I was just watching Magnum Force, the second in the Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry series. It’s very clearly a male genre piece — specifically an example of dick, with lots of agonized, emotive guy/guy conflict and hardly a woman in sight. In fact, I think that there are only two female speaking roles, and both women involved do little other than throw themselves at Clint Eastwood (he turns down the middle-aged one and goes for the hot young thing.)
So, this is clearly not a movie that complies with the Alison Bechdel’s rule for watching movies — Bechdel only wants to see movies where there are at least two female characters, where they talk to each other, and where they talk to each other about something other than guys. (As was discussed on this blog by Tom a short time back.)
Anyway, watching Magnum Force, I was reminded that the Bechdel rule was propounded by a lesbian, and that, as such, I think it really misses a big part of the reason that straight women watch movies. Specifically, I think a lot of women watch movies for the same reason guys watch movies, which is, visual gratification, or, more bluntly, hot movie stars. It’s true that Magnum Force is clearly aimed at guys and the women’s roles are denigrating and sexist. Nonetheless, I’m sure that many, many women have watched and enjoyed the movie because, you know, Clint Eastwood is incredibly charismatic and smoking hot. The same goes for James Bond movies with Daniel Craig or Sean Connery; not especially uplifting gender politics, but given the choice between uplifting gender politics and serious eye candy, lots of women will choose the latter.
It would be possible to go a false consciousness route here — “women need to stop thinking with their genitals and embrace feminism!” But I’d actually rather suggest that, in a lot of ways, putting a really hot guy in the lead role ends up making a movie — not unsexist, but at least less sexist in various ways. In the first place, it suggests an effort on the part of the filmmakers to reach out for a female audience. And in the second…well, look at Magnum Force. As I said, the two women in the film throw themselves at Eastwood. Kind of offensive? Sure. But the fact is, women really *would* throw themselves at Eastwood. Even women ten years younger than him (as one of the actresses certainly is) would throw themselves at him, because he’s just that hot. I mean, at least you can see what the women are getting out of it and why they’d do that; it’s not a brainless or foolish thing to do. It doesn’t make them sluts. It just means that they’ve got eyes. They’re definitely performing a kind of male fantasy, but they’re also performing a female fantasy (getting with Clint Eastwood) and as a result their motivations aren’t completely ridiculous. Because of who Eastwood is and how he looks, the women in the film — however reduced or sexist their roles — at least seem like they could be real people, not just figments of some male daydream.
On the other hand, when women two decades younger than him throw themselves at Jim Carey, as is the case in Yes Man…well, it seems like icky special pleading. Yes Man does have female characters who talk to each other about things other than men (albeit only briefly), and it isn’t even expressly aimed at men — it’s basically a romantic comedy. But Carrey is in no way the eye-candy that Daniel Craig or Clint Eastwood is, and as a result the decision to make him a romantic lead opposite a woman (Zooey Deschanel) way out of his league starts to look like a fantasy daydream for male schlubs, who think they deserve a beautiful woman as some sort of trophy for just being guys.
I don’t know…what do other folks think? Perhaps, as a straight guy, I’m missing Jim Carey’s ineffable charisma? He just strikes me as kind of repulsive….
I think the rom-com eye candy of gay pop cinema bears this out. I can’t think of titles, but before my local arthouses turned to crap it seemed like every week’s new Sundance trailer had slow-mo shots of hunky men getting out of the pool. (i.e., not Su Friedrich, Van Sant or Jarman’s aestheticism, but everything that actually wanted an audience.)
But I do think “hotness” is secondary to lens chemistry, or maybe just presence. Even the “ugly” actors are hot, and ten minutes of TV offers enough hotness to fry the gonads. But very few of them linger in the memory.
(Also, Jim Carrey’s an interesting example– his schtick is so infantile and pleading, his love interests are necessarily creepy. Weir dodged this in The Truman Show by making the girl notional; and Eternal Sunshine made the infantilism literal at one point. And surely he’s never had a sex scene?)
There aren’t any topless/R-level sex scenes in Yes Man, but he’s definitely a romantic lead, and there are a couple of scenes where he’s clearly supposed to be having sex, but the camera mercifully cuts away.
Charisma is certainly an important part of the appeal for both Eastwood and Craig. I think that works for guys, too; Pam Grier is eye-meltingly hot, and it has a lot to do with her presence as much as her physical beauty (which is considerable, don’t get me wrong.) And of course, these things vary according to personal taste — I’m sure somebody out there finds Jim Carey and/or Britney Spears attractive….
“[G]iven the choice between uplifting gender politics and serious eye candy, lots of women will choose the latter.”
It’s a shame that women seem to be constantly faced with this trade-off, even in genre’s like romantic comedy.
I think the most successful actors have a very specific masculine presence. If you’re too masculine, like Schwarzenegger, than you’re appeal is limited to men. If you aren’t masculine enough, like Clay Aiken, then you’re appeal is limited to women. Actors like Eastwood or Craig have that special quality where they’re macho enough for men without being threatening to women.
Jim Carrey is completely outside the masculine spectrum I’m talking about. His early appeal was based on his willingness to play the fool, and give us someone to laugh at. But his recent efforts to become a leading man have been a failure exactly because he IS the fool. Men don’t want to be him, and women don’t want to fuck him.
It is a shame…after all, why not have eye candy and uplifting gender politics both? That’s certainly the allure of a lot of shojo; Nana’s got pretty boys and meaningful female-female bonds, as does Let Dai, as does Cardcaptor Sakura. It’s harder to think of examples in film, which no doubt has something to do with the paucity of women in director’s chairs — I’m coming up blank as a matter of fact — um…jeez, there must be something, mustn’t there?
Well, I saw Pirates of the Carribean recently. I don’t know if it would pass the Bechdel test, but it puts some effort into making its heroine independent, and it’s got both Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom….
Schwarzenegger was a huge Eastwood fan, apparently. There may be something to your too masculine bit — though I don’t know. Craig and Eastwood are both very masculine and pretty convincingly brutal. I think maybe Schwarzenegger just isn’t as good looking, and doesn’t have anything like the presence that either of the other two do. The Terminator (emotionless machine) was a really good role for him in that way. He was kind of the Keanu Reeves of the last generation; it’s hard to be super-charismatic when you have the affect of a a stump
It’s funny that you bring up Keanu Reeves, because despite the fact that he’s a terrible actor with the emotional range of chalk, I know a few women who lust after him. Though they all admit that it’s completely based on looks. Hotness may be secondary to screen presence, but it can still get you big roles.
your comments on yes man kind of nail exactly what creeped me out about garden state, the whole hot-“quirky”-girl-gets-with-sad-sack-loser-guy thing seems like a much more insidious (and less entertaining) form of male wish fulfillment than you see in clint eastwood movies.
I think it’s important to note that when you guys talk about “uplifting” gender politics, you’re talking about a very small percentage of the populace who would indeed be “uplifted” by certain depictions. Who is it “uplifting” to, in other words. To people who have no use or desire to engage with heterosexual fantasy? Or will only do so conditionally?
Ultimately it comes down to a very small percentage with very stringent and particular concerns seeking to tell the rest what we should be uplifted by. They read books about it and talked to professors about it and have decided what “uplifting” means.
Problem is, the rest of us are just fine. No one models belief/behavior on the fantasy dynamics of action movies, you know?
I don’t know, maybe this debate just doesn’t apply to me at all. Or it just seems so obvious that it doesn’t need to be discussed on these terms. You’re basically saying that straight people tend to enjoy depictions of heterosexual fantasies. Well, yeah.
But yes- I agree with Anonymous. The Garden State depcition is creepy . It’s dishonest. It’s almost as though they’re trying to be reflective of concerns voiced here, that these kinds of “normal” depictions of heterosexual dynamics in “mainstream” film are not “real”, i.e, they don’t reflect what nice, well adjusted neutered liberal arts grads think hetero dynamics should look like..
-But they still want to get laid, of course.
Hey Uland. I think women in general tend to appreciate narratives in which they aren’t treated like chattel or presented as idiots. I’m not sure why you have to go to grad school to figure that out. And what “rest of us are just fine” are you referring to, exactly? Only women in grad school have problems, or face discrimination or sexism? Only women in grad school have meaningful relationships with other women? Really? That seems like a difficult stance to take seriously.
And the point I was making is that heterosexual fantasy can be perfectly fine in feminist terms, especially when it’s open to everyone. The point Richard was making is that there shouldn’t have to be a disconnect between giving women heterosexual fantasies and giving them narratives in which they are treated like human beings. And, indeed, most female-oriented genres (shojo, romance) do both those things. The fact that movies often don’t is, therefore, notable.
In other words, it’s you who’s got the pole up your butt about the incompatibility of feminism and heterosexual fantasy. Which just means you’re second wave — and good on you. If you want Andrea Dworkin as your soulmate, I won’t kick.
I haven’t seen Garden State, but Yes Man is about yuppies fulfilling themselves, rather than about bohemians fulfilling themselves. Obviously there’s some overlap, but…yeah, I’d say that suggesting it is trying for some sort of politically correct gender dynamic would be a definite stretch. It’s pretty much concerned with straight-up bourgeois wish-fulfillment; follow the twelve steps, succeed in business, get a trophy wife, participate in extreme sports. That’s quite different in detail, if not entirely in kind, from get tenure, bed a teaching assistant, write a book together.
“And surely he’s never had a sex scene?”
In 28, I believe it’s called, some kind of psychological thriller he did a year or so back with Joel Schumacher. From what I remember, I’d say Carrey may not be convincing as a sex object but he does have the mechanics of the act down very well. It reminded me of Warren Beatty’s fuck scene in Shampoo.
“Hey Uland. I think women in general tend to appreciate narratives in which they aren’t treated like chattel or presented as idiots. I’m not sure why you have to go to grad school to figure that out. “
Well, my point is that “women in general” are not leveling complaints in those terms. I don’t think many women are looking at the behavior of female characters in most entertainment as a reflection of themselves, in the same way I don’t think Jason Statham is any sane mans’ go-to reflection of their own conception of masculinity. If they are, they’re morons and we can’t do anything about that. If they’re like me, Jason Statham might represent a certain aspect of masculine fantasy, but not more, just as I could see the female equivalent appealing to some women in the same way. But even then, it’s a pretty abstract dynamic. I think it’s pretty offensive to suggest that basically people are too stupid to understand what’s going on.
These criticisms only make sense in a really de-individualized, abstracted fashion. Really, it comes down to you thinking that women should not want to see any woman portrayed in a way that you deem incorrect because it’s somehow a clear indication of some kind of consensus of how “women” are viewed in culture at large . I’d argue that most women are quite capable of separating their perceptions of self as women from these depictions.
“And what “rest of us are just fine” are you referring to, exactly? Only women in grad school have problems, or face discrimination or sexism? Only women in grad school have meaningful relationships with other women? Really? That seems like a difficult stance to take seriously.”
No, where talking about movies here. “Movies” do not discriminate against people. “Movies” are not treating any individual in any particular way. they are depictions.
I see no reason why those issues should or should not be reflected in any given film, or why the concerns of the few should somehow determine the nature of fictional relationships. I mean, if you really need examples of films about women and their relationships with one another, I can send you a Netflix list. Other than that, it seems to me like a desire to parse out and codify dynamics in material you don’t like and extrapolate from that some kind of generalized list of symptoms on the greater culture. I think it’s too simple.
“And the point I was making is that heterosexual fantasy can be perfectly fine in feminist terms, especially when it’s open to everyone. The point Richard was making is that there shouldn’t have to be a disconnect between giving women heterosexual fantasies and giving them narratives in which they are treated like human beings.”
Well, there “shouldn’t have to be” lots of things that people don’t like in works of fiction/art/entertainment. Unless you want some kind of entertainment czar to vet every work to make sure it’s “open to everyone”, I don’t know how that could be achieved.
“.. And, indeed, most female-oriented genres (shojo, romance) do both those things. The fact that movies often don’t is, therefore, notable.”
I don’t know why that makes them notable. Not many people read those books. “Most women” are going to see the same blockbusters and reading the same crap that garners the largest audience. Again, it just seems like you’re saying, in a world where people should have the same concerns as you, that material should be some kind of model.
“In other words, it’s you who’s got the pole up your butt about the incompatibility of feminism and heterosexual fantasy. Which just means you’re second wave — and good on you. If you want Andrea Dworkin as your soulmate, I won’t kick.”
No, I’m actually perfectly okay with engaging heterosexual fantasies that are not “open to everyone”, or otherwise do not meet Bechdels’ criteria. I don’t have a problem with her decoder ring system for determining what films she’s interested in, it only means I don’t think I’d get too much out of talking to her about film.
I stick by the graduate student remark. I don’t hear or read criticisms on these terms from people who fall out of that general “type”. That type seems to be very concerned with “correcting” the rest of us, which is pretty offensive, really.
It’s just an easy way to feel righteous while watching movies. It has no real application to life and culture as it’s lived and experienced.
– I wasn’t relating the Garden State thing to the Yes Man movie, for the record.
I apologize if this response is sort of scattered. I have the flu right now, so I’m not thinking too clearly.
“Hey Uland. I think women in general tend to appreciate narratives in which they aren’t treated like chattel or presented as idiots. I’m not sure why you have to go to grad school to figure that out. “
Well, my point is that “women in general” are not leveling complaints in those terms. I don’t think many women are looking at the behavior of female characters in most entertainment as a reflection of themselves, in the same way I don’t think Jason Statham is any sane mans’ go-to reflection of their own conception of masculinity. If they are, they’re morons and we can’t do anything about that. If they’re like me, Jason Statham might represent a certain aspect of masculine fantasy, but not more, just as I could see the female equivalent appealing to some women in the same way. But even then, it’s a pretty abstract dynamic. I think it’s pretty offensive to suggest that basically people are too stupid to understand what’s going on.
These criticisms only make sense in a really de-individualized, abstracted fashion. Really, it comes down to you thinking that women should not want to see any woman portrayed in a way that you deem incorrect because it’s somehow a clear indication of some kind of consensus of how “women” are viewed in culture at large . I’d argue that most women are quite capable of separating their perceptions of self as women from these depictions.
“And what “rest of us are just fine” are you referring to, exactly? Only women in grad school have problems, or face discrimination or sexism? Only women in grad school have meaningful relationships with other women? Really? That seems like a difficult stance to take seriously.”
No, where talking about movies here. “Movies” do not discriminate against people. “Movies” are not treating any individual in any particular way. they are depictions.
I see no reason why those issues should or should not be reflected in any given film, or why the concerns of the few should somehow determine the nature of fictional relationships. I mean, if you really need examples of films about women and their relationships with one another, I can send you a Netflix list. Other than that, it seems to me like a desire to parse out and codify dynamics in material you don’t like and extrapolate from that some kind of generalized list of symptoms on the greater culture. I think it’s too simple.
“And the point I was making is that heterosexual fantasy can be perfectly fine in feminist terms, especially when it’s open to everyone. The point Richard was making is that there shouldn’t have to be a disconnect between giving women heterosexual fantasies and giving them narratives in which they are treated like human beings.”
Well, there “shouldn’t have to be” lots of things that people don’t like in works of fiction/art/entertainment. Unless you want some kind of entertainment czar to vet every work to make sure it’s “open to everyone”, I don’t know how that could be achieved.
“.. And, indeed, most female-oriented genres (shojo, romance) do both those things. The fact that movies often don’t is, therefore, notable.”
I don’t know why that makes them notable. Not many people read those books. “Most women” are going to see the same blockbusters and reading the same crap that garners the largest audience. Again, it just seems like you’re saying, in a world where people should have the same concerns as you, that material should be some kind of model.
“In other words, it’s you who’s got the pole up your butt about the incompatibility of feminism and heterosexual fantasy. Which just means you’re second wave — and good on you. If you want Andrea Dworkin as your soulmate, I won’t kick.”
No, I’m actually perfectly okay with engaging heterosexual fantasies that are not “open to everyone”, or otherwise do not meet Bechdels’ criteria. I don’t have a problem with her decoder ring system for determining what films she’s interested in, it only means I don’t think I’d get too much out of talking to her about film.
I stick by the graduate student remark. I don’t hear or read criticisms on these terms from people who fall out of that general “type”. That type seems to be very concerned with “correcting” the rest of us, which is pretty offensive, really.
It’s just an easy way to feel righteous while watching movies. It has no real application to life and culture as it’s lived and experienced.
– I wasn’t relating the Garden State thing to the Yes Man movie, for the record.
I apologize if this response is sort of scattered. I have the flu right now, so I’m not thinking too clearly.
I don’t quite get it, Uland. Nobody is suggesting that these movies be censored.
You seem convinced that “normal people” don’t react to gender roles in films, and that politics and/or the portrayal of the way men and women interact has no effect on how people process aesthetics. I think that’s pretty clearly nonsense on the face of it. Gender roles and gender interactions make up the bulk of entertainment product. If nobody cared about it, it wouldn’t be discussed so obsessively.
Also…romance and shojo have a small audience? Nobody reads Harlequin romances? Nobody reads Nana, which probably has a bigger audience in Japan than the combined American audience of your top ten alternacomics loves? I think you’re mistaking your own interests for demographic truth, my friend — which is kind of ironic given the discussion.
Bechdel’s interests aren’t exactly mine either …which is what my post was about. In fact, I very much doubt you even disagree with my main point, which is that women like hot guys, and that there’s nothing particularly disempowering about that. Perhaps, as you say, it isn’t the most brilliant insight in the world — but it is just a blog post, after all. And four or five other people seemed moderatly engaged and willing to talk about it — including you, which I appreciate.
In any case, I hope you feel better shortly. Take care of yourself.
The thing is that mainstream hollywood product is fine seeing men as eye-candy, and women as eye-candy…but, particularly in the “comedy” genre, Hollywood is ok with a man who is funny, but not hot, but rarely is the same benefit accorded to women. That is, it’s basically a pretty strong subgenre of films, and esp. TV shows which has a schlubby, unattractive man paired up with a smoking hot woman. The only thing he has going for him is that he is a comedian. Jim Carey and Adam Sandler are too good examples in films (what about John Belushi, Chris Farley,etc.?) In TV, there’s the horrible “According to Jim” with Jim Belushi “married” to the hot Courteney Thorne-Smith. There’s also The King of Queens (can’t remember the actors names in that one), and the show on CBS with the fat Irish dude and his (admittedly less hot, but still thin and attractive) “wife”. Even something like the (very funny, unlike the above) Everybody Loves Raymond has a kind of schlubby dude with an attractive woman (who resorted to plastic surgery at some point in the show’s history to keep her youthful figure). As Noah suggests, these shows suggest that “normal looking” guys can get hot women as a kind of prize for being guys…but more than this, it suggests that men have value in something besides their looks. Women are rarely afforded the same luxury. Sarah Silverman (for instance) is very funny, but also (and often referred to in the media as) hot. Tina Fey, also very funny…and also often referred to in the Entertainment media not only for her sense of humor, but for being hot…etc. etc. It’s as if these women’s other attributes are not enough to affirm them as “stars” or even as people….only their attractiveness is really important. Sure, Dame Judi Dench is no looker (anymore?), but it’s pretty rare to find a female Hollywood movie star or television star (comedy, drama, or whatever) who isn’t both attractive and discussed incessantly in terms of their looks. “Character” actresses, sure, but not leads…not stars. It’s the inequity of this that makes the whole “eye-candy” thing sexist. Of course some men fit that bill (George Clooney, Brad Pitt, yes, Clint Eastwood? Is he really hot?), but women, it seems, are required to….And yes, I went to grad school.
Oh…the same is true of comics. Good luck finding a female superhero who isn’t smoking hot and scantily clad. Men have a wider variety of body types (Plastic Man, Elongated Man, Thing, even the original Spider Man). Admittedly, most are hunks though.
“You seem convinced that “normal people” don’t react to gender roles in films, and that politics and/or the portrayal of the way men and women interact has no effect on how people process aesthetics. I think that’s pretty clearly nonsense on the face of it. Gender roles and gender interactions make up the bulk of entertainment product. If nobody cared about it, it wouldn’t be discussed so obsessively.”
I think saying that entertainment product is comprised, mostly, of gender-relations is another way of saying it features human beings, mostly.
I do think it’s worthy of discussion nonetheless, but I’m skeptical when certain parameters aren’t placed on the discussion, when it seems like it’s taken for granted that any/all depictions are an accurate reflection of what people really think.
It only seems to be discussed obsessively by people who seem to have a “corrective” agenda, for the most part, and it seems like their ideological motivations preclude them from setting parameters that I think are necessary/logical.
This is sort of what I meant when I wrote that this dialog might not be for me, or that the “rest of us” are just fine. I don’t view depictions of gender/sex relations in films as essentially instructive to those relations as they occur in reality. They might have some bearing, sure, but I think more often than not, they’re simply reflective of dynamics that can and do go on regardless of analogous depictions in entertainment.
As far as the Shojo material goes, I meant that it’s not mass market entertainment in the West. I don’t think it is, anyhow. Maybe I’m wrong. Either way, I’m just not interested in that material at all, and I have a hard time believing that most who go to every blockbuster film would get into it, or would somehow be shown the light and have their conceptions of gender/sex radically altered by viewing such material.
In other words, I think you can rant about gender as a construct all you want to and even if it’s true ( which I don’t believe) I think most people are pretty satisfied with the construct.
“You seem convinced that “normal people” don’t react to gender roles in films, and that politics and/or the portrayal of the way men and women interact has no effect on how people process aesthetics. I think that’s pretty clearly nonsense on the face of it. Gender roles and gender interactions make up the bulk of entertainment product. If nobody cared about it, it wouldn’t be discussed so obsessively.”
I think saying that entertainment product is comprised, mostly, of gender-relations is another way of saying it features human beings, mostly.
I do think it’s worthy of discussion nonetheless, but I’m skeptical when certain parameters aren’t placed on the discussion, when it seems like it’s taken for granted that any/all depictions are an accurate reflection of what people really think.
It only seems to be discussed obsessively by people who seem to have a “corrective” agenda, for the most part, and it seems like their ideological motivations preclude them from setting parameters that I think are necessary/logical.
This is sort of what I meant when I wrote that this dialog might not be for me, or that the “rest of us” are just fine. I don’t view depictions of gender/sex relations in films as essentially instructive to those relations as they occur in reality. They might have some bearing, sure, but I think more often than not, they’re simply reflective of dynamics that can and do go on regardless of analogous depictions in entertainment.
As far as the Shojo material goes, I meant that it’s not mass market entertainment in the West. I don’t think it is, anyhow. Maybe I’m wrong. Either way, I’m just not interested in that material at all, and I have a hard time believing that most who go to every blockbuster film would get into it, or would somehow be shown the light and have their conceptions of gender/sex radically altered by viewing such material.
In other words, I think you can rant about gender as a construct all you want to and even if it’s true ( which I don’t believe) I think most people are pretty satisfied with the construct.
You didn’t address romance, I notice. And shojo is quite, quite popular in the U.S. Just because you prefer alternative and mainstream comics doesn’t mean that they are, in fact, more popular. Also, where do you get the idea that I think people’s conceptions of gender are going to be radically altered by reading shojo? I don’t think that, and never said it. I think that shojo in general presents a thoughtful take on gender relations different from mainstream movies — a take which is *attractive to large numbers of people.* Including me. If it doesn’t work for you, it doesn’t work for you…but in that case, you might try explaining why you don’t like it, and what sort of views you prefer, rather than indulging in what are essentially ad hominem attacks (“you’re an elitist so nobody cares what you think”) based on presuppositions which are factually incorrect (“nobody reads shojo or romance.”)
“I’m skeptical when certain parameters aren’t placed on the discussion, when it seems like it’s taken for granted that any/all depictions are an accurate reflection of what people really think.”
I don’t think they’re a reflection of what all people think. I think it’s contentious, which is part of the reason some people like certain things and other people like others.
I’m not all that into false consciousness arguments (unlike, say, Ken Smith.) But people do use narratives and stories and genre to think about gender relations and politics and vice versa. You seem to think that people compartmentalize their brain in very abstract, hard and fast ways. I don’t think that’s the case. People write stories based on how they think interactions work; those stories then can have an affect on how the interactions themselves work. It goes back and forth. I’m happy to talk about parameters or about how the back and forth occurs. But you seem to be insisting that there’s some sort of firewall between art and reality which seems insupportable to me.
And finally…I actually don’t think gender is a construct necessarily, myself. For what that’s worth.
By the way, Uland…if you don’t like this post, you should really, really probably skip my “Comics in the Closet” essay in the next TCJ….
yep, the "garden state" model, & even moreso, the judd apatow movie model (endless retellings of what i've heard called the slacker-striver romance, where he *emphasizes* his leading men's unattractiveness, as well as dumbness, immaturity, & lack of life ambition, & his women are so bland, thin & small-featured as to almost disappear [well, ok. catherine keener isn't a hollywood beauty, but what does that say when someone as gorgeous as catherine keener is "character actress" material?]), is offensive to me personally.
i mean, i actually kind of dig that there is more than one way for a man to be a sex symbol, & i have to admit i find zach braff & even sometimes (not in "knocked up") seth rogen hot. but we are told it is impossible to have a pudgy or large-featured leading woman, because men won't go for it, for some sort of "evolutionary psychology" bullshit reason (if it's "just in men's nature" to prefer the hollywood-actress look, than that look would not change over generations & cultures. but i digress, as usual).
what was doubly insulting about "knocked up" was that the movie gave rogen *no* redeeming features. he was schlubby & overweight, but also stupid, immature, unemployed, & generally contemptuous of the inhumanly perfect leading lady. why was she (& the straight female audience) supposed to fall in love with him? because judd apatow said so, that's why.
& noah, your post reminded me of something i was thinking of since your dick & fanny article, about lots of male eye candy sometimes being better than any sort of portrayal of women: there is some "dick" with huge female fan followings, such as the lord of the rings & master & commander books/movies. female fan followings who write slash.
from my overeducated (for the record, i only have a bachelor's but i subscribe to "the new york review of books" like my father before me) feminist perspective, i feel like women who write slash have in some sense thrown up their arms over the possibility of female portrayals in romance/porn, & decided men are where it's at because romance/sex doesn't degrade them. so i find slash both encouragingly subversive & troubling in that sense. but it can also be fun. or hot.
Lord of the Rings is a great example. The movies are interesting in that they go out of their way to try to somewhat redeem Tolkein’s almost ludicrous lack of interest in women (by trying, for example, to make something of the Liv Tyler/Aragorn love affair; giving Eowyn more of a part, etc.)
That’s interesting about slash maybe giving up on female portrayals. I think it may be less a giving-up-in-despair and more a why-not-have-hot-guys-be-feminine and get the whole kaboodle? Though obviously I see your point as well…
In these schlub meets babe movies — are you really supposed to fall in love with the schlub? I mean they seem like (er) straight power fantasies directed at guys, rather than normative efforts directed at women. I don’t feel like they’re telling women to do anything, so much as they’re ignoring women completely to wallow in male psychodrama and anxieties about achieving perfect masculinity. I mean, romance directed at women can certainly be equally icky (Pretty Woman, Breakfast Club, whatever) but it tends to at least make some effort to hold out a carrot that isn’t all moldy and rotting…..
I mean, is there a huge female audience for that sort of narrative? Does Jim Carey have this huge female fan base? I just have trouble believing it, I guess….
you are probably right, that judd apatow is making movies primarily for men at this point. but since they're usually romantic comedies, they are supposed to be "date movies" more than your average fratboy gross-out comedy.
i think "knocked up" in some ways was trying to be (or trying to present itself as) equal opportunity: katherine heigl got a bunch of scenes without rogen in them, & i'm pretty sure it passed the bechdel test in heigl's scenes with her sister (even if they were both obnoxious & talked about obnoxious things that weren't a man). also, one subplot of the film was how pregnant/delivering women are dehumanized by those around them, although since heigl was never humanized in the first place, i found it hard to care.
also, to return a bit to my old hobbyhorse, things that aren't aimed at women nonetheless get absorbed by women, especially as women sit through a lot more male-aimed culture than men sit through women-aimed culture (like how uland didn't know how many people read romance or shoujo).
the nebbish-vindication thread certainly crept into my worldview early & pervasively. i used to think i was the little red-haired girl who was supposed to put out for charlie brown.
it took actually trying to date a guy whom i didn't find attractive & who felt sorry for himself all the time, to realize what a raw deal it was to be some nerd's reward.
(someday i'll figure out how to write posts instead of long-winded replies. i'm trying.)
Yeah; I guess it’s just hard for me to believe anyone wyatches that crap, men or women. But you’re certainly right that women are supposed to be and (presumably) see themselves as rewards for emotionally stunted assholes. In fact, part of male attractiveness is supposed to be emotional inaccessibility — women are supposed to save them. (Secretary’s an extreme example.)
Is television better? I hardly watch TV, but it is in theory more aimed at women, I think. I presume there are more women writers/directors in television too, though I could be wrong….
And the trick is to write exactly what you would write in the long-winded comment, except do it as a post….
Miriam, please do post your replies as posts. I’d like to respond closer to the top of a comments thread.
And I’ll try to put an end to this comment thread thusly:
Tolkien’s women were actually men in drag.
Awaiting your post, Miriam.
The romantic comedy elements of Adam Sandler movies (at least the ones without Drew Barrymore) never have much thought put into them: they seem to be there to help give the movie some structure and to make it easy for the filmmakers to signal the Sandler character’s “growth”.
I haven’t seen Yes Man, but, in general, I think Carrey works a little differently. For one thing, apart from Me, Myself, and Irene and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (and, I guess, Yes Man), none of them are romantic (i.e. courtship) comedies. (Also I’d point out that Dumb and Dumber sends up the Hollywood cliche of doofus guys ending up with hot babes.)
For another, he’s more in the tradition of Red Skelton or Jerry Lewis. In Bruce Almighty, for instance, it doesn’t really matter if we believe he could really have landed Jennifer Aniston or not.
In this way, I think the Sandler/Carrey movies are a lot less annoying than the Apatow movies which aspire to sociological commentary. These movies have genuine insight into post-slacker dudedom, but have women characters who are super bland appendages to the guys. (40-Year Old Virgin comes out best on this score, I think: Keener’s character makes sense as someone who’d be willing to take a chance on a guy like Carrell).
For me, this isn’t a questions of politics, but of aesthetics and imagination. Knocked Up, Superbad, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall all feel anemic compared to similar movies with more fully-realized female characters. It isn’t a question of sexism: I’d guess that the girls in Superbad have more screen time than the girls in The Hollywood Knights (a movie which also features some gratuitous T&A), but in Knights the women characters all at least have their own hopes, desires, motivations, whereas in Superbad the girls are there mainly so the movie can “say something” about the boys’ relationship with each other.
Here’s more commentary from me on this topic.
Hey Jon. I enjoyed your comments. However, I think you protest too much when you say it’s a question of aesthetics rather than politics, and that it’s not about sexism. It sounds to me like you’re saying that the sexist portrayal irritated you and made you enjoy the movie less. That is certainly about aesthetics, but it’s about politics too.
And why not? Politics/morality tends to always make up a big part of how anyone reacts to a work of art. Embrace your inner political correctness!
Well – what I mean is that I’m completely happy with the very politically incorrect portrayal of women in something like Appaloosa (where Harris seems to stick pretty strictly to Robert B. Parker’s take on women), because it is, at least, a fully-realized politically incorrect portrayal. Like: Harris and Parker didn’t show Renee Zelwegger’s character that way by accident or because they weren’t thinking things through.
I take your point that these things aren’t so easily separated, but in the case of Apatow et al I really do think it’s a failure of imagination/filmmaking skills that is the dominant element (see also, your comments on the importance of George Lucas being dumb).