we have brains

Girls on Film

November 9, 2003 01:10 AM posted by ryan : track it (0)

Film makers seem to pander to males, regardless of the demographics of ticket/video sales. Sexualizing scenes and/or films that otherwise have nothing to do with sex, and objectifying women in films has been occurring for decades, and while it is not right, it is also not startling news. It seems to me, however, that as directors/producers have made more films with women in lead roles, they have also seemed to make a concerted effort to use women's bodies as props and scenery.

My examples are few, as I don’t get to the cinema that often, but I feel they are somewhat varied. Amélie, I think, is a great film, that just happens to throw in a scene with the main male character talking to a stripping woman in the back room of the sex shop he works in. I realize the French, as well as many other societies European and otherwise, are more open to nudity and sexuality than Americans are, or purport to be, but I feel it still fits. Lost in Translation is one of the best films I’ve seen. At about the two-thirds mark, the two main characters are, inexplicably, in a strip club. Finally, a very Hollywood set of films, that I’ve admittedly not seen, Tomb Raider and it’s sequel. An independent adventurous smart woman as leading character, good. Of course one wonders if the first one would have been made if the first did not have a character with a small waist and large breasts and hips, let alone the second.

The argument could be made that this is a problem of creativity. I agree we could take it that way, but this is obviously more than just poor scene choices. I don’t think that the scenes in the first two films ruined the whole 150min experience. However, the message that leading women are tolerable so long as there are a few others around that are naked and/or gyrating, or that the leading woman herself must possess the right physical attributes (exposed or not), is not one that sits well with me personally. There are many better examples, feel free to bring them up if you wish, as my experience is obviously limited to what films I’ve seen. So, is this an actual problem that needs to be addressed, or am I just too sensitive and/or overreacting? And if so, what can be done - short of scrapping the ideas of the marketing and entertainment industries as well as the western beauty standard - if anything?

« Brigitte's Bio | whb homepage | grrrly news 11/9 »

your comments : post a new comment

Movies, like books, can focus on the "taboo" areas that we are not permitted to investigate in real life without losing our upright social standing....more

Posted by: Kerri on November 9, 2003 09:19 AM |

I wrote something along these lines recently, Why Hollywood Can't Tell a Sexual Violence Story - Rape Culture Revisited. This is a topic I'm passionate about because I'm known to say rather vehemently that I hate movies. Feminist theory is the culprit.

I'll post something more relevant to the topic later.

Posted by: Ms Lauren on November 9, 2003 11:35 AM |

at least in response to some of what kerri has said. i feel the idea that "films are like window shopping" is akin to a cop-out. while they are something that one can choose to partake of or not, they are still huge cultural influences. while they may not be for you, and they may not be for me, there are plenty of impressionable children who are influenced by what is presented.

away from that, i was asking why films that are not about "taboo subjects" throw them in regardless of the actual subject. if a movie is about murder, i expect murder. if it is about people's sex lives, i expect that, etc. i do not think that a movie must only have certain settings based on the theme. however, i find it odd that these "taboo subjects" just wander in for one scene for no apparent reason. they seem to be the default filler, and that bothers me..

Posted by: ryan on November 9, 2003 06:11 PM |

Well, one example you mentioned was a woman stripping in a sex shop. To me, it doesn't seem too farfetched for there to be nudity in a place of business that sells sex accessories.

There is a rating system in place for movies. It is the responsible of the parents to monitor what their children are watching.

Posted by: Kerri on November 9, 2003 08:08 PM |

I think Ryan's point was that for some reason they wrote in a character with a sex shop job, possibly so they could slip in some stripping and pander to the "male gaze." I'll have a *much* longer post up soon, this is a big thing for me, too.

Posted by: Brigitte on November 9, 2003 09:44 PM |

Some thoughts. I have to admit that this isn't something I pay much attention to - at least, not as much attention as I should.

Posted by: april on November 10, 2003 11:46 AM |

my thoughts are up, scattered as they may be.

Posted by: ryan on November 12, 2003 01:42 AM |

Anti-feminist backlash... Sex sells... Film ratings... Sex-positive feminism... Film artistry... All this and more right here.

Posted by: megan on November 13, 2003 07:48 PM |

Has anyone noticed in the film and telivision industry that it is men who are now objectified, vilified or plain dumbed down, not women? Even classics are remade to include improbably female characters just to have them included. There are virtually no decent male father figures on television, and in film Steve Martin seems to be the least offensive example, which is not saying much. Men are always the perpitrators, women the victims, and in the rare case of reversals, the woman is shown as fully justified or at least sympathetic, while the men are deserving of such fate (Chicago being the latest.)

Women are the main target audience of telivision, as they watch far more telivision than men do. Give me a break, this whole patriarchy bit is malarchy. Jen

Posted by: jen on November 20, 2003 11:13 AM |

Finally unentangling myself from my NaNoWriMo Novel, and catching up on responses. This one is FINALLY up here

Posted by: Vic... on November 23, 2003 08:04 AM |