Super Social Analysis: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and LGBT in Movies

[aradia22]

I just wanted to highlight some parts of an article I read on Grantland today about the Oscars/awards season race for Best Actress.

 

We’ve been talking about the Best Actress race as if actresses— adult women who are given central, movie-carrying roles of depth and range — are actually permitted to participate in Hollywood’s current economy outside of YA and genre movies. They aren’t. This has become an award for Best Exception To The Rule.

 

Jones is fine in one of the most depressing niches a Best Actress candidate can ever fill, namely The Genius’s Long-Suffering Wife. (If you don’t believe that’s a problem, take a look at the history of Best Actor nominees and see how many decades backward you have to scroll before getting to a character you’d describe primarily as somebody’s husband rather than as the central agent of the narrative.

[methodwriter85]

In this indie drama called Drinking Buddies, Olivia Wilde played a Cool-girl like character- hot, promotes a brewery, loves to drink, can be one of the boys but it wasn't really displayed as her being the be-all end-all, which I thought was interesting. Her character was kind of a mess and it wasn't endearing. I liked that.

[Janet Snakehole]

I really liked Drinking Buddies. I thought they also did a great job with Anna Kendrick's character, who wanted her boyfriend to commit to her and get married. She was portrayed as a normal, nice woman, not a demanding shrew.

[Luckylyn]

Female Ghostbusters? Why Studios Want More Women-Led Blockbusters

[Actionmage]

Add in the Photoshopped pic of the new Ghostbusters, except Leslie Jones!, and the tag about being published last summer--insta-article that "feels" fresh and timely.  ::rme::

 

And The Expendables producer Avi Lerner said Aug. 4 he wants to shoot a female spinoff Expendabelles in 2015 (Sylvester Stallone says he wants Sigourney Weaver to star).

 

I think I would rather something cringe-y like "Expendables: Femme Force" over Expendabelles! A title with a bit more oomph rather than 'we're girl kick-asses, see!'  I love The Heroic Trio, an older martial arts movie led by three (!) superheroes who happened to be women and they got a crappy sequel too! Just like guys!

[xaxat]

This Grantland essay, How ‘Selma’ Got Smeared, explains the issue I have with the attacks on Selma far better than I ever could. Including this. . .

 

 

To many historians and politicians, the triumph of civil rights is that, after much toil and strife, they were bestowed from above; to many African Americans, however, the victory is that those rights were taken — wrenched, with tremendous will, persistence, and effort, out of a system that was not in an immense hurry to offer them up. The former stance has long been the vantage point offered by most white filmmakers who have tackled this history. So it’s little wonder that DuVernay’s movie, the first on the subject by a woman of color and the first not to view mid-20th-century civil rights purely as an example of presidential, judicial, or legislative beneficence, has distressed those who, even 50 years later, would be far more at home in a room with President Johnson than with Dr. King. They are unnerved not only that Selma threatens to become “official” history, but that it represents a sea change in who has custody of that history.

[proserpina65]

This Grantland essay, How ‘Selma’ Got Smeared, explains the issue I have with the attacks on Selma far better than I ever could. Including this. . .

Except a lot of the criticism of Johnson's portrayal in the movie concerns its false implication that Johnson approved of (and possibly even ordered) Hoover's smear tactics against MLK.  Depicting the Civil Rights struggle from the viewpoint of those most directly involved in that struggle and who had the most to gain from it did not require including an actual smear on the character of someone who at the very least sympathized with the aim of the movement; doing so has created an issue which has only distracted from the message of the movie.  Leaving out this one small plot point would not have changed the viewpoint in the least and would've avoided at least part of the controversy surrounding the film.

Edited January 28, 2015 by proserpina65

[Raja]

I like the trailer, and think Kingsman: The Secret Service might be a fun movie, but it really annoys me when Colin Firth says that they are an international organization and every one of them is white.

 

But hey, they have Sam Jackson, so yay diversity?

What got me was what "king" was an "international" organization working for. Seemed too PC, Bond works for a Queen, yet by extension most of the other movie ticket buyers

[VCRTracking]

I can't believe there are two racially themed Kevin Costner movies coming out at about the same time, Black and White and MacFarland USA.

[blixie]

OMG I was just wondering about that I had seen the MacFarland USA trailers and then *read* about Black and White and was so confused since he's drunk racist in one and not drunk racist in the other? IDEK.

[MrsRafaelBarba]

McFarland USA, looks like a White Savior film.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Straight, white males have a gazillion (slight exaggeration) representations on TV, so that any given white male character is a stereotype or caricature is no big deal.  When the day comes that everyone else is similarly represented, then individual characters won't be so problematic. 

 

If Christian Grey, the buggering inbreds from Deliverance, and Hannibal Lecter are "slight exaggerations", I'd hate to see what extreme ones look like. And I'm only being a little facetious. Grey in particular seems problematic because he's supposed to be a romantic figure instead of a controlling douchenozzle. I haven't read, don't intend to read, FSOG, but the trailers for the movie tell me pretty much everything I need to know. I'm being legit serious when I say that if IMO they'd gone with color-blind casting and made this putz a POC, the Katniss controversy would have been as if it never happened.

[Bastet]

Slight exaggeration referred to gazillion.

[topanga]

 

I'm being legit serious when I say that if IMO they'd gone with color-blind casting and made this putz a POC, the Katniss controversy would have been as if it never happened.

But then there'd be anger that color-blind casting made a POC into a putz. I don't mean that POC can't play villains or putzes--I think they can and should. I think a POC should play any character that a competent actor can portray. But to say that only white characters can save the world--unless you're Denzel or Will Smith--that's what kills me. Unless a movie decides to go "ethnic," then there's no role for POC except as background extras or tragic heroes who die. Crazy.

 

I like the word "douchenozzle," by the way. It sounds like a creature Roald Dahl would dream up.

[Trini]

Study looks at female protagonists:

 

So much for girl power in Hollywood — last year looked more like gone girl, at least among the top-grossing movies. According to a new study, females accounted for only 12% of all the protagonists depicted in the top 100 domestic box office hits released last year. They also made up just 29% of the major characters and 30% of all speaking roles.
 

In her latest annual report, Dr. Martha Lauzen, Executive Director of San Diego State’s Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, found that the number of female protagonists depicted in the top-grossing American films last year dropped 3% from 2013 and 4% from 2002.

 

The report, titled “It’s a Man’s (Celluloid) World,” also found that last year’s top 100 films with female directors and/or writers had more than three times as many female protagonists as those written and directed exclusively by men.

 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Slight exaggeration referred to gazillion.

 

I'm aware of what you meant, but I think my point still stands. None of the examples I mentioned are positive examples of what being white means, and speaking for myself I would certainly be more inclined to run the hell away from Patrick Bateman than I would Jules Winfield. The question in the TV section was, "Why do so many white people see POC as thugs and drug users?" So is it that only minorities can be negatively affected by the way media portrays them, or is it that people who go see movies (or watch television) are aware that fiction is not real life?

 

And then there's Twilight, which, being bad fanfic aside, is basically the story of a white girl who falls in love with a white boy, then decides she'd rather let him murder her so that she doesn't grow old and wrinkly. Then she has a baby that one of her exes imprints on as an infant, because that's not creepy at all. I don't know if it's true that everyone takes movies so seriously that they see every minority being portrayed negatively as a slap, but if "heroes" like Edward, like Christian, being white has some deeper meaning, what message does that send?

[Bastet]

As I said originally, but will reiterate here since you copied part of my post here, there a plethora of characters representing white people, so that some white characters are portrayed negatively doesn't say something about white people in general, just about that character, because there are so many other white characters positively represented to balance that out.  The same cannot be said of people of color (or women, or LGBT people, or people with disabilities, or ...) so negative depictions do matter beyond that individual character, precisely because the negative depictions make up such a large percentage of the roles. 

 

If men of color were presented on screen as all the myriad things their white counterparts appear as, then some of them being thugs or drug dealers wouldn't matter.  But they're not, so it does.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Bastet

[Rick Kitchen]

 

I'm aware of what you meant, but I think my point still stands. None of the examples I mentioned are positive examples of what being white means, and speaking for myself I would certainly be more inclined to run the hell away from Patrick Bateman than I would Jules Winfield. The question in the TV section was, "Why do so many white people see POC as thugs and drug users?" So is it that only minorities can be negatively affected by the way media portrays them, or is it that people who go see movies (or watch television) are aware that fiction is not real life?

 

And then there's Twilight, which, being bad fanfic aside, is basically the story of a white girl who falls in love with a white boy, then decides she'd rather let him murder her so that she doesn't grow old and wrinkly. Then she has a baby that one of her exes imprints on as an infant, because that's not creepy at all. I don't know if it's true that everyone takes movies so seriously that they see every minority being portrayed negatively as a slap, but if "heroes" like Edward, like Christian, being white has some deeper meaning, what message does that send?

 

Jacob is Native American.  He was almost as popular a character as Edward.

[galax-arena]

So is it that only minorities can be negatively affected by the way media portrays them,

Well, there was a study done that showed that watching television decreased the self-esteem of black boys, black girls, and white girls, but increased the self-esteem of white boys. Yeah, I don't think that's a coincidence. 

 

or is it that people who go see movies (or watch television) are aware that fiction is not real life?

People always say this as a defense, and tbh I find it facile. Of course we're consciously aware that fiction isn't real life. But to act like pop culture doesn't have a way of influencing us subconsciously is disingenuous IMO. Neither you nor I are above it all. You are not immune just because you tell yourself, "This isn't real." 

 

The same cannot be said of people of color (or women, or LGBT people, or people with disabilities, or ...)

Yep. Look at all the fuss being made over Fresh Off the Boat. It's the first Asian-American sitcom being made in over twenty years and as a result, so many people are expecting it to carry the torch for Asian-Americans everywhere. White people don't have to worry about that. If a white sitcom fails, you still have a million other sitcoms left.

 

When you don't have many options, you tend to put your eggs all in one basket. When that one basket breaks, all of the eggs fall out. With white men, it's more like having one basket for each egg. So when one basket breaks, who cares? You still have a million other eggs left.

 

ETA: Here's another study that seems to indicate that our culture often "primes" certain stereotypes in the way they depict minorities. You can get the abstract here.

Edited February 11, 2015 by galax-arena

[lampshades]

Well, there was a study done that showed that watching television decreased the self-esteem of black boys, black girls, and white girls, but increased the self-esteem of white boys. Yeah, I don't think that's a coincidence. 

 

It would be interesting to see if this actually has any impact on kids in the long run. A number of other studies seem to show that kids tend to have similar levels of self-esteem regardless of race and gender. This study found black children actually have the highest level of self esteem and Asian children have the lowest. 

Edited February 11, 2015 by lampshades

[Raja]

Jacob is Native American.  He was almost as popular a character as Edward.

But why is he popular when in the end he, the Twilight Native American werewolf became safe uncle bonded to his pale white niece is the question?

[ancslove]

I don't get your question.  Jacob was hugely popular long before the last book, and Taylor Lautner is much more conventionally attractive than Robert Pattinson.  "Team Jacob" and "Team Edward" were a big thing when Twilight, book and movie, hit big.  If anything, I thought Jacob's weird bonding with Bella's infant daughter was off-putting to a lot of his fans, a weird kind of consolation prize after Edward "won" Bella.  

[galax-arena]

This study found black children actually have the highest level of self esteem and Asian children have the lowest.

This could be due to the self-esteem trap faced by minority students, which I think is a different (but perhaps related) issue than how the media reinforces and primes negative stereotypes. The children in the study I mention were younger and probably hadn't developed that sense of self-protection yet. Plus, these were all kids who watched a LOT of television, IIRC. Obviously the most prudent solution there would be to just turn off the TV, but I don't think that negates the point that media portrayals can affect how we see ourselves (and that white males have better options). 

 

And just to branch off from that, I think people in group A being affected by media stereotypes about group A is different from people in group B being affected by media stereotypes about group A. What I mean is, if you're Asian, you presumably (usually) have more exposure to other Asian people and Asian culture that don't fit into the various Asian stereotypes depicted by the media. Same if you're Black or Hispanic or Native American. So even if you're negatively affected by what the media shows you, you have other normalizing influences to balance that out. Like, I'm Asian and I grew up in an Asian-dominant neighborhood. So it didn't matter as much to me that Asians in the movies and on TV were sidekicks and model minorities and exotic dragon ladies and martial artists; I was surrounded by other Asians who implicitly told me that I was normal, my culture wasn't exotic, I was allowed to not always be the "model minority," etc. (Even so, I remember being thrilled when Mulan came out because hey, an Asian Disney girl! Who kicks ass! It can mean a lot to children to see people like them as the heroes on screen.) But what if you're not Asian and you don't grow up in the same sort of neighborhood? 

Edited February 11, 2015 by galax-arena

[Cobalt Stargazer]

From the FSOG thread:

 

To be fair, there is an invert version, where an oafish stoner takes up with a more attractive, high-achieving woman who for some reason is with him despite being pretty vocal about not liking or approving of anything about him. He usually convinces her to loosen up and appreciate his charms by the end.  

 

I think it must be popular with men, because most of the highest-paid male stars in comedy make them pretty much full time.

 

While this is true, I think whatever message there is in a movie like Knocked Up, it's less damaging than the message of Fifty Shades of Grey. Ben, Seth Rogen's character, genuinely meant well, wanted to be involved in his kid's life and be a good father. I have a very hard time imagining him talking some ridiculous shit about

how the baby obviously likes sex

, and that's even without mentioning the stuff about Christian being a creepy control freak. But because Christian is rich and handsome, he would be much more likely to be lucky with women than schlubby Ben, who smokes too much pot and eats too much fast food.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Cobalt Stargazer

[Julia]

From the FSOG thread:

 

 

While this is true, I think whatever message there is in a movie like Knocked Up, it's less damaging than the message of Fifty Shades of Grey. Ben, Seth Rogen's character, genuinely meant well, wanted to be involved in his kid's life and be a good father. I have a very hard time imagining him talking some ridiculous shit about

how the baby obviously likes sex

, and that's even without mentioning the stuff about Christian being a creepy control freak. But because Christian is rich and handsome, he would be much more likely to be lucky with women than schlubby Ben, who smokes too much pot and eats too much fast food.

 

That's probably true, but I wasn't really looking at it from that angle. The theme in those movies (and TV comedies) seems to be that schlub guy gets to catch a woman who doesn't like him, doesn't respect him, disapproves of him and his choices, has nothing in common with him, and thinks she's too good for him. Still, he wants her, even though she represents everything he can't be bothered with, because she's pretty and financially comfortable. She thinks he's beneath her? He can understand that. So does he. Still, he's determined to get her, because, well, he wants to.

 

I'm not comparing the societal impact of the two stories, just reacting to the fact that a lot of the 50 Shades conversation is discussing the story as some kind of uniquely female wish fulfillment, when most of the wish fulfillment movies out there about some little nobody grabbing the brass ring in (barely) human form are male fantasies.

[Janet Snakehole]

Unfortunately though, in 50SOG, the woman gets to go through emotional abuse.

In the other version, the woman gets to be an uptight shrew.

We rarely win :/.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

The thing is, men can't really win either. The only middle ground between emotionally crippled douchenozzles like Christian and schlubby under-achievers like Ben seem to be the Nice Guys*, who pretend to be a woman's friend until she doesn't give them what they want, and then they reveal that they're assholes. Sometimes there's a genuinely good guy in there somewhere, but then again James Marsden has never gotten the girl in any of his movies, I don't think.

 

*I couldn't think of any of those right off the top of my head, and I hate that term anyway.

[Wiendish Fitch]

Sorry to change the subject, but I've noticed an interesting double standard regarding two similar characters in two different movies.

 

Eve Harrington from All About Eve is universally agreed to be an irredeemable villain, and rightly so. She's a calculating, two-faced, backstabbing, ungrateful, ruthless little social climber who wants to a successful actress right now, and is willing to cheat, hoodwink, blackmail, and screw over (or just plain screw) anyone to get what she wants. 

 

Then there's deluded, self-impressed, quite dangerous nutcase Rupert Pupkin from The King of Comedy, who wants to be a famous comic right now, so he kidnaps his favorite late-night talk show host, holds him hostage, and basically blackmails and terrorizes his way onto TV. I think that Rupert is just as ruthless and entitled as Eve.

 

Yet I am amazed at how so many people root against Eve, yet cheer Rupert on. I've read an alarming number of reviews defending Rupert, some claiming that he is a "hero for underdogs", that he's a "kinder, gentler Travis Bickle" (damning with faint praise if ever I heard it), that "all he needs is a shot".  Eve gets all the well-deserved vitriol, but Rupert is seen as misunderstood and sympathetic.

 

The hell, I say. Rupert's no hero, he's a deranged loser of the highest order who stalked, terrorized and kidnapped an innocent man who did him absolutely no wrong. He's a basement-dwelling, bottomless pit of narcissism with delusions of grandeur and who believes that the world owes him something just for being alive. History has been shaped for the worst by people like Rupert Pupkin. People like that are not to be pitied and admired, they should be treated with disdain and extreme caution.  

 

My point is, Rupert's no better or different than Eve, so why are so many people more eager to view him in a positive light? Is it because Eve is a woman and not "likable"? When male characters are unlikable, they are praised for being complex. Female characters? Not as much. 

[Scarlett45]

I had to comment regarding Dakota Johnson's nudity in 50 shades of Grey. Poor Dakota probably hadn't eaten carbs in months, worked out two hours each day etc to be so slim for all of those nudes scenes and then had to maneuver so that her crotch wouldn't be shown. Now JAMIE was just like some toned swimmer guy. Wtf. He wasn't cut at all! He needed to have eaten some more egg whites and lifted more weights. And what was up with those jeans?!! I mean put him in some sexy shorts or something.....it was ridiculous.....

Women have to be "perfect" physical specimens and men just get to be "okay". No no no. If the lead in the movie is supposed to be "drop my panties sexy" he needs to have put in the work a the gym.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Scarlett45

[methodwriter85]

I'm pretty sure the jeans were insisted on by E.L. James because that's how it was in the book, and she was a major ass during filming about taking any creative control/input she was allowed to do.

 

I thought Christian looked like a cross-country runner.

Edited February 17, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Julia]

I'm pretty sure the jeans were insisted on by E.L. James because that's how it was in the book, and she was a major ass during filming about taking any creative control/input she was allowed to do.

It's kind of funny that BNF behavior is even extreme by hollywood standards...

[xaxat]

A couple of years ago, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences said they were going to enact rules that would increase the diversity (both gender and race) of Oscar voters. It's not working. 

 

 

And that doesn't apply solely to older, pre-existing members. It applies to new voters as well. In 2014, the Academy invited a new class of voters — approximately 72 percent were men, 90 percent were white. Non-white women represented just five of the 245 people we analyzed (out of 271 total new invitees). . . . 

 

What helps keep the wheel spinning is that gaining entry into the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is very difficult. You get in by earning an Oscar nomination or a recommendation from an existing member. That process makes it hard to change the culture and diversity of the Academy.

 

"I can guarantee you. If the membership were different, the nominees would look different," Hunt said. "But because of the way the process works, it'll be 2150 before we get anywhere."

 

ETA, last month President Obama had a White House screening of Selma. A century ago, Birth of a Nation was the first movie show at the White House. 

 

 

While today The Birth of a Nation is considered a virulent brand of hate speech, the stereotypes of blacks embedded in the film – their depiction as lawless brutes and a danger to American values – continue to haunt public discourse about race in America. Whether it’s the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri or the police killing of Eric Garner in New York City, many continue to frame racially charged tragedies in similar terms.

 

Edited February 19, 2015 by xaxat

[VCRTracking]

 

My point is, Rupert's no better or different than Eve, so why are so many people more eager to view him in a positive light? Is it because Eve is a woman and not "likable"? When male characters are unlikable, they are praised for being complex. Female characters? Not as much.

 

I think the way Eve did it was more insidious. She pretended to be Margo's friend and manipulated the people around her. Rupert through just dumb luck and the stupidity of the viewing public succeeds. It's more an indictment of the masses. He also doesn't kill Jerry Lewis. If he had he probably be seen in a less positive light.

 

They did change the ending of Fatal Attraction where Glenn Close commits suicide and frames Michael Douglas for her murder, after a negative test screening to one where she tries to kill him and the wife Anne Archer shoots her dead.

The same director years later made Unfaithful, where the wife has an affair, the husband kills the other man in a rage, and he has to turn himself in.

Edited February 17, 2015 by VCRTracking

[ChelseaNH]

He also doesn't kill Jerry Lewis. If he had he probably be seen in a less positive light.

 

One would hope.

[Julia]

I think the way Eve did it was more insidious. She pretended to be Margo's friend and manipulated the people around her. Rupert through just dumb luck and the stupidity of the viewing public succeeds. It's more an indictment of the masses. He also doesn't kill Jerry Lewis. If he had he probably be seen in a less positive light.

 

I think there's some truth to this. The movie portrayed Rupert pretty much as someone quoted above, as a cuddlier Travis Bickle (keeping in mind that Travis Bickle was a psychopathic killer). I think the villain of the story was the public, who grasped an untalented, desperate, unfunny man dripping with need to their bosom and made him into a hero more or less because he was on TV. Eve took advantage of people who were trying to do the right thing.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Julia

[Cobalt Stargazer]

They did change the ending of Fatal Attraction where Glenn Close commits suicide and frames Michael Douglas for her murder, after a negative test screening to one where she tries to kill him and the wife Anne Archer shoots her dead.

The same director years later made Unfaithful, where the wife has an affair, the husband kills the other man in a rage, and he has to turn himself in.

 

And then there's Gone Girl, where Ben Affleck's character has an affair and ends up basically facing a life sentence with his psychotic wife serving as his warden who did and will fuck up his life without a qualm if he doesn't do exactly as she says. It's been a long time since I've done such a complete turnaround about a character in the middle of the movie.

[Rick Kitchen]

 

He also doesn't kill Jerry Lewis. If he had he probably be seen in a less positive light.

 

I don't know, he might deserve a medal for that.  (j/k, btw)

[Julia]

Back when the movie came out, the rumor was that Jerry Lewis was playing Johnny Carson. I had no idea Johnny Carson was supposed to be an asshole. Jerry Lewis, on the other hand... /ot

[Wiendish Fitch]

Back when the movie came out, the rumor was that Jerry Lewis was playing Johnny Carson. I had no idea Johnny Carson was supposed to be an asshole. Jerry Lewis, on the other hand... /ot

 

Do you mean the character or the actor? Because I've never been a Jerry Lewis fan, but I thought Jerry Langford in The King of Comedy, while not a saint, was just a normal person who did absolutely nothing to deserve what happened to him. He even gives Rupert sound advice about starting from the bottom up, working hard, and honing your craft. Unfortunately, just like in real life, Rupert doesn't want to hear that, he wants success right now.

 

You all made good points about society being the real villain in The King of Comedy, but my issue is whether others realize that? I don't think Rupert Pupkin is, in any way, shape or form, a heroic or lovable character, and I'm pretty sure Martin Scorsese has said we're not meant to root for him. My point (I probably expressed it poorly) was that Rupert is just as bad as Eve Harrington, but he's forgiven more easily. Rupert may not have hurt any close friends, but he's just as guilty of entitled narcissism as Eve is, and he takes the path of least resistance to get what he wants (certainly in a more dramatic fashion than Eve). Also, just because Jerry lived, it doesn't mean Rupert should be let off the hook. What if Jerry had a heart attack and died due to the ordeal? What if Rupert's accomplice Masha finally snapped her final strand of sanity and decided to kill Jerry for shits and giggles? Any number of things could have gone horribly wrong!

 

If Rupert Pupkin is really considered a hero for underdogs, then we're all officially doomed. Oh, well. At least TV Tropes agrees with me.

 

For my own mental health, at the end of The King of Comedy,

I like to believe that Rupert doesn't actually succeed, that this is just another one of his pathetic fantasies inside his head. The ending has an ambiguity to it, so you never know...

Edited February 18, 2015 by Wiendish Fitch

[BookWoman56]

 

They did change the ending of Fatal Attraction where Glenn Close commits suicide and frames Michael Douglas for her murder, after a negative test screening to one where she tries to kill him and the wife Anne Archer shoots her dead.

Fatal Attraction bugged the hell out of me when it came out for numerous reasons, most having to do with gender issues. It plays into the cliche that a husband being unfaithful, while not wonderful, is something that the wife should forgive, whereas I can think of almost no movies where a wife's infidelity is treated that way. I know some exist, but not too many come to mind. (Although I have not seen Spanglish, my understanding is that the wife has been unfaithful, and probably 95% of the reactions I've observed to that movie are rage that she tries to treat the infidelity as something the husband should forgive/get past.) It's not that I regard infidelity as unforgivable per se; it's just that there seems to be a serious difference in how it's treated for male characters versus female characters.

What killed Fatal Attraction for me, though, is that Michael Douglas has an affair with Glenn Close, realizes she's now BSC, and  yet does not let his wife know that there's a BSC person who may do crazy things such as taking their child on an unauthorized excursion, killing a family pet, and finally breaking in to the home to attempt murder. In Anne Archer's situation, after killing Glenn Close, I'd have been telling Michael Douglas to pack his bags. The man didn't want to confess to having an affair, even when his silence meant that his family was at risk. His cowardice endangered his family, and IMO there's no way in hell Anne Archer should have let that slide. Glenn Close is painted as the woman who tried to destroy the marriage, as if Michael Douglas was an unwilling participant in the affair.  It is painfully apparent that once Glenn Close is dead, everything will go back to normal. If the genders had been reversed, I suspect there would have been some recriminations, possibly ending in the husband telling the wife that he saved her life, but can't stay in the marriage.

[absnow54]

It plays into the cliche that a husband being unfaithful, while not wonderful, is something that the wife should forgive, whereas I can think of almost no movies where a wife's infidelity is treated that way.

It's common in Julianne Moore movies, I think. I'm pretty sure that's how it plays in The Kids Are All Right and Crazy, Stupid, Love. Although in The Kids Are All Right, it's a lesbian couple.

[Bruinsfan]

I was just about to say, Julianne Moore's movies push that plot point so stringently there's none of it left for other movies. Sorry directors, but Moore is not enough of a goddess for me to think her characters should be forgiven any wrongdoing and worshiped unconditionally. Though I doubt even Tilda Swinton or Sigourney Weaver could have made me root for those particular characters.

[JBC344]

Lol, Julianne Moore really is the queen of "cheating wife" movies. With that said the only character that I thought was underdeveloped in that troupe was Crazy, Stupid, Love.  Her character was completely unsympathetic that I didn't understand why anyone would want her and Steve's character to get back together.  At least with her other "cheating wife" roles, there was some nuance or a perspective that you may not have agreed with but may have understood.

[methodwriter85]

Especially when there was the total MILF Marissa Tormei as an option for Steve Carell's character.

 

Julianne Moore has played a cheating wife, a wife undergoing mental/physical illness, a wife emotionally/physically abused by her husband, and a wife who decides to abandon her family at least twice.

Edited February 18, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Julia]

Fatal Attraction bugged the hell out of me when it came out for numerous reasons, most having to do with gender issues. It plays into the cliche that a husband being unfaithful, while not wonderful, is something that the wife should forgive, whereas I can think of almost no movies where a wife's infidelity is treated that way. I know some exist, but not too many come to mind. (Although I have not seen Spanglish, my understanding is that the wife has been unfaithful, and probably 95% of the reactions I've observed to that movie are rage that she tries to treat the infidelity as something the husband should forgive/get past.) It's not that I regard infidelity as unforgivable per se; it's just that there seems to be a serious difference in how it's treated for male characters versus female characters.

 

You should see A Walk on the Moon. The cast is wonderful, and it's very adult about dealing with the wife's infidelity.

[JBC344]

Especially when there was the total MILF Marissa Tormei as an option for Steve Carell's character.

 

Julianne Moore has played a cheating wife, a wife undergoing mental/physical illness, a wife emotionally/physically abused by her husband, and a wife who decides to abandon her family at least twice.

Well truth be told, Marissa's character had a few screws loose herself, so even outside of picking Julianne he dodged a bullet with Marissa.

[AshleyN]

Goldie Hawn on why they never made a sequel to The First Wives Club:

 

The big money goes to kids and young men—big tent-pole movies, which are expensive but have a great return. The smaller movies aren’t being made as much. For instance, First Wives Club. We were all women of a certain age, and everyone took a cut in salary to do it so the studio could make what it needed. We all took a smaller back end than usual and a much smaller front end. And we ended up doing incredibly well. The movie was hugely successful. It made a lot of money. We were on the cover of Time magazine. But two years later, when the studio came back with a sequel, they wanted to offer us exactly the same deal. We went back to ground zero. Had three men come in there, they would have upped their salaries without even thinking about it. But the fear of women’s movies is embedded in the culture.

Edited February 21, 2015 by AshleyN

[galax-arena]

Wasn't sure whether to put this in the Gender, Race, or LGBT thread. I'll start here since sexism was the topic of Arquette's speech: “Fight for us now”: What Patricia Arquette got right (and wrong) about equal pay.

 

Yeah, her comment annoyed me for this reason. It ignores the very real issue of intersectionality. LGBT women? Women of color? Maybe even (gasp) LGBT women of color? Even if she's not aware of the term "intersectionality" itself, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to realize that these groups aren't mutually exclusive.

 

Her comment also implies that POC and LGBT people aren't still fighting for their rights every single day, and that they've achieved some sort of mythical equality that continues to elude (white) women.

 

And as far as her assertion goes that (straight, white) women have fought for the rights of POC and LGBT people everywhere? Oh, please. Mainstream US feminism - otherwise known as white feminism - is notorious for throwing WOC under the bus and telling us to ~wait our turn~. But suuuuure, you've fought for us, Patricia. (And I've noticed that our recent efforts at rebranding feminism to make it more palatable to men might as well be called "no homo" feminism: "I'm a feminist but I'm not a lesbian, I like to wear dresses and make-up!!")

 

And then people like her wonder why so many WOC disavow feminism....

 

Edited February 23, 2015 by galax-arena

[Rick Kitchen]

So does that mean that white women shouldn't be fighting for the rights of LGBT people and people of color?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

So does that mean that white women shouldn't be fighting for the rights of LGBT people and people of color?

 

Haven't you heard, Rick Kitchen? It's only permissible to talk about the fight for equality if you're a minority, which disqualifies Patricia. Because color is more important than gender. Or something.