eventually triumphs over the tyrant, who has been chipping away at her artistic integrity for the entire 90 minutes.

Of course, Gawker can’t help but pit these two women against each other–using words like “stole,” “palsy-walsy” (whatever that means, it doesn’t sound like a compliment), “rails,” and “tyrant” to pigeonhole their working relationship as a catty, woman-against-woman, oh-so-typical drama. While I love that Coddington fights to keep the photo of the cameraman un-retouched, I do wish that a woman with a belly could appear in the pages of Vogue. The moment, however, is a stroke of genius. The issue of the magazine had certainly been affected by the film crew being there, and Coddington found a way to literally put them into it.

While Coddington expresses enormous respect for Wintour, she isn’t afraid to speak her mind. Pontificating on the magazine in the back of a car, she mentions how little she likes the rise of celebrity culture and the practice of using actresses as cover models (the fall fashion issue features Sienna Miller on the cover), but concedes that Wintour knew this was the future of fashion mags and put the idea into action first.

At times we get the feeling that Coddington doesn’t really know how or why she got to this point in her career, but she’s very good at her job. Throughout the film we see exquisitely detailed photo shoots where she seems to be in her element and having a genuinely good time. The squabbles with Wintour over keeping her work in the issue upset Coddington, however, and make her nearly question the whole enterprise. Somehow, I get the feeling that if she walked out the Vogue office doors and never came back, she’d be just fine. Wintour never lets viewers in enough for us to even speculate, maintaining her ice queen reputation and doing so with less humor than her fictional counterpart.

Yes, there is drama in the film, and some of it even seems like stereotypical fashion magazine fare, but what remains remarkable is seeing two talented women in their sixties running a fashion empire, working together, clashing over their visions for the issue, all while expressing enormous respect for one another, and doing it all with intelligence and glamour.

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.