Introduction Mainstream is definable as an existing current of reflection (Todorov,1982). It may also be in relation to an activity or a sway. The modern avant-grade of the 1910 and 1920s were and are still very suspicious of the earlier conventions of the mainstream cinema conventions for a wide variety of reasons. These are based on sound evidence and material that is reasonable and critical to the success of all that has to be achieved by literally the parties involved. It is evident that the earlier convections in relation to mainstream cinema were based on human nature. It is depicted that women were not given the mandate of playing the roles that were perceived as men’s and instead they were supposed to play the roles that were meant to create pleasure. Main body Women’s images were supposed to be controlled and made to communicate to the viewers the “paradox crystallization” (Turvey, 1997). Such a concern is one of the various reasons that do revolve around the reasons behind the suspicions of the early conventions of the mainstream cinema by the modernist avant-garde of the 1910 and 20s. They are literally driven by the need of knowing the reasons behind the higher ranking of male characters and the degrading of females. The statement that women have always been the image when it comes to sexual matters in practical fields like sculpture and painting as well as in photography is what makes the modernist avant-garde to be suspicious of the mainstream early conventions. According to Wilson, (1997), erotic roles that are within the character of the objects and the auditorium characters too do promote the suspicions that surround early conventions of mainstream Cinema. It does involve specific sections of the body of a female character that is used in the film for instance to create the pull effect. This makes the film to be captivating yet if it were a man who was given these roles then, it would not have been so. The modernists do argue that some character roles that required the body parts to be showcased allowed the presentation of women as various pieces as opposed to a whole self. It was true that men could not have played the role of a sexual accolade as it was dependent on how women characters were interwoven in it in relation to their roles and functions on the screen. Wilson, (1997) maintains that the male protagonist roles did facilitate the questioning of the mainstream cinema early interventions as well by the modernist avant-garde. These males were brought out as the ones who used power and control that made the person watching the film gawk at the characters played by the males. Technical styles that were adopted in the cinematic film also did enhance the notion of the male protagonist roles. These styles enabled the seeing of women as objects of sex not only by the male character that showed lust for them but by the spectators as well. What did determine when males were going to be the protagonist, and when the females have to be the sexual objects, is what made the modernist avant-garde question the mainstream cinema early conventions. This was seen as favoritism and exploitation that made them come up with the modern tec