Ok, 99% of the time, female characters in film piss me off. Perfect examples would include She’s The Man, Tomb Raider, and even Cinderella. Why does Amanda Bynes have to play the final soccer game with her hair down? No one plays soccer with their hair down. Why does Angelina Jolie have to be wearing a tight tanktop and pants in order to defeat evil? I don’t know about the other girls in the class, but if I knew I was going to be battling zombies, I’d choose a sports bra and leave my Victoria Secret Push-Up for another time. Why is the entire point of Cinderella have to revolve around her ending up with a man that she has literally known for three hours?

After reading the articles for class the other day, I think the author has a good starting point for the fundamental building blocks of female characters in film. The dominatrix, rape avenger, mother, daughter, or amazon. While I do agree that these are a good starting point, I don’t think it is possible for a female character to fall under only one category. Furthermore is something that disturbs me even more. How sad is it that after all the years of making movies, it is still near possible to place every female character into only 5 different categories?

Unfortunately I had to miss class today, and I was very sad about it because I had a lot to say about the critical reviews of ‘The Help’ we watched.

‘The Help’ of course takes place in a historically tragic time for African Americans. Black maids during this period suffered great brutality, and that in no way should be forgotten/underplayed. Many maids at the time suffered physical abuse, rape, and were even killed. This is historical fact. However, as Mimi pointed out in her post, what about the maids who weren’t?

Looking back on history we tend to accentuate the obvious traumas of the time, and for good reason. However, what were the lives of maids like who were in the middle ground? Who certainly weren’t experiencing the worst that racial discrimination had to offer at the time, but at the same time were not technically being treated fairly either? These maids did exist. Their stories are far from picture perfect, and yet are not catastrophic. The lives of Aibleen and Minny are lives of backhanded discrimination and degradation. Should these lesser stories not be told?

Many are offended by ‘The Help’ being ahistorical, but I am offended by those who call ‘The Help’ ahistorical. A major danger in fiction is claiming that “the part” must represent “the whole.” For example, Lena Dunham has often been criticized for her HBO television show, “Girls.” People are offended, saying that she is making a huge generalization about young, single girls in NY and is depicting this lifestyle in a certain way. I thought her answer to these critiques was flawless. She said, “No… I am not trying to represent the lives of women in New York, I am telling the stories of these four characters.” There is a major difference.  These are the stories of Aibleen. Skeeter. Minny. Celia. Hilly…. not every married white woman and suffering black maid during the Civil Rights Era in Mississippi.

Quentin Tarantino is the master of the revenge-fantasy. The amount of backlash he receives from his films is arguably more then any other director has faced in history. However, has the man ever claimed that Inglourious Basterds is an accurate representation of World War II? I believe to my core that it is possible for us, as viewers, to lose ourselves in the freedoms of fiction while still remembering the historical realities of the time period these pieces take place in. Maybe Minny would have received a far more severe punishment for her shit pie, but its damn good watching her feed it to Hilly, right?

Can the realities of history and the fantasies of fiction be mixed? Is it allowed?

http://music-mix.ew.com/2013/10/02/sinead-oconnor-miley-cyrus-open-letter/

Letter from Sinead O’Connor to Miley Cyrus over the Wrecking Ball video controversy (for those who didn’t read)

When it was announced in class that we were watching The Help I let out a tiresome sigh. After being exposed to outside reviews did I understand why I sighed. I didn’t take Oprah’s advice to read the book but I’ve seen the feel-good movie before and I shrugged at the simple warm and fuzzy feeling it gave to see the bad guy get what was coming to them. But looking at this movie as a serious piece of text warrants a completely different opinion of the movie. The video we saw in class of the fervent disapproval of the film made me stop and really think about what I had just consumed. This feel-good film arguably strips all female characters as makers of meaning. The narrative is central around our white savior who helps the help get her voice heard through their struggle. Regardless of Skeeter’s intent or emotions this was her ticket, exploit the exploited to get to the next tier.

The poem that was posted, A Black Woman Speaks of White Womanhood, I believe is what The Help wanted to be representative of. But with certain “artistic liberties” or even fear of truly representing the strife of the time the film has become more of a mockery than anything.

Some argue that The Help underplays the civil rights era.  That was more than apparent after watching the movie review clip at the end of class last Thursday.  But unfortunately evil comes in more types than just horrific brutality the jim crow era is known for.  We do not see any lynchings in The Help, but we see the destruction of lives through mental games and higherarchy of the female social construct that was essentially law.  A construct where Regina George of Mean Girls looks kind or where ostracization and manipulation is a crowd favorite.  The Help shows that where a white man had the power to get up and shoot someone, the white woman had the power to ensure a black person could never get another job again, leaving them with nothing but the responsibility for a family they must still provide for, and a side of shame and belittlement.

I know that this is very different from the cruelty that the female critic (blanking on her name sorry folks), but cruelness is cruelness no mater what description entails, and The Help shows one of the many sides of cruel that was very apparent during this time period.

As I said in class, I actually just finished reading the help. I usually hate reading books after I see the movie (I’ve seen the help before this class) because the movie is never as good as the book, but I heard that the book and movie were very similar when it came to The Help.

Overall, the movie follows the book rather well.  Tate Taylor, the dirctor of the film, is a friend of Kathryn Stockett, the author of the book, and Stockett helped on the screenplay before production began as well.  Overall to me, there were two things that were apparently different between the book and the film.  The first being that the violence was toned down a bit in the film, in order to make it more of a PG film according to IMDB.  The other difference that was changed from the book to the movie that is worth mentioning is part of the ending of the film.  Don’t worry, the Mae Mobley and Aibleen goodbye scene is just as heart wrenching in the book.  But in the book when Skeeter goes off to New York, the paper she works for before actually gives the Miss Myrna column to Aibileen.  This is something I’m not sure why they cut from the film, especially because this tidbit of information would have given the audience more closure with Aibileen’s character, but then again, closure is a debatable word in this situation due to the time period.

In response to the video we watched on Friday’s class, I think that  it is interesting that this woman from the video is so concerned with the notion that a privileged white woman had to speak for the black women, but can she not understand that although this might be offensive/oppressive, it makes a statement about the oppression that black women faced at the given period of time this film was set in. And yes, the other types of violence in the film were also underrepresented But can she not understand that this is a film and that for the length that it was there wasn’t much time to explore all types of racial oppression. The screenplay was obviously written in such a way to tell ONE story, not all of them. (I’m not saying that those other stories/issues are not important, but I think it’s ridiculous that she would expect one movie to capture every instance of violent racial oppression)

I can see how certain stereotypes came into play in this film. But she doesn’t understand that this is a film based on historical figures/events. The screenwriter and director had to embrace the fact that maybe certain things that we consider offensive stereotypes now, were normal things to be talked about at that given point in time. I think it would be ridiculous to expect that something like that would be completely overlooked when trying to write a historically accurate screenplay. (I’m not trying to reinforce those stereotypes, but I’m noting that those things are hard to avoid when diving into another period of time.)

Also, I think it is important to understand that because feminism has become such a loaded term, I don’t think it is fair to just have a feminist reading of a film. There needs to a set definition of how the analysis will be produced. Are we looking at gender? Are we looking at race? What are the socioeconomic condititons at the time of this film in which the content is based? And how that be applied to the way we will critique the film now?

So it is not fair to just look at a film based on one type of “feminism” but rather look at the film with an appreciation for the fluidity of the term feminism, not only now, but also how it has changed over time. (For example, Did black feminism exist at the time this film was based? If not, why would it be assumed that such principals would be included in that film?)

The reason that I bring up the multitude of definitions of feminism is because this video made me think back to the first day of class when we went around the room and shared our own definition of feminism. An experience like that shows how that word can be defined differently. And those different definitions can also shape the way that we apply those principals to film analysis. Although it might be hard to come to one solid definition of feminism, I think that when you approach a film from a feminist analysis it is important to consider how this term can be defined so differently in the analysis you create.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/22/emma-watson-recruits-men-to-make-the-world-safer-for-women-with-heforshe-campaign/

Emma Watson recently gave a speech at the UN regarding a new initiative called HeForShe. She brings to attention the many misconceptions behind feminism and how it is all too often associated with  “man-hating.” She speaks to how feminism is by definition “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.”

She makes some great points regarding gender equality for both women and men. Theres a 15min video, which I think is definitely worth the time to watch, and the article nicely summarizes her speech.

http://afrolez.tumblr.com/post/7967989547/a-black-woman-speaks-of-white-womanhood-by-beah

As I have been working on the final draft of our assignment, I kept coming back to the idea of femme fatale and how she is the downfall for the male character. What I keep wondering is why can’t the male character just leave her alone to begin with? In The Last Seduction (Dahl, 1994), Bridget turns Mike down several times, but he keeps pursuing her. She eventually goes home with him and then continues to use him throughout the film until she ruins his life at the end. All of this could have been avoided if he would have just respected her initial rejection. She never asked him to pursue her; he could have just left her alone right from the start. Is this a flaw in our society where some guys are taught that they can eventually turn a no into a yes?

I couldn’t figure out what the allure was to these dangerous women that eventually led to male character’s demise. In Women in Film Noir by Janey Place, she said, “Self-interest over devotion to a man is often the original sin of the film noir woman and metaphor for the treat her sexuality represents to him.” (p. 47).   I assume this can be applied to femme fatale woman. Is her overt sexuality what draws him in? Does her self-interest make him continue to pursue her with the hope she might conform to society norms and make her devotion to him?  Why can’t he just let her be?

Rikki Schubart’s “Female Heroes in an Age of Ambivalence” discusses the grey area female action heroes occupy in feminist critiques of film. To Schubart, these action heroes is undeniably the result of feminist critique,  yet they also enforce anti-feminist messages.

The essay makes a distinction between male and female films. Male films are movies that not only designed by men for men, but also portray a role model for masculinity. In male films, such as action or horror movies, the male protagonist is often a lone hero who must work against a evil or corrupt system, usually by using violence.This is in contrast to female films, such as romantic comedies and melodramas, where the female protagonist must learn her place as being fundamentally a part of a society, whether it be as a wife or a mother. These films reinforce gender roles by categorizing men as independent heroes, while women are bond to the men on their lives.

When female heroes were initially introduced to film, they served to highlighting how women are capable of acting beyond prescribed gender roles, and how society punishes women for not conforming to those same roles. They would often take up an action with some degree of success, they would also be brought low for failing to find love or create a family. Today, while these kinds of stories still exist, the female action heroes are now also allowed to gain independence without being punished. While these characters still act as sex symbols, they can now operate, at least somewhat, as individuals.

Critics have had issues with trying to figure out how to interpret female action heroes. This leads to a discussion in the essay about feminists versus postfeminist critiques of films, and I’ll admit that this was the hardest section for me to comprehend. My understanding is this: feminists film critics treat the genders of characters as absolutes. To feminist film critics, a character is representative of either a male or female identity. Postfeminist film critics, on the other hand, treat identity as a more fluid structure. Characters are able to switch between more masculine and feminine ways of being, or to even hold two contradictory gender identities. Thus, when female action heroes first appear, feminist critics rejected them. These critics said that they were either cross-dressers, meaning they essentially male characters in a woman’s body, or masquerades, meaning they were women characters acting like men to be accepted. Postfeminists, on the other hand, accepted these heroes as demonstrating that identity was not set in stone, and that women could have both masculine and feminine aspects to their character. More recently, feminists have become accepting of these characters as trangressive, though though they are wary of the way in which these characters still uphold patriarchal standards of objectification and feminine beauty.

The essay then lists the five most common version of the female hero. These are as follows:

• The Dominatrix- The dominatrix is a woman who punishes masochistic men for their pleasure.  Since she is doing this for the men’s sexual pleasure, she is not really considered cruel, nor is the man considered an actual victim of violence. In general this archetype is never a fully embodied because it is too pornographic, but is instead occasionally employed as a masquerade by female characters.
• The Rape-Avenger- The rape-avenger is a woman who punishes and kills the man or men that raped her. The essay notes that this is a kind of a reversal of the rape victim archetype. While the rape victim archetype was used to reinforce women’s place in feminine roles by making her a passive victim that the men must avenge, the rape-avenger has the woman become an active hero because of her rape. The rape-avenger is usually mousy and sexless initially, but after her rape she uses both “feminine” tactics, like the use of cocktail dresses and flirting, and “male” tactics like threats and violence to kill her rapist(s).
• The Mother- The mother tries to juggle her masculine action treat with her more feminine and motherly lifestyle. This character usually has three states; as the good mother, where she is the traditional domestic and caring parent; as the bad mother, where she tries to go beyond her home and into a more masculine sphere, and ends up hurting her family as a result; and as the integrated mother, where she take what she has learned from the masculine sphere and uses it to help with becoming a better mother.
• The Daughter- In order to explain how a woman can exist within a more masculine world, the daughter archetype has the women learn how to manage from their father or from a father figure. For the daughter archetype, the “badass” persona they have a masquerade that is taught to them by their father figure. These characters are essentially feminine, but they can be taught to be more masculine by the men. The archetype is also has shades of prostitution to it, as the woman is usually taught  so that she may go on adventures that will benefit her father figure.
• The Amazon- The amazon is warrior woman who acts independently of men. This archetype takes two forms- “good” and “bad”. “Good” Amazons young, beautiful, and heterosexual, and are usually one lone woman, rather than a society of women. They more or less in favor of the patriarchy, sometimes acting for their own interests, but  also sometimes operating for the good of a system, too. “Bad” Amazons wish to destroy patriarchy and act completely within their own self-interests. “Bad” Amazon are usually a generation older than the other women in the film, and they are often lesbians or bisexuals. Amazons are usually consider androgynous because of how they straddle male and female sex roles, yet there is usually a huge focus on sexualizing the Amazon’s body for the male gaze.

What Schubart emphasizes in this essay is that there is no definite answer to whether these characters are effective feminist role models. While they almost all have some commendable to them, all of these character also play into antifeminist understandings of gender.

Questions:

• How do the characters we’ve seen in our class, such as Bridget from The Last Seduction or even Helen from Blonde Venus, fit into this discussion? What archetypes, if any, do you think they fit, and how do you think they conform to and contradict feminist ideals?
• How do more contemporary female action heroes fit? How in ways to characters like Katnis from The Hunger Games, Black Widow from the Marvel movies, or Maleficent from the movie of the same name show ambivalent attitudes toward feminist ideals?