Seriously

[jmtorres]

I am not sure if it is merely symptomatic of film in America or society in general or if my professor's selections of movies to analyze for gender are skewed a particular way but jesus christ I would like to be able to write an essay about film without talking about rape.

Like, not even rape culture. Just specific incidences of rape or sexual assault.

What the fuck.

Comments

[copracat]

I used to be mad for the local film festival. Haven't been for the past few years because all the abuse of women got me down. Fancy. Maybe the new festival director will institute a change of theme?

[klia]

What films did he choose? I'm imagining all kinds of horrible stuff!

Honestly, I think it would be fantastic if you could write a paper incorporating your opinion of misogyny/sexism/male entitlement over women's bodies in American film, as well as your professor's skewed taste (and, how great would it be if you could point him to cereta's recent rant about rape and the resulting gazillion comments/discussions?). Because the last thing anyone needs is to have our existing rape culture validated in any way.

[jmtorres]

The one I had to write an essay on for my test last night was Out of Sight with George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez.

The horrible thing was it was presented to us as defying gender conventions for its genre.

[klia]

Hmm... well, it kind of does, at least for me. I think it was unusual, especially 11 years ago, to have a woman in the cop role. I should add that I'm a huge Soderbergh fan, though, so I'm definitely biased.

[niqaeli]

It may be a good movie: I cannot comment having not watched it myself. But as described to me, the movie has the male criminal anti-hero (George Clooney) chased by a female cop (Jennifer Lopez)? That is not defying gender conventions. It's about the man who is so fascinating/important/central that the woman's life and purpose is focused around him.

Which, uh, that's pretty much the standard gender convention.

[jmtorres]

One of the other films in the crime genre I cited was the 1968 Thomas Crown Affair. In which a woman investigator went after a male criminal.

I would feel differently about this if I thuoght either movie focused on the woman as the primary character, and not the man.

[klia]

Sadly, in the crime genre, there isn't much else; that there are female cops at all is why those films stand out. Even though there are a good number of female characters currently on crime TV shows, most are still written pretty stereotypically. There's just no getting away from it. Even female writers tend to write female characters that make me want to scream.

[jmtorres]

There's just no getting away from it.

That frankly bothers me as defeatist thinking. I realize that I have a unique perspective as a film production student wild dreams of you know, entering the industry and making some shows that are goddamn different in terms of gender and race and sexuality, I can see how most people wouldn't be in a position where they feel like it's something they can go into the industry and change--but you can still change it from the outside as a consumer. I think it's important to have these conversations, to tell the internets and Hollywood when we think something is misogynist shit, and then to vote with our money and our eyeballs.

[klia]

I do vote with my money and eyeballs. But look at the show Fox renewed (Dollhouse, which I found incredibly misogynistic and offensive, not to mention squick-inducing, especially the way they used Eliza Dushku's body to sell it) vs. the one they cancelled (T:TSCC, which actually had believable, non-stereotypical female characters who didn't rely on showing their boobs or seducing men to get things done). Titillation wins out because it draws (slightly) more of the network's coveted male audience.

Yes, I'm bitter. I'm the target demographic for soap operas, chick flicks (neither of which I particularly like), and little else.

OTOH, if I didn't still have hope, I'd never watch anything new. *shrug*

[jmtorres]

You're aware that part of Fox's choice was that the network owns Dollhouse but did not own T:SCC? That was why Dollhouse was more lucrative--for T:SCC, syndication & DVD rights were property of another company, which, *checks IMDB* looks like is under Warner Brothers. Fox was just first-run distribution, so their opportunities for profit on the show were not as high.

[klia]

Yes, I knew it wasn't a Fox-produced show. I guess, then, viewers shouldn't get emotionally invested in any show that's not produced by the network that airs it? And I should consider myself incredibly lucky that Burn Notice, a show I absolutely love, is doing well, despite being a Fox-produced show airing on USA, which is owned by NBC/Universal?

I know it's a business, but, as a viewer, I keep hoping these ingrained patterns will change, somehow.