I haven’t seen Clerks II yet (and have no plans to, especially not after Thea’s scathing commentary - thanks for saving two hours of my life, Thea!), but I have to agree that even worse than blatantly misogynist directors are ones who pass themselves off as sensitive, artsy, boy-next-door kinda guys. Why does it infuriate me so? Is it because it seems like a sneaky way of turning all women into either heartless manipulative she-wolves or callow kittens too airheaded to “get” these guys? Is it because it can more easily pass itself off as a “realistic representation of women” that still doesn’t look like anything I’d like to call reality? For instance, I seem to be the only person who wanted to strangle John Cusack’s character in High Fidelity for using his sad puppy-dog face to bed women, rather than seeing him as the adorably bumbling goof he was made out to be (sorry John, I heart Say Anything forever but High Fidelity gets Low Credibility from me).
Incidentally, a while back Bitch ran a great article on the phenomenon of the “brohemian” - the sensitive artsy dude who’s, well, still a dude. He likes cuddling with his lady, collecting rare 7”s, and pounding brewskies with vigour. It’s not a put-down, but in typical Bitch fashion it’s a nuanced, insightful article. Wish I could remember which issue.
But back to women’s perspectives in the movies — this is going to sound a bit out of left field, but if you need an antidote to gross cardboard-cutout “independent” women who turn out to be essentially Playboy Girl-of-the-Month, I seriously recommend watching (or re-watching) the 1990 film Mermaids, based on the the novel by Patty Dann. I loved it when it first came out for Winona Ryder’s quirky, moody character, and Cher’s outfits. I saw it again last month and was amazed at how well it still holds up as a great coming-of-age story where the women (Cher as the mom, and Ryder and a pint-sized Christica Ricci as her daughters) have real, complicated lives and relationships that don’t begin and end with holy matrimony. I won’t spoil the ending if I tell you that nobody is going to jump through hoops for a wedding ring in this one. Seriously, rent it with some girlfriends. You won’t regret it.
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
nine comments
For another "sensitive male chauvinist," see Bob Dylan. What?! You ask, the hippie, sensitive, poetic Bob Dylan? According to this super interesting piece in the Nation, yes: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060515...
Apparently, "hostility to women is a recurring motif in Dylan's songs." Very interesting stuff...
Posted by Nicole
August 9, 2006, 11:01 PM
I saw High Fidelity when I was 18 (on like a first date or something, puke) and really liked it. About a year ago I was feeling blue and staying at my friend's house who owns the movie, so I thought I'd watch it to cheer up. Bad idea!
I only got as far as the scene where John Cusack goes to see a high school g/f who he broke up with because she wouldn't put out (charming) and who then went on to sleep with her next boyfriend a month later. They're having dinner as adults and she tells him that she was actually raped by the second boyfriend, AND HE'S REALLY HAPPY ABOUT IT, because it means she didn't actually throw him over for another dude. WHAT?!?!?!?!
I can go on for a long time about movies that made me feel like throwing up my lungs, thanks to their sensitive male/prospective date rapists characters. Like Garden State? Rage! Fury! Rage!
Posted by thea
August 10, 2006, 9:31 AM
I was curious as to what in particular bothered you about the film "Garden State". Did you find the film misogynist, and if so, what specifically?
Posted by Mike
July 29, 2007, 8:04 PM
I think misogynist is a bit of a sticky word - because in the dictionary it means "women-hater." But in order to hate something you have to respect it. And a lot of sexism is offensive because it doesn't respect women - it doesn't even seem to recognise that they have their own lives, interests and dreams outside of what their men want. I wish there was a word that meant "women-ignorer" because that's a very common form that sexism takes.
And that's exactly what I hated about Garden State. When I first saw it, I liked it because it is cute and romantic and has a hip soundtrack, but at the same time something about it made me feel a little off. And then, the more I thought about it, the angrier I got.
There was a lot of stuff around representations of mental health that made me angry - like how the main character just goes off these heavy duty meds (like Lithum??) and is totally fine, doesn't have withdrawal. And that all that you need for mental health is a sweet hot girlfriend. That part of the movie really made me think that the film's writer had never known anyone with mental health issues, and hadn't bothered to research them (perhaps it didn't occur to them that there was anything to research) and was essentially just exploiting the issue for the sake of his story.
I'm not sure you even want to get me started on the gender stuff - the movie starts out and some sexy girl in a low-cut top wants to make it out with the main character, and he's attracted to her, but something about the whole thing turns him off. And then he meets Natalie Portman, who always has her collar done up to her chin, and she's smart and interesting but is also kinda messed up and so probably needs someone to protect her...
The scene that really made me want to throw my popcorn at the screen was close to the end, where the Zach Braff character says "Stop dragging this innocent girl around!" And Natalie Portman laughs and says "You think I'm innocent!" And he says, "Well, you are!" And that's it right there, it's like the writer is saying "You know, girls will tell you that they're not innocent, and the kind of girl we want should say that, because it demonstrates independence (but not too much!), and because it's cute that they think they can take care of themselves, but we all know that they really are innocent and need a big old man to shield them from the world."
I just felt like the whole movie was peddling this vision of "If you want a boyfriend, this is the kind of girl who gets boys. Not the kind of girl who wants sex, Lord, no! The kind of girl you should be is one who is sweet and funny and smart but not smarter than her man, and kinda neurotic but not too neurotic and sexy but not sexual and..."
The whole thing drove me mad - possibly because for years I tried to be that impossible combination of girl who know about politics and art and music and etc., but only to make boys like her, and has to be willing to pretend all the knowledge away to keep a man. And often has to pretend to be stupider or more neurotic than she is if she wants to hold a man down.
The thing that was the worst was just how insidious it all was. Misogyny, I can deal with. I'd take Jay-Z saying "Yeah, save the narrative, you savin it for marriage, Let's keep it real ma, you savin it for karats" over that any day. Because at least I can see that sexism, I can understand it, and I can sidestep it. It is not as cruel and mind-bending as the stuff Garden State - and sensitive male chauvinists - give.
Posted by Thea
July 30, 2007, 12:07 PM
Thank you for your response. It was very informative. I understand more about your point of view. It seems very hard to find movies written and directed by woman. Though The Slums of Beverly Hills is one. I guess I've always wondered that by not reading a film as sexist if I am excusing that sexism and am guilty by association. I enjoy personal interpretation of film or other art, but I wonder if that freedom allows for sexism and misogyny to pass through. But art is interpretive, I guess. Not that I'm saying Zach Braff made art. HA. In a blunt way, I'm wondering if I'm sexist and misogynist for not reading the film in the similar way, or just interpreting personally...it's very hard and I have anxieties of turning into an unwitting misogynist/sexist. Just not realizing my own thoughts or behaviors that my be biased. Sorry if this seems jumbled. And I want you to know I do enjoy discussion of things.
Posted by Mike
July 30, 2007, 10:34 PM
Also, I wonder the difference between seeing things in a cynical light versus seeing them in a realistic light. Like, putting trust into the artist that they are well-intentioned in their creation. Like, I don't want to hate things but I'm probably a bit mixed up.
Posted by Mike
July 30, 2007, 10:38 PM
It is hard to find movies written and directed by women - or maybe more importantly, made from a feminist point of view (because some male directors are really thoughtful about that stuff - hello Joss Whedon!). I just saw Wes Craven's Red Eye and much to my surprise, totally loved it, because I found it had a really powerful and moving message about how weak men expect women to be, and how strong they actually are. And I wouldn't have expected that from the latest horror schlock film about terrorism! Try Antonia's Line, that's a great one. And Stick It is a mainstream blockbuster that has almost an entirely female cast. (By the by, both the reviews sections of Bitch and Shameless Magazines are great spots to find lady-friendly art.)
Even if you don't always see sexism, the fact that you're thinking about it and struggling with it is key! And like I said, when I first saw Garden State, I actually liked it. Same with High Fidelity, which we discussed above. Try going back and watching movies that you liked as a kid - you might be shocked by how awful some of the politics are.
I think that lots of forms of prejudice - sexism and racism in particular - these days have mutated. It's no longer over the top, and in your face with burning crosses and laws about who women can marry - because it's no longer socially acceptable to openly hold racist and sexist views, so it's like the whole thing has twisted itself to be much sneakier. It's not clear anymore, and the belief that only overt hateful messages are hateful, adds to this confusion.
On the lines of giving an artist the benefit of the doubt, I don't think at all at all that Zach Braff was like, how can I make a movie that'll really make these feminists cry? I think he genuinely set out to make a cute quirky romance, and Garden State, with all its hidden, sickening sexism, was what came out - probably because, like you and me, he's the product of an intensely sexist and prejudiced society that cannot even admit or recognise how messed up it is. I think Braff actually had good intentions.
The thing is, anyone and anything can be hateful. Even people we like and admire can be hateful - because even nice people can be racists (some of my favourite people are racist sexist jerks!). I think start by realising that - that people who have prejudice aren't going to be wearing little white hats or whipping women - they're going to be people who are just like you, who are familiar and likeable in many other ways. I often catch myself thinking thoughts that I'm ashamed to think.
I think this is why Zach Braff slides under the radar - because even our beliefs about who is going to be hateful are hateful themselves - it's hard for us to believe that this nice, well spoken, funny, sensitive guy who likes cool music could also be unbearably sexist (and possibly racist and classist and...). As a culture, it's much easier for us to imagine that the only people who are sexist are Muslims, or 50 cent, or basically people who aren't nice, white, healthy, middle class folks.
So what do we do? Hang around with people who come from lots of different points of view, and points of privilege from you. Read lots of blogs with different ideas on things, and analyses of pop culture. And listen with an open heart - I have to say, I'm impressed that you 1) asked for my critique of Garden State 2) listened respectfully. A lot of people think I'm off my rocker when I tell them I think Garden State was one of the most sexist movies of the early '00s.
Posted by Thea
July 31, 2007, 11:41 AM
Some great female-directed -- feminist, even! -- films I love include D.E.B.S., Strange Fits of Passion (one of my favourites, directed by Elise McCredie), Parsley Days (Andrea Dorfman) and Moolaade, which is brilliant. Strange Fits of Passion and Parsley Days can definitely be called quirky romances but I promise, Thea, they won't make you angry or nauseous!
Posted by Nicole
July 31, 2007, 1:30 PM
Thank you for your response. I will defiinitely take some of the ideas and thoughts offered, it will help me sort out things. I am glad to that we can have a discussion that does not turn into a flame war or something angry and overbearing, like Bill O'reily. Have a good day.
Posted by Mike
July 31, 2007, 10:54 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.