Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Ron Ashton, RIP Previous entry: Birthdays Was The Worst Days

Men and women are different, in that their opportunities are different

FeminismMovies

Man, we really are all Hollywood today.

Twice in one day, I read or heard someone suggesting that it’s weird and outdated for the Golden Globes, Oscars, and other awards like that to break up the acting awards by gender.  They idly wondered why the separate categories on Overthinking It podcast and then I saw Sybil at Bitch, PhD post about it.  Sybil’s points summarize the issue nicely:

Is it not so strange that all the awards shows for non-music, that is, all the completely performance based awards (because at least in theory things like Best Album are about writing) segregate the actual performance awards by gender? Not Best Screenplay by a Man or Best Cinematography by a Woman, but always and across the board Best Supporting Actress and Best Actor. What’s the deal with that?

It’s all about the performance aspect, no? The writing and directing and score and costuming awards we can think of as awarding a discreet skill. But performativity, as I figure it, is so inextricably linked to gender that we cant think of ways to compare performances across those lines. I admit it’s hard for me to conceive, because of conditioning, of the nominees being Meryl Streep, Brad Pitt, Kate Winslet, and Mickey Rourke. And if such a thing ever were the case, wouldn’t it be fascinating to see how the gender allocation of award winners broke down? How else to make clear the relative dearth of choice roles for women?


They had similar questions on Overthinking It—-by separating the genders, are we saying there’s something fundamentally different in the way men and women act?  I don’t think that’s true now, nor do I think that was really the reason they created the categories in the first place.  I think the real reason was that it was understood when they created these awards that due to the sexism of the industry, women would almost never get nominated or win in a non-gendered category, which meant that the stream of people accepting awards on stage would be nothing but men.  This conflicts directly with the Hollywood need to have female movie stars.  If the only movie stars were male, that would put a wrench in the tabloid/paparazzi system that has, since the beginning of Hollywood, been a major form of marketing the Hollywood product. Our society respects men more, but we like to stare at women more.  In most areas of life, there’s no conflict between the two—-most women learn early on how often we’re expected to be seen and not heard—-but, as Sybil indicates, actors are about being seen as much as heard.  This, I think, was the original reason, but in the years since it’s become the only way that the many talented but under-utilized actresses of Hollywood even have a chance of getting that recognized with awards.

I disagree with Sybil on one issue.  Combining the categories would highlight squat.  The annual scrambling for enough nominees to fill the slots for the actress categories doesn’t drive home the message that there aren’t enough parts for women.  The fact that Kate Winslet won for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress at the Golden Globes won’t wake people up to the fact that Kate Winslet is one of the few women who gets good roles.  (She deserves them, too, but she gets them all because there aren’t that many.)  In all honesty, if they combined the two, I think that the nominating committees would be relieved that they don’t even have to pay attention to women anymore.  They’d feel like they have blanket permission to nominate mostly or only men.  Actresses like Winslet or Meryl Streep would routinely turn in the best performances of the year without ever seeing an award, because there’s such a stereotype that women are there mostly for eye candy. 

Worse, I think the few meaty roles that go out to women now are largely the result not of some deep respect for women from the studios, but from the studios deep desire to advertise their movies with the number of Oscars on the cover.  Without a Best Actress category to shoot for, the few good roles for women, especially anything that puts older women in roles other than “suffering mother”, would probably dry right up.  Men dominate as directors and writers, and so the tendency is to write parts for women based on how much you’d want to fuck them,* and also to write women who are primarily defined through their relationships to men.  TV is getting a little better about this problem.  Fans like myself who want to see female characters who are defined as themselves, not by their relationships, get to see shows like “Battlestar Galactica”, “30 Rock”, and “Ugly Betty”, where women get to be more fully realized characters.  Even “Mad Men”, which is largely about how women were forced to define themselves through men in the 60s, has a character who is busy defining herself as an independent woman with a creative career.  I can’t help but think award shows have pushed us into this direction, amongst other things.  Actresses play characters that are more than The Girlfriend, The Mother, or The Wife, and then those actresses are covered in awards (because playing fully realized characters is what you get awards for), and then they get magazine covers and therefore ratings.  Really, it shows that the much-maligned quota system works—-by making sure that 5 actresses a year get nominated, you make space for 5 actresses who fully deserve it to get the attention that they otherwise wouldn’t get due to the sexist system.

*This tendency makes reading or listening to film criticism, which is male-dominated as well, hard on me sometimes.  I just wish these men would try, just once, to reverse the genders on how they describe actors and actresses, and praise men’s acting by talking about how beautiful and luminous they were, and talk about women strictly in terms of performance. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 12:56 PM • (70) Comments

There are so many more problems in the world that we could focus on and discuss such as the militarization of Africa, starvation of millions, etc.

Get with the 21st century where the differeces between mens’ and womens’ rights are so miniscule that one must go to a ‘feminist’ blog and hear a rant about awards ceremonies and how awful they are for separating perfomance by gender.

Oh, the humanity!

Comment #1: papertiger  on  01/18  at  01:07 PM

Great reading comprehension you’ve got there, papertiger.

Comment #2: LynstHolin  on  01/18  at  01:14 PM

You’re right, papertiger.  I’m assuming that your attempts to stop genocide by staring passively at the problem focus so much of your time that you refuse to sleep.  If you just stare harder, you will fix it!

Comment #3: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/18  at  01:18 PM

Pop quiz: What’s a million times more base and shallow than writing posts about sexism and acting awards?

Answer: Exploiting the tragedies of others in order to indulge a baffling grudge you have against a popular blog.  Using the deaths of strangers to puff up your own ego.

Comment #4: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/18  at  01:27 PM

Because the awards for actors help make stars, there are more stars if there are more star awards.  Separating by sex makes for more awards, and that’s why the sexism is a feature not a bug. There are no Best Assistant Director or Secondary Photography Cinematography categories either, which probably leaves out some talented women who could otherwise get recognition.  And as soon as Hollywood cared, those supporting players would probably be on stage accepting a paperweight of their own.

Men and women both sing, dance, act, perform athletics, and so on.  And award shows to determine the best are never going to make everyone happy.  I think there’s much to criticize when there’s an artificial wall put up between men and women, but I also think it’s kind of trivial when questions of who’s best are pretty much subjective anyhow.

When women play interesting roles, they get attention.  Kate Winslet picks out interesting roles, married a director, gets her choice of roles, has chosen wisely, and is willing to play the Hollywood game even when she for all appearances isn’t.  I don’t think she’s any more or less calculating than any other actor or actress, but she’s smart with her career.  She plays Hollywood, not the other way around.  Even the fact that she’s naked quite often hasn’t hurt her because she’s chosen roles where being naked was something natural to the part rather than a shocking thing that she later bullshit-pretended to be ashamed of (yeah, I’m talking about you, Ms. Stone.)

Comment #5: jon  on  01/18  at  01:28 PM

Why oh why is so often the first post a concern troll? (or just an outright troll?)

I highly suspect that a large part of this is a sort of conservatism and traditionalism in the movie industry that continues to this day. In the strict Studio days, movies were much more vehicles for the stars than they are even today. And in this case, the movies were made and written to “show them off” thusly you get the attitudes towards acting that you have today. It’s changed a little bit for men, but it hasn’t changed at all for women.

Then along the same lines, you get things like the academy awards and movie critics who still revere those old style movies, and thusly bring those attitudes along to new movies. Personally, for the most part I think they were two-dimensional and their photography can’t compare to the movies of today. They did not hold up. At all. But that’s just me.

Comment #6: Karmakin  on  01/18  at  01:29 PM

Remember that scene in the Howard Stern movie where they said fans listened on average for an hour but people who hated him listened for two?  That’s why the first posts are so often trolls, I think.

Comment #7: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/18  at  01:34 PM

This tendency makes reading or listening to film criticism, which is male-dominated as well, hard on me sometimes.

Sing it, sister.  What the fuck was Roger Ebert thinking annointing Rich Roeper?

I figure in person Roeper must be charismatic, b/c all the male reporters at the Sun-Times just gush over how cool he is.  When I first moved here, I enjoyed his column and thought it was cool that someone just slightly older than I am had a daily column.

Unfortunately, Roeper is still writing exactly like a 24 year old frat boy.  Since he’s in his 40s, it’s creepy…he is the personification of male priviledge and he rarely ‘gets’ it, but he often attacks female celebrities.

As for the movies, he knows nothing.  It’s the BMOC frat boy review, which practically makes him my anti-reviewer.  Ebert could have picked a woman, or even a man who actually had some experience reviewing movies, but no, he picked BMOC Roeper, and the show he co-created is now unwatchable.  Not as bad as Medved’s, but useless for anything but extended trailers.

It also made Roeper fabulously wealthy, which has put him farther out of touch with the real world most of us live in, though he still writes as if his experiences are the ‘common wisdom’.

Kate Winslet picks out interesting roles, married a director, gets her choice of roles, has chosen wisely, and is willing to play the Hollywood game even when she for all appearances isn’t.

Yep, she got the nose job, bleaches her hair, and is posing ‘artfully nude’ in Vanity Fair again.  She can now be allowed to play a dramatic role with a complex character, since she’s shown she’s just a fuck toy in “real life”.  As long as she’s available as a masturbatory aid at some point, the men in charge of the studios will toss her a bone.  Literally.  Because it’s fun to pretend you’re fucking someone who’s too respectable to fuck you.

But of course, she really would.  She’s posing under that fur for you and you alone.

——-
Amanda, why don’t you write about what paper tiger wants you to write about?


Oh…it’s *your* blog, not its?  Maybe you should take it on as a consultant then, since, you know, no one’s going to read Pandagon if you don’t post about serious topics.

Comment #8: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  01/18  at  01:47 PM

I think Roeper was picked to be the other for Ebert’s more high-mindedness.  Ebert is awesome, but even he falls into the trap of judging actresses by their looks and actors by their skills.  I appreciate that a lot of the pleasure of movies is looking at how beautiful they are, but to hear male critics speak it, the only beauty worth gazing at is female beauty.  It’s degrading, even though I doubt they intend it to be.

Comment #9: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/18  at  01:52 PM

It would be nice if the yin and yang teams of critics ventured beyond arty critic/mainstream critic who both buy 100% into sexist assumptions that drive Hollywood and maybe diversified into, gosh, how about male critic/female critic?

Comment #10: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/18  at  01:53 PM

I’m 61 years old and I have been watching movies ever since I can remember.  Movies often have an agenda and quite often that agenda especially in big money movies is the enforcement of some pretty right wing conservative values. 

Clint Eastwood’s “Outlaw Josey Wales” was being shown repeatedly last night and I paused for a snippet and realized that almost all movies about the Civil War glorify the Confederacy and vilify the Union.

If we look at gender as performative we could classify as best actor in a male role or best actor in a female role thereby placing the role in “The Crying Game” in the female category and the role in “Boys Don’t Cry” in the male.

Thinking like that would probably be too complex for those brainwashed into numb consumerist complacency by a media that is selling a mindset like it sells sports shoes and designer labels.

I have been watching 1960s and 70s films lately, made before CGI took over everything.  Last night we watched the restored “Godfather”.  It was like eating a carefully prepared real meal after years of fast food garbage.  Violent yet not the comic book violence that dominates today.

One thing about movies from the pre-Reagan era is that they had a lot more women in them and they were a lot more individualized.

Eliminating best actress wouldn’t be an act of equality at this point it would instead be an act of complete erasure of women being seen of any value in a film making landscape where one can see entire movies with out a single woman of any substance in any role what so ever.

Comment #11: SuzyQ  on  01/18  at  01:57 PM

Men dominate as directors and writers, and so the tendency is to write parts for women based on how much you’d want to fuck them,* and also to write women who are primarily defined through their relationships to men.

Hmm. A lot of films are centred around a (straight) relationship, which nominally suggests equality.  In practice, of course, that may fall into the male Agent and the female Object Of Desire.

The performance that gave me the best lesson in how good acting could be was Naomi Watts in “Mulholland Drive”.

Amanda, do you think the situation re female roles in movies has changed over time, and what trends are you seeing?

Comment #12: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  01/18  at  02:33 PM

I should know this history down pat and I don’t…

But in British drama the “Dramatis Personae” lists switch to separate rubrics for “Men” and “Women” fairly rapidly after the end of the cross-dressed era.  Female stars have been being classed together and treated differently for roughly 350 years in the English-speaking world.  I don’t remember ever reading accounts comparing the talents of male stars to those of female stars, only male to male and female to female.  The studio system amplifies the phenomenon and capitalizes on it in various ways, but it’s a longstanding practice in its own right.

Comment #13: FlipYrWhig  on  01/18  at  02:48 PM

“It would be nice if the yin and yang teams of critics ventured beyond arty critic/mainstream critic who both buy 100% into sexist assumptions that drive Hollywood and maybe diversified into, gosh, how about male critic/female critic? “

But Amanda, don’t you know that ever pointing out the sex or gender of people in the movies is sexist? 

/sarcasm

I had to explain why I try not to watch movies with mostly male characters and watch/promote movies with women in leading roles to some friends of mine as they kept insisting that I was sexist for doing that.  Of course, if your idea was left to the mainstream media, we would get some kind of Hannity/Colmes combination, no matter how good the female critic’s reviews were.

Comment #14: Ursula  on  01/18  at  02:49 PM

I’m assuming that your attempts to stop genocide by staring passively at the problem focus so much of your time that you refuse to sleep.

Or, you could squander your opportunity as a public voice….as you do…and blather on about some relatively unimportant “feminist” issue about an award ceremony and how evil it is.

This is why this blog is not taken seriously

Comment #15: papertiger  on  01/18  at  02:51 PM

And why “papertiger” IS taken seriously.

It all makes sense now.

Seriously.

Comment #16: dr ngo  on  01/18  at  02:57 PM

This is why this blog is not taken seriously

Ah, the faux-power of the passive voice. I love it.

Comment #17: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  01/18  at  02:58 PM

Great!

Why not argue your point that the way the ceremony awards for perfomance artists is an important issue?

Go ahead…we’re all listening

Comment #18: papertiger  on  01/18  at  03:05 PM

Why does Amanda stray so far from her hectoring-activist roots?  Remember Mousewords, anyone?  Nothing but impassioned pleas for the most heart-wrenching of topics.  Then Jesse brings here onto Pandagon and she goes straight to hell.  I’m sad for her: being taken seriously by an anonymous internet commenter and his imaginary demographic is the greatest reward a blogger can hope for, and Amanda just ruined it for herself.

Comment #19: Kyso K  on  01/18  at  03:10 PM

Today’s koan: if a paper tiger screams into my killfile, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Comment #20: cyrano  on  01/18  at  03:17 PM

Amanda, do you think the situation re female roles in movies has changed over time, and what trends are you seeing?

Not so much.  I think that it’s assumed by Hollywood that men make most of the movie-going decisions.  On TV, they can experiment a little, because they assume that women make more of the TV watching decisions.

Papertiger, I’m not going to.  But I will point out once again that you’re a base, sick person to use the tragedies of others in order to self-aggrandize and work out a very petty and baffling grudge.

Comment #21: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/18  at  03:40 PM

Or, you could squander your opportunity as a public voice….

You seem to be under the incorrect impression that “public voice” is something that’s handed out by a lottery.  Perhaps, you know, people read the blog not because it’s mandatory, but because they want to?  And maybe it’s because they like what I write about and how I write it?  I love concern trolls—-you have this voice you earned by writing about X.  Now stop writing about X and surely your audience will stay exactly the same as it was!

Now, quit thread-jacking.  This blog isn’t about how papertiger is more moral than everyone else because papertiger is more willing to exploit the tragedies of others.

Comment #22: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/18  at  03:43 PM

Papertiger is one with the tradition of (het male) commenters (alive and well on progressive blogs like Dailykos) who scream at any notice taken of an issue that involves women or gays, that there’s OTHER STUFF MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, WHICH MUST BE ADDRESSED FIRST, BEFORE WOMEN AND GAYS! AND YOU’RE STUPID, UNCARING, UNSERIOUS UNLESS YOU IGNORE THE WOMEN AND GAYS AND THEIR STUPID, BAD, SILLY LIVES AND CONCERNS!

In other words, women and GBLT are the bottom of the heap, everything and everyone else is more important, and society can’t chew gum and walk at the same time.

Can’t tell you how many times I read a comment on Kos that abortion and gay rights would sink any Democratic candidate, were “losing issues” for Democrats, and by merely murmuring those words we were scuttling the Democrats.

Until, of course, Obama won with progressive platforms on both. Now the het concern trolls are wandering in the wilderness, scratching for a topic and reduced to commenting on award ceremonies.

Comment #23: judy brown  on  01/18  at  03:54 PM

This blog isn’t about how ...

This blog is obviously about AMANDA MARCOTTE.

Comment #24: papertiger  on  01/18  at  03:56 PM

The problem is, THIS BLOG ISN’T ABOUT PAPERTIGER, whoever in the hell he might be.

Comment #25: judy brown  on  01/18  at  03:58 PM

Oh, and in case I forgot to mention, het male concern trolls with their BIG ISSUES MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LIVES OF WOMEN AND GAYS are simply, of course, BIGOTS.

Just using the scrim of BIG ISSUES to hide behind.

Otherwise they’d be too busy out DOING SOMETHING about the BIG ISSUES to have the time to chide those writing and commenting on completely unrelated issues.

Comment #26: judy brown  on  01/18  at  04:07 PM

papertiger,

This blog is about serious topics.  Rape, Devo, sexism, Battlestar Gallactica, gay rights, torture, men, women, children, education, public planning, pubic planning, and dildos all get talked about here.  When you say “Shut up and get serious!” the best thing to do is shut up yourself and wait a posting or two.  Or maybe you just meant “Shut up!” in which case I for one think you should just go away.

I know you probably think you’re pretty fucking clever to realize that this blog is about AMANDA MARCOTTE!!!  I realized that after about two or three posts, and that’s why I keep coming back.  I just so happen to appreciate AMANDA! and what she brings.  And although I did hear she’s one of them woman things I once got warned about, I promised myself I wouldn’t go all gay and shit because I got exposed to some wily jezebel’s opinions she done stole from some college.

Comment #27: jon  on  01/18  at  04:15 PM

Why not argue your point that the way the ceremony awards for perfomance artists is an important issue?

Concern troll iz concerned…

Comment #28: atheist  on  01/18  at  04:38 PM

I’d rather read what Amanda has to say on anything, rather than have to avert my eyes while papertiger and his ilk beat themselves off again in front of everybody.  Why avert my eyes?  First, because the meat being beat is pretty darned teeny (infinitesimal), and second, rank smelly spooge isn’t any fun for anybody.

Keep up the good work Amanda!

Comment #29: dejah thoris  on  01/18  at  04:52 PM

This blog is obviously about AMANDA MARCOTTE.

Heh, well, it is about whatever she, among the other contributors, wants to write about it. I’m sorry, did you think this was scoring a point? I like reading most of what Amanda writes. Some posts don’t interest me - apparently, she has interests that I do not, funny that - but it’s all good stuff. A lot of it (like this) is important. There are a lot of issues out there, and everyone needs to have a focal point. Funny, there doesn’t seem to be a shortage of people trying to do something about the problems in the world.

There’s a lot of blogging out there on your “real issues.” If you REALLY want to find out what you can do about world hunger, war in Africa or whatever, I suggest that you go find that material, read the hell out of it and then go do something about it. Of course, we both know that you don’t actually have any particularly compelling interest in these issues, or you’d already understand that individuals find different callings for their activism and passion, you’d be off trying to actually do something about hunger, and you wouldn’t be here with this pathetic banging of your drum because Amanda focuses her energy on issues that necessarily insist that the lives and work of women actually matter. So take a hike, why don’t you?

Comment #30: grolby  on  01/18  at  05:08 PM

Good roles for women in Hollywood declined precipitously after 1977.  Ever since the enormous success of the “Star Wars” movies, studios have relied on big-budget blockbusters aimed at the all-important young-male demographic to keep the money rolling in.  Investors and stockholders like the blockbusters because they provide impressive opening-weekend numbers, and backing movies that open big and often quickly fizzle out after a few weekends is a great way to wring every last cent out of movie theaters, since the theaters have to keep ordering new films.

One of the many unpleasant side effects of this system is that good women’s roles are limited by the dominance of “guy movies” and actresses are marginalized.  It used to be common for studios to put out “women’s pictures”; it was good business, since women went to the movies more than men.  Now, every few years, someone will make a “Sex and the City” or “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”—or, hell, “Titanic,” one of the biggest-grossing movies of all time—and everyone in Hollywood will act shocked that it’s a success.

Comment #31: Shaenon  on  01/18  at  05:10 PM

Cultural institutions like the Oscars aren’t important, which is why only 40 million people watch them. Telling and listening to stories isn’t important, which is why it’s only the way people spend the overwhelming majority of their leisure time.

Of course Paper would be tearing his hair out and screeching from the highest rooftop if they ever stopped producing all the movies that catered to his homophobic, misogynistic worldview.

Comment #32: dan  on  01/18  at  05:11 PM

Where’s papertiger’s blog, I wonder, where he does talk about all this important serious stuff?

Comment #33: BlackBloc  on  01/18  at  05:38 PM

Shaenon,

I don’t think blockbusters moved women out of the way.  There was a glut of woman-free films in whatever golden age of cinema the anti-blockbuster people wish to point to.  Westerns weren’t exactly the place to go to see a consistent array of dynamic female roles, nor were war movies, pre-Star Wars science fiction, gangster films, Tarzan movies, historical epics, disaster films, Bible dramas, silent movies, screwball comedies, and pretty much everything other than romantic films and musicals.  Wife, girlfriend, evil seductress, or eye candy was and is pretty much the ghetto the films put women into now, then, earlier than then, and even in all the stage productions that preceded film.

It’s pretty much chicken and egg to say movies are more for young men now, but it’s also hard to look at the movies all by itself.  Since the 1970s, and Jaws and Star Wars and all those blockbusters, there’s also been the advent of cable television and home video.  This has both raised and lowered the need for certain films to do well on opening week, as the secondary market has gotten huge.  And with foreign distribution being bigger than ever (especially with television and video sales worldwide,) it’s surprising to see how lots of things translate into languages no one in LA studios speak.  It’s not just sexism that makes a dramatic tale of a woman who overcomes personal hardship to become independent harder to translate than an exploding bus and a vengeful man with a gun or a funny suit.

I think television offers a much better array of women as strong characters.  Maybe it’s just the volume compared to movies that makes this seem to be, but maybe the audience is much more supportive of such characters.  I’m betting it’s both.  And no, I don’t think television is so very much better than movies for women overall.  Just better to a somewhat noticable degree.

Comment #34: jon  on  01/18  at  05:56 PM

“Of course, we both know that you don’t actually have any particularly compelling interest in these issues, or you’d already understand that individuals find different callings for their activism and passion(.)”

Now, now, Grolby. Papertiger has a calling of its own. Can’t you tell? Clearly it is a motivational speaker! I, for one, feel motivated to bang my head against my desk whenever I read anything it writes.

“I just wish these men would try, just once, to reverse the genders on how they describe actors and actresses, and praise men’s acting by talking about how beautiful and luminous they were, and talk about women strictly in terms of performance.”

The problem with talking about how beautiful and luminous men are is best summed up in two words: Danny Devito. Men don’t have to be attractive to be movie stars, whereas it is a prerequisite for women. I think the best cure for the critics’ laziness when it comes to thinking of things to say about actresses would be for directors to start casting women that aren’t particularly attractive.

Comment #35: Zef  on  01/18  at  06:21 PM

Now we get to it.  Papertiger resents that I have a blog where I can write what I want.  How unfair of the blog gods to give me a space to write what I want?  Papertiger should have a blog!  But how can he make that happen?  Ye gods, how can this injustice be rectified?

Comment #36: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/18  at  06:46 PM

Cultural institutions like the Oscars aren’t important, which is why only 40 million people watch them.

Thank you , Dan, for your honesty.

And this is what passes for news here

Comment #37: papertiger  on  01/18  at  06:49 PM

Shaenon, I don’t necessarily think it was ever really great.  The 30s and 40s had a surge of woman-centric films, and I think that was due to a lot of factors coming together at once.  But after that, it was pretty lean.  Looking at the Golden Globe nominees, I think it’s a stronger list of women playing good roles than we might have had in the past, so maybe there’s a chance of improvement.

The major issue is that women aren’t writing and directing.  It may not even be willful on the part of many male writers and directors to view women only in their relationships with men.  That’s how they experience women.  But women experience ourselves as full people. 

On a side note, does anyone know why Revolutionary Road isn’t scheduled for wide release until January 23rd?  I read the book and want to see the movie.  I’m intrigued that themes that really led up to the feminist resurgence of the 60s are being explored in a movie so blatantly, when the mainstream is usually trying to put feminism to bed.

Comment #38: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/18  at  06:53 PM

papertiger, why are you commenting here instead of doing something important?  Gosh, it’s almost like your “concern” for “real” problems is an act you put on to make yourself feel morally superior.

Irony: while papertiger is getting himself worked into a lather, I was writing a column about another unserious topic, which is health care access for trafficking victims.

Comment #39: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/18  at  06:54 PM

Here’s the issue again:

Why not argue your point that the way the ceremony awards for perfomance artists is an important issue?

I’m sure you’ll ignore it again….and then attack others….as you do above.

How droll

Comment #40: papertiger  on  01/18  at  07:35 PM

which is health care access for trafficking victims

But!  But!  What about the starving people!  And Mars!  We still haven’t put a man on Mars!  What about health care access for people who aren’t being trafficked?  Huh?  They aren’t important enough for you?

Really, Amanda, for every thing you write about, there’s an infinite number of things you’re ignoring.  Doesn’t that keep you up at night?  How do you deal with the unbearable responsibility of blogging?

Comment #41: Kyso K.  on  01/18  at  07:46 PM

How do you deal with the unbearable responsibility of blogging?

Jim Beam.

Comment #42: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/18  at  07:55 PM

Wife, girlfriend, evil seductress, or eye candy was and is pretty much the ghetto the films put women into now, then, earlier than then, and even in all the stage productions that preceded film.

Mmm ... sort of.  You have to remember, film is a very young medium (relatively speaking) and as with all young media, you had a lot of women in positions of power in the early days because, frankly, men couldn’t be bothered.  Mary Pickford wasn’t just a pretty face:  she wrote, directed and produced her films.  Lois Weber was making silent films; Dorothy Arzner was making sound films.  Heck, even Ida Lupino was able to move out of wife/girlfriend roles a couple of times to direct. 

You’re also forgetting about the long tradition of women playwrights, starting with Aphra Behn.  Saying that women have never been allowed out of their ghetto is really misleading.

Molly Haskell’s From Reverence to Rape is the classic book about the history of women in the movies both in front of and behind the camera.  I’m not sure how well it holds up—I haven’t re-read it in years—but there is something to the notion (as Shaenon pointed out) that women were squeezed out of the spaces that they owned once studios decided the only moviegoers worth courting were 12-to-19-year old boys.

The women’s picture didn’t die—it just moved to the Lifetime network.  You can’t say that for the Western.

Comment #43: Mnemosyne  on  01/18  at  08:21 PM

I think Manohla (sp?) Dargis has been rockin’ the movie critique lately.  I love reading her reviews because she gets it, she’s not pretentious, she has a sense of humor, and she’s doesn’t give rave reviews to woman-as-sexbot/bridezilla/suffering waitress with fatal-disease child movies. 

It’s too bad there aren’t more like her out there.  And I agree re: Roeper…kind of douchey.

Comment #44: t-ster  on  01/18  at  08:24 PM

*sigh*
i think Papertiger took their name from the online alias of a hentai artist whose stuff sometimes crops up on the chan sites. please use that as a litmus test of how serious the person is.

also, to Papertiger: if that isn’t where you got your name, i am deeply sorry that you don’t seem to know how to use Google to check your online aliases before using them.

Comment #45: a cucumber sandwich muncher  on  01/18  at  08:31 PM

Mnemosyne, I don’t think women were never in power positions, only that there were few of them in those positions at any time.  I was mostly referring to roles, anyhow.

Also, can someone give some examples of those classic female-centered films that aren’t being made in the blockbuster era of today?  I’m drawing a blank, probably because this isn’t something I’ve really looked for, but I’d seriously like to know what those great films were so I can see for myself whether or not they aren’t being made anymore.  Not to say I doubt you all, but I’d still like some examples.

Comment #46: jon  on  01/18  at  08:48 PM

Amanda
you said “It may not even be willful on the part of many male writers and directors to view women only in their relationships with men.  That’s how they experience women.  But women experience ourselves as full people. “
and i want to agree… except that i know women who do only experience themselves in respect to their relationships. i’m not sure if that means that they then DON’T experience themselves as full people (complete unto themselves). it’s one of the largest crimes i lay on the patriarchy, this idea that women are only FULL and COMPLETE people when they have a relationship with a man. or worse, that they are only complete people when they have children.
do you think that women who are aflicted with this think of themselves as whole people? this is not an academic question for me at the moment; i have a friend who is escaping from a VERY abusive marriage, and she keeps not leaving, and she tells me over and over again that she isn’t leaving because she doesn’t know who she is without being married. she thinks that she will be forced to return to her parents and a sort of childhood, that the only reasone she (a 27 year old legal secratary) is accorded adult status is because of her marriage. she has told me that i am the only woman she knows that isn’t married that she considers an adult; all of her single women friends she considers children. even those older than herself.
i really worry that, because she really believes this bullshit, that she will FORCE herself back into that child-role. i don’t know how to help her, besides trying to get her to go to therapy. and the idea that the only reason she is a fully adult person is because she is married! she and her husband have absolutely nothing in common except a marriage certificate, there is no way that he makes her a more complete person. but she really believes that once she is no longer married, she will also no longer be a real person. its confusing, and baffling, and makes me really angry.

(as an aside, i love Pandagon because i can ask this question and have people take it and me seriously, and the only people who will attack me for this are the trolls. thank you, Pandagon staff!)

so any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated. and not just from Amanda… anyone but papertiger may chime in. thanx, guys.

Comment #47: denelian  on  01/18  at  08:58 PM

Good point, denelian.  Which is why cultural narratives that may seem to be just fluff initially are so critically important.  Women don’t feel like more than wives or mothers, because our culture continually hammers home the idea that we are half-human, and all we can expect is to be defined through others. The lack of more fully realized characters in movies does make it that much harder for women to be fully realized people.  We are, to an unsettling degree, the stories we tell about ourselves.

Comment #48: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/18  at  09:17 PM

On your question: I don’t think they’ve ever asked themselves, denelian.  That question, I think, is one that a lot of women who become feminists ask themselves, and often because the answer is, “No.”  Or, “not yet”.  Someone who asks herself this question early in life is the lucky one, I think, because then you realize you owe it to yourself to be a person who has a real form in the world, and isn’t just a cipher for men. Because you’re going to realize it one day, and it’s easier to realize it before the marriage you staked everything on evaporates.

On a side note to that—-thinking back to the Yoko Ono discussion.  Women who are fully realized humans are often reviled by the culture at large, but good girls pay for not being interesting people in their own right, too.  After all, you will eventually become boring to the husband you staked your entire life on, especially if he’s interesting at all. Being a good girl isn’t a good way to really reach your potential, but it isn’t even really a good way to achieve the acceptable goal for good girls, which is to be interesting to men.

Comment #49: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/18  at  09:23 PM

You’re also forgetting about the long tradition of women playwrights, starting with Aphra Behn.

Of course Aphra Behn LOVED her some evil seductresses…

Comment #50: FlipYrWhig  on  01/18  at  09:37 PM

...but she really believes that once she is no longer married, she will also no longer be a real person. its confusing, and baffling, and makes me really angry.

So, how’s this any more radical than the idea that you don’t need to ever be married to be whole a real person? It’s just the opposite side of the same coin. And yet, you are dismayed at your friend’s attitude, but “understanding” of the opposite attitude.

While both of these attitudes are radical, you treat one as normal and the other one makes you angry.

And the difference is marriage. Do you just hate marriage?

Comment #51: papertiger  on  01/18  at  09:41 PM

that’s a thing i have never understood; if you are going to be married to a woman and interact with her and live with her, don’t you want her to be interesting, someone who doesn’t bore you?
i grant that in this area i had an INCREDIBLY lucky set of parents. i was raised with the belief that i was *ME*, and i was told over and over to not get married until i knew who *ME* was. most girls (including my younger sisters) are raised with the expectation and belief that they HAVE to have a man to be a complete and real person.
and, of course, that only “good girls” deserve, and get, men.

i don’t know how to address this with my friend. i mentor young teens, and its, frankly, easier to convince them because they haven’t had as much time for it to solidify as a concept.

but how the hell can we expect women to make sane, rational choices when as a society we are filling them with this most unsane and unrational idea (i used “un” deliberately).  Yoko Ono causes a large amount of cognitive dissonace in me, because i think she cannot sing, but she is such a WONDERFUL person to look up to, she LIVED HER life, ya know? she didn’t live that cookie-cutter disney princess life we are all handed with our first dress - she took her life into her own hands and she OWNED it.

but your reply depresses me at the same time it heartens me. i’ve been a feminist since i first heard the word (i was 7? somewhere around there). it’s depressing to think of all the women who will never have a life of their own, even inside their own minds… but it’s heartening to think about bringing feminism, and the idea of being your own person, to everyone. we can’t get rid of the Patriarchy (yet!) but i hold out hope that feminism can act as a vaccine for it.

thank you for taking the time to think about it, and to reply smile i know how busy you are.

Comment #52: denelian  on  01/18  at  09:41 PM

If the patriarchy is to blame for some women being no one until they have a husband, it isn’t so kind for those men without a wife either.  I remember the words said about Kucinich in his two Presidential runs.  In 2004, he was a weenie (and a host of other names.)  In 2008, many looked at him differently since he had the hot wife.  Bachelor politicians may not be the best model for this in regard to the rest of the menfolk, but there certainly is a different status for married and unmarried men.  Not to say it’s the same as for the women, but it’s still there.

But as for defining yourself by the relationship, that can happen to anyone.  There are definite roles in relationships, some desirable and some not so much.  When in a relationship, the undesirable ones bother people.  When not, it’s the desirable things that are missed.  That balance is the secret to happiness, fulfillment, joy, life, the universe, everything.  No wonder so many people fuck it up.

Comment #53: jon  on  01/18  at  10:04 PM

...but she really believes that once she is no longer married, she will also no longer be a real person. its confusing, and baffling, and makes me really angry.

So, how’s this any more radical than the idea that you don’t need to ever be married to be whole a real person? It’s just the opposite side of the same coin. And yet, you are dismayed at your friend’s attitude, but “understanding” of the opposite attitude.

While both of these attitudes are radical, you treat one as normal and the other one makes you angry.

And the difference is marriage. Do you just hate marriage?

Wait a minute, it’s “radical” to think it’s possible to be a “whole real person” without ever having the benefit of getting married?  I bet there are a lot of people, such as Plato, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Austen, Emily Dickinson, Elizabeth I, and innumerable others who might be surprised to hear that.

Oh, dear.  I am laughing so hard.  Papertiger, seriously, shut up.  You’re out of your league.

Comment #54: Rumblelizard  on  01/18  at  10:27 PM

pretty sure i specifically asked you NOT to comment, papertiger.

but i am in a lot of pain and just had to drive in the snow which makes me hurt worse, so i will reply.

and what i will say is: what the HOLY FUCK. there is a distinct difference between HAVING to be married to be a complete person, and being a complete person OUTSIDE of marriage. my issue isn’t her marriage or even marriage at all, my issue is that she feels she MUST BE MARRIED to be considered an full, complete adult person.

i never ONCE said i had a problem with ANY marriage, excepting the implication that i dislike her’s because it is incredibly abuse. here, you are projecting. and reaching. i never said anything at all resembling what you took from it. all i can say at this point is “remove the mote from your eye” and next time when i say leave me alone, perhaps you could just do that thing.

Comment #55: denelian  on  01/18  at  11:45 PM

and Rumblelizard - thank you! you win the intratubes today!

Comment #56: denelian  on  01/18  at  11:46 PM

When in a relationship, the undesirable ones bother people.  When not, it’s the desirable things that are missed.  That balance is the secret to happiness, fulfillment, joy, life, the universe, everything.

Agreed

Comment #57: papertiger  on  01/19  at  12:11 AM

Also, can someone give some examples of those classic female-centered films that aren’t being made in the blockbuster era of today?

Just a few:

Mildred Pierce
Stella Dallas
The Women
Jezebel
Mr. Skeffington
Dark Victory
The Great Lie
Now, Voyager
Beyond the Forest
All About Eve
Night Nurse
The Lady Eve
Ball of Fire
Written on the Wind
All that Heaven Allows
Letter from an Unknown Woman
Imitation of Life (either the Colbert or the Turner version)

That’s just for starters, of course.  I can give you more once you get through those.

Comment #58: Mnemosyne  on  01/19  at  12:24 AM

I think the reason there are best actor/actress and best supporting actor/actress roles is that it was a given that every movie would have a leading man and a leading lady, and a supporting male role and a supporting female role.  That is, the structure of the traditional Hollywood movie suggested that there should be separate awards.

Comment #59: Bloix  on  01/19  at  02:44 AM

Perhaps, you know, people read the blog not because it’s mandatory, but because they want to?

So, wait. This isn’t going to be on the test?

Comment #60: chingona  on  01/19  at  03:36 AM

How do you deal with the unbearable responsibility of blogging?

Jim Beam.

Drinking it, or hitting trolls with a full bottle of the stuff?

Comment #61: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  01/19  at  03:39 AM

I’m not a huge expert on film, but in a purely impressionistic way, it seems like a lot of older movies had more complex roles for women. The roles were traditional - wife, girlfriend, mother - and there was more nakedly sexist stuff - but the characters seemed more complex or more rounded, their personalities more fleshed out, whereas in newer movies, it often seems like the female characters are just flat and lifeless. But I can’t really defend this view by listing movies. Like I said, it’s just an impression.

Comment #62: chingona  on  01/19  at  03:42 AM

...but she really believes that once she is no longer married, she will also no longer be a real person. its confusing, and baffling, and makes me really angry.

So, how’s this any more radical than the idea that you don’t need to ever be married to be whole a real person? It’s just the opposite side of the same coin. And yet, you are dismayed at your friend’s attitude, but “understanding” of the opposite attitude.

I call stick rule.

Comment #63: Jrod  on  01/19  at  05:13 AM

Mnemosyne, I can’t say I’ve seen a lot of those movies, but after reading through most of their summaries on imdb.com, they look a lot like the modern movies I don’t make my way to see.  Thanks for the list, but I guess I’m going to have to say I’ll always be an outsider in regard to that point of view.  Not a denier, just an outsider.

Luckily, it’s not as important as starving children or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  Otherwise I might actually have to come up with a point of view, seeing as this is a VERY SERIOUS WEBLOG.

Comment #64: jon  on  01/19  at  10:38 AM

Oh, and in case I forgot to mention, het male concern trolls with their BIG ISSUES MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LIVES OF WOMEN AND GAYS are simply, of course, BIGOTS.

Just using the scrim of BIG ISSUES to hide behind.”

Bingo.  The problem isn’t really that Amanda doesn’t blog about BIG ISSUES (a three second tour of the archive proves that to be false), the real problem is that we aren’t talking about het male concern trolls, or listening intently to their oh-so-valuable, informative and logical opinions!

I mean how dare we talk about something other than het male concern trolls or do anything but listen to them and their unending privilege?

Comment #65: Gypsy Lee  on  01/19  at  01:50 PM

Bigot = Not agreeing with Gypsy Lee.

Long as we’re on the same page.

Comment #66: Papertiger  on  01/19  at  03:06 PM

“Bigot = Not agreeing with Gypsy Lee.”

no, sweetie dumpling, bigot = privilege douche who talks when he should listen.

Comment #67: Gypsy Lee  on  01/19  at  03:44 PM

Mnemosyne, I thought about this some more and was bothered by part of the assertion being made: that blockbusters moved the serious woman-led films out of Hollywood production schedules.  The pre-blockbuster movies you cited (and I have no way of knowing how you listed them, so they might not be a fair sampling) also look like they’re pretty much pre-1950, so the blockbuster theory doesn’t look right.  If there were a lot of serious “woman” movies in the 1960s and pre-Jaws 1970s to cite, I could see some validity for the theory (which wasn’t put forth by you, but by Shaenon.)  Anyhow, I guess I’ll look into this some more and see what I can see.

I do say that serious films with good female leads are scarce, so I’m not disagreeing with the premise.  Just those darn details.  I think the “Golden Age” of women’s films never was, some say it happened, and it’s pretty damn hard to tell what’s going to be remembered from today’s movies.  The Big Lebowski and A Christmas Story were both box-office failures, while Spiderman was a huge hit.  I can’t see film students studying Spiderman in thirty years, nor it becoming part of any nostalgia tours.  A lot has happened between then and now.  Back then, serious stage dramas became major films, now it’s the other way around (though it’s hard to say Hairspray and Holy Grail were serious.)  And I’ve never in my lifetime thought I was underdressed to see a movie.  The audience has changed, the movies have changed, and other entertainment options are bigger than ever.  It may be that serious movies have been relegated to the art houses, which moved women’s films into direct competition with foreign and independent films.  That I can believe, since just about every Kate Winslet movie plays only in those places.  I’m not disagreeing, just not believing the details.

Comment #68: jon  on  01/19  at  06:04 PM

hitting trolls with a full bottle of the stuff?

Empty, you can’t take a chance if it’s Dana or some of the new trolls that have been populating the discussions here lately smile

This was in last week’s New Yorker:

An unexpected corollary of the modern marketing-and-distribution model is that films no longer have time to find their audience; that audience has to be identified and solicited well in advance. Marketers segment the audience in a variety of ways, but the most common form of partition is the four quadrants: men under twenty-five; older men; women under twenty-five; older women. A studio rarely makes a film that it doesn’t expect will succeed with at least two quadrants, and a film’s budget is usually directly related to the number of quadrants it is anticipated to reach. The most expensive tent-pole movies, such as the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise, are aimed at all four quadrants.

The collective wisdom is that young males like explosions, blood, cars flying through the air, pratfalls, poop jokes, “you’re so gay” banter, and sex—but not romance. Young women like friendship, pop music, fashion, sarcasm, sensitive boys who think with their hearts, and romance—but not sex (though they like to hear the naughty girl telling her friends about it). They go to horror films as much as young men, but they hate gore; you lure them by having the ingénue take her time walking down the dark hall.

Older women like feel-good films and Nicholas Sparks-style weepies: they are the core audience for stories of doomed love and triumphs of the human spirit. They enjoy seeing an older woman having her pick of men; they hate seeing a child in danger. Particularly once they reach thirty, these women are the most “review-sensitive”: a chorus of critical praise for a movie aimed at older women can increase the opening weekend’s gross by five million dollars. In other words, older women are discriminating, which is why so few films are made for them.

Older men like darker films, classic genres such as Westerns and war movies, men protecting their homes, and men behaving like idiots. Older men are easy to please, particularly if a film stars Clint Eastwood and is about guys just like them, but they’re hard to motivate. “Guys only get off their couches twice a year, to go to ‘Wild Hogs’ or ‘3:10 to Yuma,’ ” the marketing consultant Terry Press says. “If all you have is older males, it’s time to take a pill.”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/19/090119fa_fact_friend?currentPage=4

Comment #70: Nancy  on  01/20  at  03:00 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.