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

[Julia]

I'm abject enough to be glad that someone said out loud that people who are marginalized should defend each other. It made me happy.

[galax-arena]

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

Uh, no, and nobody said anything remotely like that. 

 

But the truth is that the white feminist movement has an AWFUL track record when it comes to sticking up for POC/WOC - why the hell else do you think the womanist movement was formed? - so for them to blithely take credit for fighting on our behalf is bullshit. So no, people aren't saying that straight cis white women shouldn't be fighting for LGBT people and people of color. In fact, we're saying quite the opposite, that maybe it'd be nice for them to actually start, instead of insisting that we rally around when it only benefits them and the rest of the time telling us to wait our turn (and then, like Patricia, making up some ludicrous claim about how they've been there for us instead of constantly throwing us under the bus). 

 

Finally, she didn't just say that marginalized groups should stick up for one another. And no one's saying that race matters more than gender. In fact, if you want to look at people guilty of insisting that we prioritize one thing over another, it's another hallmark of white feminism to commit that particular sin only in reverse, by telling us WOC that we must prioritize our gender over race. Hell, Patricia Arquette is essentially doing that here by saying that it's the women's time, they've already fought the good fight for LGBT people and POC (which is, once again, bullshit), so now we gotta focus on women. By contrast, I've never been told by MOC that we should prioritize race over gender, although other people's personal experiences on that might vary. (And that's not to say that MOC aren't often sexist in other ways....but that's another story altogether.)

 

Patricia Arquette's comments weren't the worst by far in a night that featured a racist green card joke. (Yeah, I heard Sean Penn and the director are friends. It was still a terrible comment.) I believe her intentions were good. And if we were to look at the comment all on its own in a vacuum, devoid of any additional context, it wouldn't be that bad at all. But that's the thing with microaggressions: They're never that bad on their own. But that shit adds up, and it's tiring, and I'm sick of people saying that we shouldn't say anything because her intentions were good.

 

If other people want to handwave it, fine. There are only a certain number of hours in the day, we can't all be mad about every single thing under the sun. But don't be dismissive of those of us who are bothered by it or sneer that we're all just white SJWs. Most of the people I've seen who have called her out for this have been LGBT women/WOC/LGBT WOC for whom this sort of intersectionality isn't just theoretical smoke. 

Edited February 24, 2015 by galax-arena

[Cobalt Stargazer]

In fairness, if you extrapolate from this -

 

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!!")

 

it doesn't seem like an enormous leap to take it as saying, "You have no place in this discussion because you're white and straight, so be quiet!" A small one, perhaps, but not an enormous one. Because otherwise, why make note that the idea of straight, white women fighting for the rights of POC is annoying? I could be wrong, but I was always kind of under the impression that conversations on the subject were something to be encouraged, because without discourse things never improve. I'm not saying Arquette deserves a ticker tape parade by any means, but isn't any opinion being discounted because of Thus And Such A Reason the exact problem to begin with?

Edited February 24, 2015 by Cobalt Stargazer

[Jediknight]

I'm popping in to show some love for Kingsman, that movie really does have strong written female characters.

 

Princess Tilde is the blatant Bond Girl parody, even having sex with Eggsy at the end, and it was her idea. Before that she was the one world leader we saw that refused to go along with Valentine's plans. Even when locked up and told the only way she'd get out is if she went along with the plan, she refused.

Roxy in a lot of other movies would have been the obvious love interest for Eggsy and a prize to be won. In this movie she's a pretty girl amongst the recruits, but isn't treated as someone everyone wants to hook up with. She's presented as just as good of a recruit as everyone else, and doesn't become romantically involved with Eggsy. She's his friend, who will help him like when she stopped him from kicking Charlie's ass and getting kicked out of the program. He helped her get over her fear of heights. Hell at the end, she goes into the freaking stratosphere to delay Valentine's plan, and called Eggsy's mom telling her what to do.

And then you have Gazelle. The main female villain, who can kick pretty much everyone's ass. She's not presented as sexual, she like Roxy is just presented as badass. Valentine trusts her to handle quite a bit of his plan. She's the one who came up with the security that couldn't be hacked. Oh yeah, she also has both legs amputated.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Jediknight

[Ms Blue Jay]

I just hope this dies before it gets to theatre.

 

http://www.avclub.com/article/serious-owen-wilson-tries-save-his-family-trailer--216250

[Ms Blue Jay]

Because otherwise, why make note that the idea of straight, white women fighting for the rights of POC is annoying?

No one is making that point.  

 

You understand that Patricia Arquette is not fighting for the rights of POC right?  She called for wage equality for men and women.  That's great.  Then backstage, she explicitly stated that POC need to fight for wage equality for men and women now.  A lot of people took offense to that statement.  For one, because of what galax-arena stated above, that white feminists in history have a bad record for taking people of colour and LGBT needs into account.  For two, because there are a hell of a lot of women of colour out there.  We felt dismissed by Patricia's comments.  And why is she telling us what to fight for?  People can fight for their own goals simultaneously.  Rights for LGBT, rights for people of colour.  Sorry, but I'm not about to be told that my "other issues' will take a backseat to Patricia's cause.

 

I could be wrong, but I was always kind of under the impression that conversations on the subject were something to be encouraged, because without discourse things never improve. I'm not saying Arquette deserves a ticker tape parade by any means, but isn't any opinion being discounted because of Thus And Such A Reason the exact problem to begin with?

 

No one is discounting opinions.  This is the conversation.  We are having it.  Patricia sparked a conversation.  Good on her for that, but she could also participate in the conversation by listening to what is being said to her and about her statements.  Not just spitting information forward and covering her ears to the responses, which her Twitter feed seemed to be after the Oscars.  Conversations aren't one way streets.  Her attitude after the Oscars turned me off far more than the statements she made there.

There is so much information out there on this history by the way.  Feel free to educate yourself.

[Julia]

The sticking point I'm having is that it seems both sides are talking as if POC != women. Last I heard, WOC made an even lower percentage of the wages men do than white women, and were somewhat more likely to be heads of household. Wage equity, it seems to me, is an even more urgent issue for traditionally marginalized groups.

[Ms Blue Jay]

This is my point, also though.  That is what intersectionality is, realizing that different groups are unequal to others in varying ways.  Not that All Women are unequal to men in the Same Way.

 

Here are her comments Backstage at the Oscars.  

 

The truth is: even though we sort of feel like we have equal rights in America, right under the surface, there are huge issues that are applied that really do affect women.  And it's time for all the women in America and all the men that love women, and all the gay people, and all the people of color that we've all fought for to fight for us now.

 

There are LGBT women, there are women of colour, there are LGBT women of colour.  Patricia is suggesting that she and other people like her fought for those groups' rights.  First of all, when?

 

Second of all, Patricia is suggesting that people  separate their identities cleanly and then choose to put aside those identities or issues for the sake of her crusade.  Nuh uh.  No one is going to do that for her.

 

Intersectionality (or intersectionalism) is the study of intersections between forms or systems of oppression, domination or discrimination. An example is black feminism, which argues that the experience of being a black woman cannot be understood in terms of being black, and of being a woman, considered independently, but must include the interactions, which frequently reinforce each other.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Ms Blue Jay

[Julia]

I think Kerry Washington had some really interesting things to say that speak to this controversy at the GLAAD awards

Edited March 23, 2015 by Julia

[topanga]

 

I just hope this dies before it gets to theatre.

I'm so confused. If the movie is about a coup in an Unnamed Asian country, then why are the rebelling citizens? police force? (I couldn't tell) spending so much energy attacking a white family in a hotel? Why are the people revolting? Why is Owen Wilson there?

 

I've seen the same theme in numerous movies: Something Bad is happening in a foreign country filled with poor people of color. The Something Bad affects the local people in horrible ways. But you know who really has it tough? The white men in the country who have to watch it all go down. Let's examine how these tragic events affect their feelings.

[Joe]

From what I read somewhere, Wilson saw serious police misbehaviour, and they want to cover it up.

[proserpina65]

I'm so confused. If the movie is about a coup in an Unnamed Asian country, then why are the rebelling citizens? police force? (I couldn't tell) spending so much energy attacking a white family in a hotel? Why are the people revolting? Why is Owen Wilson there?

 

From the description (however accurate it might be) from IMDB: In their new overseas home, an American family soon finds themselves caught in the middle of a coup, and they frantically look for a safe escape in an environment where foreigners are being immediately executed.

 

Not sure why the revolt, or why OW's family is there in the first place, but this at least explains a little bit, I guess.  And they are doing a little more than just watching it go down.  How much more is anybody's guess.

Edited March 25, 2015 by proserpina65

[ribboninthesky1]

I'm so confused. If the movie is about a coup in an Unnamed Asian country, then why are the rebelling citizens? police force? (I couldn't tell) spending so much energy attacking a white family in a hotel? Why are the people revolting? Why is Owen Wilson there?

 

I've seen the same theme in numerous movies: Something Bad is happening in a foreign country filled with poor people of color. The Something Bad affects the local people in horrible ways. But you know who really has it tough? The white men in the country who have to watch it all go down. Let's examine how these tragic events affect their feelings.

 

This reminds me of Ewan McGregor's response to similar criticism regarding The Impossible, which was basically, "Look, this white family's story is JUST LIKE Thai families! Look at all of the Thai people you see helping the white family and in the background!"  

 

White stories of survival are the focus in the vast majority of related American/European films.  To insert them in a context that provides ripe opportunity for the local ethnic/racial group's story to be told is Hollywood status quo, though.  

[MrsRafaelBarba]

Reminds of The Last King of Scotland.

The events of that film seen from the POV of a fictional white character.

[xaxat]

This looks interesting. A fantasy/medieval movie featuring a diverse cast. Last Knights, starring Clive Owen, also has Morgan Freeman, Daniel Adegboyega, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Cliff Curtis and several Japanese and Korean actors that I'm not familiar with.

 

I liked the trailer and really hope it's a good movie. (OK, good might be asking too much, but can it at least be entertaining?)

Edited March 26, 2015 by xaxat

[Ms Blue Jay]

Minorities banding together for the greater good:

 

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/03/26/ethnic-castings-deadline-story-condemned?hootPostID=fbad28d64a988cb06f855ab134270be1

[topanga]

What I know: There are too few movies featuring people of color partly because the largely white or Jewish Hollywood bigwigs believe that white (or Asian) viewers don't want to see POC in movies or hear our stories. So black and Latino moviemakers often create our own movies, some of which are groundbreaking but don't make tons of money (Hollywood Shuffle, Mi Familia), and others which aren't great movies but manage to break box office records (pick a Tyler Perry movie). Most are somewhere in-between. There are a few big name directors of color in Hollywood, but not many producers, who are the people who actually green-light movies. (Oprah and Will Smith's group come to mind).

 

Here's my dilemma: Many POC get upset when a white or Jewish director makes a movie about POC--e.g. Red Tails, Django Unchained, or The Color Purple. And the argument is that these moviemakers are not in a position to understand our struggle and therefore can't create an accurate portrayal on-screen. Spike Lee, for example, was very vocal in his opposition to 'Django Unchained,' but he also said he refused to see the movie because a white director was making a movie about slavery. 'Django' did have problems, and some people didn't like the movie. But can we fairly say that no one should make movies about black people except black people, and no one should make movies about Latino, Asian, East Indian, Middle Eastern, or Native American people except for people of that culture? If that's the case, then there's no reason to complain about the lack of POC in movies made by white directors. BTW, didn't Spike Lee also say that he refuses to watch Woody Allen movies because there are no black people in his movies? He can't have it both ways.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

What I know: There are too few movies featuring people of color partly because the largely white or Jewish Hollywood bigwigs believe that white (or Asian) viewers don't want to see POC in movies or hear our stories. So black and Latino moviemakers often create our own movies, some of which are groundbreaking but don't make tons of money (Hollywood Shuffle, Mi Familia), and others which aren't great movies but manage to break box office records (pick a Tyler Perry movie). Most are somewhere in-between. There are a few big name directors of color in Hollywood, but not many producers, who are the people who actually green-light movies. (Oprah and Will Smith's group come to mind).

 

Here's my dilemma: Many POC get upset when a white or Jewish director makes a movie about POC--e.g. Red Tails, Django Unchained, or The Color Purple. And the argument is that these moviemakers are not in a position to understand our struggle and therefore can't create an accurate portrayal on-screen. Spike Lee, for example, was very vocal in his opposition to 'Django Unchained,' but he also said he refused to see the movie because a white director was making a movie about slavery. 'Django' did have problems, and some people didn't like the movie. But can we fairly say that no one should make movies about black people except black people, and no one should make movies about Latino, Asian, East Indian, Middle Eastern, or Native American people except for people of that culture? If that's the case, then there's no reason to complain about the lack of POC in movies made by white directors. BTW, didn't Spike Lee also say that he refuses to watch Woody Allen movies because there are no black people in his movies? He can't have it both ways.

 

Its an interesting question, topanga - how much does personal experience affect the ability to make a movie about certain things? I mean, no two people ever have the same exact experiences, even if they belong to the same ethnic group, so how can it be accurately said that because X Person doesn't know what X Experience is like, they shouldn't make a movie about it? As you say, there is a dearth of POC behind the cameras, but is 'No Whites Need Apply' really a step forward?

[ChelseaNH]

There are movies about being a person of color, but there are a lot more movies about being an action hero.  There's no reason there can't be more POC in action movies.  As for the first category, I think it would be less inflammatory for them to be directed by white men if it didn't feel like everything was being directed by white men.

[xaxat]

I think it depends on the type of story. For movies featuring a protagonist that just happens to be a POC, I'm not sure how much it matters. I don't think Denzel Washington's Flight suffered because Robert Zeimekis directed it, and at the same time, I don't think his movie Book of Eli benefited because the Hughes brothers directed it. Did Spike Lee bring anything race specific to his Denzel starring, Inside Man? I don't think so.

 

(Although it should be noted that Denzel and Morgan Fairchild are pretty much the only POC actors that regularly receive the benefit of such color blind casting.)

 

I'm also not sure how much of an issue it is when the story is specifically about a POC protagonist. Would any of the biopics about James Brown, Jackie Robinson, Tina Turner been better with a POC director? I'm not so sure. 

 

I do think that history shows that, as a whole, the race of the director matters when it comes to movies examining the lives of POC as a group. That's when I think too often the race of the director/writer/source material changes the perspective of a story of POC to elavating the white protagonist while making the contribution or existence of those most affected by the experience secondary to the story.

 

You can even break it into genres.

Emancipation/civil rights: Mississippi Burning, Ghosts of Mississippi, Lincoln, Twelve Years a Slave

Great White Teacher: Dangerous Minds, Freedom Riders, The Blind Side

Poor People Overseas: Last King of Scotland, The Killing Fields, The Impossible

 

I happen to think several of those movies are very good. But it's a problem when POC can't tell their own story.

 

And then there is racewashing, which is a whole 'nother subject.

[Princess Sparkle]

(Although it should be noted that Denzel and Morgan Fairchild are pretty much the only POC actors that regularly receive the benefit of such color blind casting

This might be my favorite brain fart ever.

[xaxat]

Oh damn, my Alzheimer's is showing!

[Cobalt Stargazer]

(Although it should be noted that Denzel and Morgan Fairchild are pretty much the only POC actors that regularly receive the benefit of such color

blind casting.)

 

 

This might be my favorite brain fart ever.

 

My mom had that same brainfart. We were in the car, and she said she had watched Driving Miss Daisy and that Morgan Fairchild was really good in it. It blew right past me at first, and then I was like, "Who, Mom?" :-P

[xaxat]

Native American Actors Walk Off Adam Sandler Movie Set, Citing Disrespectful Jokes

[Rick Kitchen]

They expected cultural sensitivity from an Adam Sandler movie?

[topanga]

They probably shouldn't have. But the fact that an Indian cultural advisor was on board suggested that Adam Sandler was aware of potential cultural issues. This is sad. How often do we see American Indian actors on screen. Not very.

[Ambrosefolly]

Which is one of the many reasons that I was completely embittered by the casting of "The Last Airbender".

[PrincessEnnui]

Good lord, I just read some bits of the script (a previous version from Dec?) that caused those actors to walk off the set and no. I am not even sure you can call them jokes, because that implies there's something true, witty, and amusing about it. It really brings to mind stuff like Coal Black and the Sebben Dwarfs. WTF. It's 2015 and you name an Indian characters Sits-On-Face, Smoking Fox, and Beaver Breath? Rancid, the entire project.

[galax-arena]

Indian Country Today has a video of the incident:

[ribboninthesky1]

I couldn't make out everything said in the video, but I think "You're trying to tell us what's disrespectful to us? You're trying to tell a Native what's disrespectful to them?" sums it up.  

[Cobalt Stargazer]

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.

 

This is kind of an old post, but I'm home from work due to being sick and am watching All About Eve right now. The problem I have with Eve is that she's so damned doe-eyed all the time, like butter wouldn't melt in her mouth, when what she's really doing is throwing her supposed friend Margo under the bus eight ways from Sunday, and forcing Margo's other friend Karen to betray that friendship because she wants a part in a play just that much.

 

"A part in a play. You'd do all that just for a part in a play?"

"I'd do much more for a part that good."

 

I haven't seen King of Comedy in a while, and it kind of makes me want to re-watch it as a comparison. Would Eve be rootable if she was overtly psycho like Rupert, or like Lonesome Rhodes in A Face in the Crowd, which was made in the same era? I guess it depends if "much more" extends itself to kidnapping, etc, since she basically starts out as a stalker. If she came across as less sweet-faced, a viper pretending to be an ingenue, I would feel less satisfaction when

a new aspiring young starlet arrives on the scene and starts positioning herself to do to her what she did to Margo

, particularly since a running theme in the movie is that Margo is supposedly "too old" to play the roles she's been playing. Rupert was crazy, but Eve's supposedly sane fakery strikes me as worse because she too is determined to stick the knife in at the first opportunity. "My first friend in the theater", my butt.

[Julia]

This is kind of an old post, but I'm home from work due to being sick and am watching All About Eve right now. The problem I have with Eve is that she's so damned doe-eyed all the time, like butter wouldn't melt in her mouth, when what she's really doing is throwing her supposed friend Margo under the bus eight ways from Sunday, and forcing Margo's other friend Karen to betray that friendship because she wants a part in a play just that much.

She also wanted Margo's boyfriend and Karen's husband that much, but only as tools for her to use as a successful actress. And while I'm generally pretty impressed with this movie, I always boggle a little bit when Bill turns her down, not with "I'm with Margo, who's supposedly your friend" or apologizing to Margo for promoting someone who turned out to be just as little innocent as Margo said she was. Instead, he goes with Horrors! I am far too drenched in testosterone to be interested in a woman who comes right out and expresses interest instead of manipulating me into asking her out.

Lloyd, of course, doesn't turn her down at all, despite the fact that everyone he knows and loves and has reason to trust won't voluntarily be in the same room with her, so clearly Margo was absolutely right about his insight when it comes to women.

 

Would Eve be rootable if she was overtly psycho like Rupert, or like Lonesome Rhodes in A Face in the Crowd, which was made in the same era?

I think Lonesome Rhodes is a much better parallel. Rupert Popkin was untalented, delusional, and not very bright. Not that he deserved to get his dream of someone noticing him, but this was his only shot at ever getting it. He thoroughly expected to get punished for it, but he was that desperate that he didn't care. I don't think I'd call him rootable - It was more rubbernecking, in my case - but I think he was too delusional to form the intent to be downright evil.

 

Lonesome, like Eve, was genuinely talented, and smarter than practically anyone else around him, and he could have made it on his own. Hell, halfway through their movies, both of them already had more than they ever expected to get. But instead of settling for being rich, young, and talented, they kept lining up victims like bowling pins because there was more stuff they could have, and because they both seemed to take malicious pleasure in hurting people.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Julia

[Wiendish Fitch]

Fair points, everyone.

 

However, I must point out that Rupert is just as guilty of the same awful qualities as Eve (entitlement, greed, delusions of grandeur, determination to take the path of least resistance). He also fakes friendliness with Jerry Langford, not because he wants to be pals with his idol, but because he thinks Jerry will be a willing and eager stepping stone to fame and fortune. He has no qualms about muscling into Jerry's weekend home (that scene baffles me, because you'd think the security would be better), and, oh, yeah, taking him hostage at gunpoint and demanding a spot on his show. 

Yes, I know, the gun was fake, but this doesn't make Rupert's actions any better. 

 

So many things could have gone wrong; what if the situation caused Jerry to have a heart attack and die? It's not impossible, and Rupert would have been culpable for manslaughter if that had happened. What if a bunch inept/trigger happy cops located where Jerry was, and started shooting? What if Masha, who's just as whacko as Rupert, finally snapped and decided to kill Jerry just for shits and giggles?

 

On top of that, Rupert proved to be a pathological liar (I don't believe his stories about his abusive dad, or even that he's 34) and a basement dwelling burden on his poor mother, not to mention he isn't above badgering and intimidating people at Jerry's office, ignoring Jerry's sound advice about starting from the bottom, or kidnapping and terrorizing people to get what he wants. 

 

Rupert is just as phony, self-serving, and dangerous as Eve, and yet so many people defend him, saying he's just a "lovable loser, that "all he needs is a shot". There are even people who paint Jerry as the villain, saying he's just a paranoid jerk, even though I don't remember him doing a single thing wrong, and that he got to where he is through talent and hard work. I think Rupert is a creepy, horrible, deluded, untalented miscreant, but I will hand it to Scorcese; The King of Comedy is one of the most alarmingly prescient films ever made in regards to the parasitic fame-whores who clog today's popular culture.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I always boggle a little bit when Bill turns her down, not with "I'm with Margo, who's supposedly your friend" or apologizing to Margo for promoting someone who turned out to be just as little innocent as Margo said she was. Instead, he goes with Horrors! I am far too drenched in testosterone to be interested in a woman who comes right out and expresses interest instead of manipulating me into asking her out.

Lloyd, of course, doesn't turn her down at all, despite the fact that everyone he knows and loves and has reason to trust won't voluntarily be in the same room with her, so clearly Margo was absolutely right about his insight when it comes to women.

 

This is true, although its worth noting that ultimately its Addison who calls Eve out for what she actually is, a liar and a fraud, so not all of the men are clueless as to her real nature. Of course, Addison was just like her, a snake pretending to be a kitten, so that probably gave him an insight Lloyd and Bill lacked.

[Dejana]

ACLU calls for investigation of gender discrimination in directing:

 

Letters sent to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs cite statistical evidence revealing dramatic disparities in the hiring of women directors in television and big-budget films.

 

A USC study cited in the letters found that only 1.9% of directors of the top-grossing 100 films of 2013 and 2014 were women, and of the 1,300 top-grossing films from 2002-14, only 4.1% of the directors were women.

 

Earlier this year, a study by the Los Angeles Times found that the total number of major studio films directed by women has been stubbornly low over the last five years, hitting a high of 8.1% in 2010 and falling to a low of 4.6% last year.

 

More from female directors speaking out, as well as the lawsuit and its limitations:

 

If authorities ultimately determine that a pattern of discrimination exists, they could take legal action against the studios or seek to mediate a solution aimed at boosting the ranks of female directors.

 

But the complex process by which films get greenlighted and directors selected could make a legal solution problematic, said Russell Robinson, professor of law at UC Berkeley.

 

"There are a lot of parties involved in putting together a film," Robinson said. "If they do bring a lawsuit, one of the challenges of plaintiffs in court would be showing who's responsible for the hiring decision. The studios will do what's minimally necessary to avoid government scrutiny."

Edited May 14, 2015 by Dejana

[methodwriter85]

 

"Marvel. We know girls."

Edited May 14, 2015 by methodwriter85

[thuganomics85]

SIgh.... mainly good news, with a sprinkle of bad.  Good news is that Mad Max: Fury Road seems to be getting a generally positive response in the early reviews for how it portrays its women characters in the film.  But, of course (of course!), this is apparently leading to a bunch of MRA (ugh!) assholes bitching about how this is "pushing a feminist agenda."  Because, apparently, having your female characters fight against being made into sex slaves, having their own agendas and not just being damsels, and, gasp!  Daring to tell Max what to do at some points in the film is so, so horrible.

 

Now, I'm really hoping the critics are right that this film is good, and it makes a bunch of money, to make them all have collective meltdowns.  Besides that, only thing keeping myself from getting too pissed off is reminding myself that if they ever met, Charlize Theron would probably eat these "tough guys" for breakfast.

[BetterButter]

Shit People Say To Women Directors (& Other Women In Film)

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Now, I'm really hoping the critics are right that this film is good, and it makes a bunch of money, to make them all have collective meltdowns.  Besides that, only thing keeping myself from getting too pissed off is reminding myself that if they ever met, Charlize Theron would probably eat these "tough guys" for breakfast.

 

FWIW, I think both Charlize and Tom are gonna crush it in Fury Road, and I cannot wait until Friday when it opens here. And if it will help lower your blood pressure any, can I suggest that you consider the source? I know very little about the MRA, to the point that the first time I heard of them I misheard and thought they said NRA, which is perhaps not a coincidence. But as you say, they're assholes, and I would like to think that reasonable moviegoers don't care what they think.

[Joe]

I've seen Mad Max. It's good from that perspective, but not perfect.

It looked to me like your standard tough woman, bunch of vulnerable women, some of whom toughen up.

Of course, I may be missing something that women see.

[Julia]

I've seen Mad Max. It's good from that perspective, but not perfect.

It looked to me like your standard tough woman, bunch of vulnerable women, some of whom toughen up.

Of course, I may be missing something that women see.

Maybe just that

sadly, tough women in adventure movies aren't as standard as they ought to be. ;)

[Joe]

Good point, I hadn't thought about that. By those standards I would indeed say it's pretty good.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I've seen Mad Max. It's good from that perspective, but not perfect.

It looked to me like your standard tough woman, bunch of vulnerable women, some of whom toughen up.

Of course, I may be missing something that women see.

 

 

Maybe just that

sadly, tough women in adventure movies aren't as standard as they ought to be. ;)

 

So like Sarah Connor? Sarah was amazingly average when the first Terminator movie came out - "I can't even balance my checkbook!" - but she got past that.

[Joe]

Not quite.

We don't really see the pre-situations, more like when they start the toughening process.

But amazingly for an action movie, it passes the Bechdel test, if that's your thing.

[Trini]

Shit People Say To Women Directors (& Other Women In Film)

 

D-:

I had to stop reading so that I won't go to bed too depressed.

[blixie]

 

It's good from that perspective, but not perfect.

 

 

I agree that it's not perfect, but I disagree about the degree to which the non-Furiosa women in the film aren't "tough", what's great about the film is (yes it passes Bechdel, but not by much), there is an array in the demographics/degrees and importantly *qualities* of toughness on display (though to my great disappointment lacking real racial diversity). Furiosa is NOT a Strong Female Character trope, she is emotionally complex, and flawed, but still capable, determined and fierce. 

 

The larger issue is that the film trades in some gender essentialism, even with Furiosa at the crossroads of such essentialism. 

[ChelseaNH]

So, between Pitch Perfect 2 and Mad Max: Fury Road, it's feminism week at the movies.  Curious to see what the box office is like.

[Rick Kitchen]

Not to mention Far From the Madding Crowd opening to wide release.

[methodwriter85]

I would say I was shocked, but...

 

At 37, Maggie Gyllenhaal Was Told She Was Too Old to Play the Love Interest of A Man in His 50's

 

My guess is that it was Tom Cruise.

[AshleyN]

I've seen Mad Max. It's good from that perspective, but not perfect.

It looked to me like your standard tough woman, bunch of vulnerable women, some of whom toughen up.

Of course, I may be missing something that women see.

Oh man, I don't think I could disagree more. I saw it said elsewhere, but I felt like this movie is the antithesis of films that throw in one "kick-ass" woman and some banter about being tough and call themselves feminist.

 

For example, I don't know if Miller intended it this way or not, but the fact that what little plot there actually is revolves around a group of women who have been reduced to nothing more than sexual objects explicitly rejecting that notion and reclaiming their humanity could be read as a response to how women are treated not just in society in general, but in many action movies in particular. I also really liked that it avoided the all too common mistake of depicting women as either unstoppable warriors or helpless damsels. The Wives may not be warriors like Furiosa, but they'll jump in and contribute wherever they can 

whether it be jumping into the Max/Furiosa/Nox fight, Splendid physically putting her body in between Immortan Joe and Furiosa (one of my favourite shots in the movie), or that great sequence where EVERYONE is working together to get the rig moving again when it's stuck in the mud.

There are other examples too, but those are the ones that stood out to me, and taken together really gave the feeling that these women were playing an active role in their own "rescue". And of course 

their insistence on showing mercy and letting Nox live ends up playing a major role in their ultimate survival.

 

Anyways, this article makes some neat points about the different ways the movie plays with and subverts common examples of movie sexism. I particularly like this bit:

 

 

...the answer is obviously toxic masculinity — the idea that Real Men act a certain way, are violent and aggressive, and never, ever have “feminine” emotions. From the Rich White Men™ running Immorten Joe’s empire down to the disposable War Boys indoctrinated to think life only has meaning if they die in glory, Miller doesn’t shy away from showing how this mindset is destroying what is left of the world.

I really loved the subtext about how this sort of toxic masculinity is destructive and how it dehumanizes women and men alike.

 

I agree that it's not perfect, but I disagree about the degree to which the non-Furiosa women in the film aren't "tough", what's great about the film is (yes it passes Bechdel, but not by much), there is an array in the demographics/degrees and importantly *qualities* of toughness on display (though to my great disappointment lacking real racial diversity).

 

Yeah, that was my one real disappointment in a film that I otherwise loved unconditionally.

Edited May 22, 2015 by AshleyN