From: MKERBEL@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: Sexism in films
Organization: Yale University
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 09:34:56 EDT

In article <CINEMA-L%92100512492025@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU>
Ellen.Edgerton@SUADMIN.BITNET writes:
 
>
>I think it's kind of strange to denounce every best-picture-winning
>film of the last 20 years or so as "sexist."  As another poster said
>(sorry, I don't have quote-mode ability on my mail program), it's
>an argument about how society SHOULD be vs. how it really IS.
>     .................
>Open question:  What makes a movie sexist?  Are there any cliches
>we can identify, and maybe some that are going out of style, or
>new ones?
>
1. I didn't denounce all of the Best Picture winners of the past 20 years or
so.  I exempted GODFATHER I and II and ANNIE HALL.
2. Of the ones I denounced, I didn't say all of those were sexist.  For
example, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is not sexist, in my opinion.
3. I admit that I wrote the denunciation partly to be provocative.
4. I don't think that films have to show what society should be, and I also
don't think that a sexist film can't also be considered good, great or even a
masterpiece.
5. Personally, I don't think OLDER films should be held up to standards of
today in terms of attitudes toward race, gender, etc.  Of course they should
be STUDIED as to the insights they provide into the society of the time, and
therefore into how attitudes were reinforced. But when I see a classic film
with an audience, and when they boo and hiss at dialogue that doesn't
measure up to today's political correctness, I cringe.
6. HOWEVER -- I selected films of the past 20 years because attitudes had been
changing -- i.e. women's movement.  Again, I don't think every film has to
reflect society's changing consciousness -- but it was interesting to me
that Hollywood appeared to be going OUT OF ITS WAY to give its top prize to
films that seemed sexist.  I am not saying that Hollywood should give its top
prize to well-meaning, p.c. films if they weren't good films.  Maybe the
Best Picture winners were the best of their years.   But IMHO, the trend
in Hollywood was to confront the issue of evolving attitudes by producing
and then awarding films that deliberately went against the new attitudes.
 
How do we define sexism in films?  Probably it is up to the beholder, and
probably I am not the best qualified to define it.  I would be interested in
a woman's response.  But consider the following:
 
1. 1973: THE STING.  As I recall, there were two kinds of women: prostitutes
(Eileen Brennan and her colleagues) and a femme fatale who almost leads
Redford to his doom.  Thus: prostitutes and prostitutes.
 
2. 1975: ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST.  Is there anyone out there that
would disagree that Nurse Ratched is pure villain?  This is a well-made,
entertaining (though simplistic) story of good versus evil.  I believe that
the film encourages the audience to see the Nurse as castrator.  The rest of
the women, as far as I recall, were bimbos smuggled into the hospital.
 
3. 1976: ROCKY.  Another venerable stereotype: Adrian (or is it Yoadrian?)
is an ugly duckling youngish old maid who is transformed by the man's love.
She even loses her glasses in the process.
 
4. 1978: THE DEER HUNTER.  I am sorry to say that I hated this film so much
that I never saw it again, so I can't recall specifics, but as far as I
do remember, it focuses almost all of its three plus hours on male bonding and
macho fantasies.  Possibly Meryl Streep's character provides something more
complex.  The fact that I don't remember her may be my fault, but maybe it
is a function of her relatively minor role in the midst of all the male
adventuring.
 
5.1979: KRAMER VS. KRAMER.  I present this as exhibit #1.  The one film on this
list that faces the issue of women's liberation.  How?  By showing Streep's
character at the opening as having a genuine reason to leave -- her husband
is completely oblivious to her needs -- and then devoting almost all of the
rest of the story to proving how wrong she was to leave, and how destructive
her decision was to the husband and son.
 
6. 1980: ORDINARY PEOPLE.  Exhibit #2 for the defense.  Mary Tyler Moore is
almost as bitchy, castrating and destructive as Nurse Ratched.  Thus Hollywood
ends the 70s and begins the 80s with back to back negative portraits of strong
women.  Message: strong women are destructive.  Does this automatically
disqualify these films -- or ones like it -- from greatness?  No, but isn't
Hollywood sending an interesting message by singling out these films as Best
Picture?  Anyway, I think ORDINARY PEOPLE stinks on many other levels.
 
To be continued. . .