Here is an awesome article in last Sundays NYT. It doesn't have anything to do with horror but it is something positive happening for women.
It's a great example of women helping women and I loved reading it.
Enjoy!
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Final thoughts on "Final Girl"
I found this article to be kind of funny. It's so ridiculous to me how women are portrayed in horror flicks. Coincidentally, I had never seen any of the horror movies that they talked about but one that came to mind from my adolescence was "I Know What You Did Last Summer". The plot of this movie is victim to the "Final Girl" archetype. Jennifer Love Hewitt plays "Julie" who is amongst several of her friends that are being stalked and subsequently murdered by an unknown killer.
All of the friends die off and the end of the film nears and you think she will be the survivor. But- within the last 5 minutes we are lucky enough to witness her being attacked in the shower and her scream fades off as the movie ends. I can't stand horror movies for this reason- not only do they make women out to be total victims but they make them look stupid and vulnerable every time.
I too also notice the violent imagery that is used towards women in horror films as the article depicted. When ever a man in a horror movie is faced with a similar horrific fate- it is rarely shown and if it is it is not all that sexualized, gruesome or otherwise disturbing (other then the fact the man is murdered- it is not done in any unique way and he usually dies fighting for life). It is hard for me to watch rape scenes or scenes in which a male is dominating a woman as he kills her. It is suggestive and rude and provocative- and especially daunting because men are never dominated in horror films by women to be killed (not that it would make it better- but at least there would be some equality to the plot thus offering more insight?)
Another interesting horror movie from my adolescence was "What Lies Beneath" Michelle Phifer plays a strong woman who investigates into suspicions of her husbands infidelity. She soon finds out that he killed the woman he was having an affair with and her ghost was coming back to invade Michelle Phifers body and act out her aggression from the grave. However, the ghost that invades Michelle Phifer has to be totally hot, sexy and seductive- that's the only thing that would make for great ratings right? So offensive. A lot of the scenes take place around water- bath tub, shower, lake. Additionally, color plays a large role. Red is used to symbolize the ghosts anger and vengence. I suppose the movie was well done- but the gender implications are ridiculous. However, Michelle Phifer ISN'T the "Final Girl"- she lives, husband dies and the ghost is put to rest after her soul can be released through the truth.
In both "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and "What Lies Beneath" the women are physically weak- leaving them defenseless in that regard and they are just never quick enough. Not quick enough to grab the phone, not clever enough to run away... etc. The female character always has lessons that should have been taught and the audience often finds themselves yelling at the screen to direct this poor female to saving her own life. Very interesting.
All of the friends die off and the end of the film nears and you think she will be the survivor. But- within the last 5 minutes we are lucky enough to witness her being attacked in the shower and her scream fades off as the movie ends. I can't stand horror movies for this reason- not only do they make women out to be total victims but they make them look stupid and vulnerable every time.
I too also notice the violent imagery that is used towards women in horror films as the article depicted. When ever a man in a horror movie is faced with a similar horrific fate- it is rarely shown and if it is it is not all that sexualized, gruesome or otherwise disturbing (other then the fact the man is murdered- it is not done in any unique way and he usually dies fighting for life). It is hard for me to watch rape scenes or scenes in which a male is dominating a woman as he kills her. It is suggestive and rude and provocative- and especially daunting because men are never dominated in horror films by women to be killed (not that it would make it better- but at least there would be some equality to the plot thus offering more insight?)
Another interesting horror movie from my adolescence was "What Lies Beneath" Michelle Phifer plays a strong woman who investigates into suspicions of her husbands infidelity. She soon finds out that he killed the woman he was having an affair with and her ghost was coming back to invade Michelle Phifers body and act out her aggression from the grave. However, the ghost that invades Michelle Phifer has to be totally hot, sexy and seductive- that's the only thing that would make for great ratings right? So offensive. A lot of the scenes take place around water- bath tub, shower, lake. Additionally, color plays a large role. Red is used to symbolize the ghosts anger and vengence. I suppose the movie was well done- but the gender implications are ridiculous. However, Michelle Phifer ISN'T the "Final Girl"- she lives, husband dies and the ghost is put to rest after her soul can be released through the truth.
In both "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and "What Lies Beneath" the women are physically weak- leaving them defenseless in that regard and they are just never quick enough. Not quick enough to grab the phone, not clever enough to run away... etc. The female character always has lessons that should have been taught and the audience often finds themselves yelling at the screen to direct this poor female to saving her own life. Very interesting.
The Celluloid Closet
Watching the documentary in class gave me a greater insight into how many films have been made over the last century featuring LGBTQ individuals, couples and themes. Prior to watching this documentary, I would have thought and spoken about how Gay characters are rarely portrayed in film and didn't appear until at least the 1980's. I am happy to be cleared of my ignorance.
Even some of the films in that were spoken about in the documentary that I have seen I never caught that they were Gay characters- I'm still pondering if this was an intentional part on the director or if I was too young to understand. However, it retrospect, and after watching this documentary, it is amazing to see how film has evolved to accept a more positive slant towards Gay characters. The article points out "Academic queer film studies now finds itself in the sometimes awkward position of responding both to a need to continue to professionalize its work as well as to wrestle with the changing state of the market, which is now utterly different than it was a decade ago, never mind three decades."This makes me realize how much society has changed even since I was a kid about accepting all sexual orientations- or at least having more compassion and less hatred.
I can recognize how hard it is to make a piece of film or television (like Brokeback Mountain or Will and Grace) with Gay and Lesbian characters that is taken seriously. Now it is more accepted to have these characters on screen but it is still the brunt of many jokes. Will the climate change? I always think of RENT as being a revolutionary film for its time. Granted, it had the play to capture audiences and get them more comfortable prior to the film release. And although it generally appeals to a niche crowd of individuals who like musicals- it really expanded it's audience and many people who would not normally watch musicals or films with LGBTQ characters the topic of AIDS brought curious communities together to watch the movie. It had a positive response and the music got pretty popular outside the film.
I am not confident after reading the article and watching the movie that things will change immensely in the next decade. I think audiences will not accept sex scenes between Gay lovers or movies all about the Gay community. I think for a long time those movies will only appeal to niche audiences and it will be difficult to get them on the big screen.
Even some of the films in that were spoken about in the documentary that I have seen I never caught that they were Gay characters- I'm still pondering if this was an intentional part on the director or if I was too young to understand. However, it retrospect, and after watching this documentary, it is amazing to see how film has evolved to accept a more positive slant towards Gay characters. The article points out "Academic queer film studies now finds itself in the sometimes awkward position of responding both to a need to continue to professionalize its work as well as to wrestle with the changing state of the market, which is now utterly different than it was a decade ago, never mind three decades."This makes me realize how much society has changed even since I was a kid about accepting all sexual orientations- or at least having more compassion and less hatred.
I can recognize how hard it is to make a piece of film or television (like Brokeback Mountain or Will and Grace) with Gay and Lesbian characters that is taken seriously. Now it is more accepted to have these characters on screen but it is still the brunt of many jokes. Will the climate change? I always think of RENT as being a revolutionary film for its time. Granted, it had the play to capture audiences and get them more comfortable prior to the film release. And although it generally appeals to a niche crowd of individuals who like musicals- it really expanded it's audience and many people who would not normally watch musicals or films with LGBTQ characters the topic of AIDS brought curious communities together to watch the movie. It had a positive response and the music got pretty popular outside the film.
I am not confident after reading the article and watching the movie that things will change immensely in the next decade. I think audiences will not accept sex scenes between Gay lovers or movies all about the Gay community. I think for a long time those movies will only appeal to niche audiences and it will be difficult to get them on the big screen.
Magazine Cover Of The Year
I LOVED the Clint Eastwood cover for GQ. I remember seeing it on shelves and in peoples homes for quite a while. GQ has a history of putting young, attractive, "flavor of the week" men on the cover. For them to recognize Clint Eastwood and put him as he is- rough and wrinkly and in a casual denim drab (which I'm sure is his regular attire) was perfect.
The most obvious controversial piece was clearly Obama on New York magazines cover. When ever I see strong images like this out on the stands a part of me feels happy. I love that we live in a society where these things are not only accepted but respected. A very well respected magazine can put this out, maintain their notoriety, prestige and popularity. This in fact, helps them even more. It is also done with a lot of artistry which I like visually.
I hate Sports Illustrated swim suit models and I hate seeing young women on the covers. Brooke Decker has so much life to live and she has started her career by using her body. What kind of message does this send to young girls? What about young boys? Why? Why? I just wish I could open that magazine and at least hear about all the great things she is doing- but when I wiki-ed her- I didn't come up with much.
The most obvious controversial piece was clearly Obama on New York magazines cover. When ever I see strong images like this out on the stands a part of me feels happy. I love that we live in a society where these things are not only accepted but respected. A very well respected magazine can put this out, maintain their notoriety, prestige and popularity. This in fact, helps them even more. It is also done with a lot of artistry which I like visually.
I hate Sports Illustrated swim suit models and I hate seeing young women on the covers. Brooke Decker has so much life to live and she has started her career by using her body. What kind of message does this send to young girls? What about young boys? Why? Why? I just wish I could open that magazine and at least hear about all the great things she is doing- but when I wiki-ed her- I didn't come up with much.
Gender Representation in Tobacco and Alcohol Advertising
I know I am posting this late. However, I think its better late than never to give my opinion. Here are some quotes that I picked out that triggered a few thoughts in me:
"When we are sold these products, we are sold these models of lifestyle"
I thought this was a fascinating interpretation of how we pick out a specific brand of a product because of the way we correlate it to our own lifestyle. I never gave this much thought- but I am a total sucker for this. I have always only bought Dawn soap because on the bottle it says that they use the soap to clean animals that have been affected by oil spills. I've never done research to find out of this is true- but it touches to my humanitarian heart and for some reason my body jumps to that bottle, even if it holds no truth in actuality.
"since their effect is to teach children how to be as adults, to suggest to adults how to be hip, and to show seniors how hip they once were and could still be"
This scares me because of how sexualized the advertisements really are. Not only will girls start smoking or drinking because they think it will make them popular but they also think it will make them sexy. It can then be difficult for young girls to imagine being sexy without being under the influence of any drug or alcohol.
"However, a third group exists between the first two: couples. Whether it be between the placement of two glasses of scotch on the rocks next to an open bottle, or by the gaze of a bachelor at an available young woman, couples could be expressed through the suggestion of inanimate objects or by the straightfoward depiction of courtship (at its most romantic and transparent)."
I NEVER noticed this. To be honest, I rarely see advertisements for cigarettes and alcohol. It's almost as if I have to look for them. Also, since this is not a product I'm interested in I may not see them. This again sends a message to young women and men that this is a very good hobby to engage in with significant others. It may be hard to change this schema once it is embedded.
"Virginia Slims puts a premium on appearance. Slim or thick cigarettes don't change the tobacco content, taste, appetite suppression, or nicotine content, they just change the shape. For both sexes, the cigarette can be considered an extension of the body (women's are slim, men's are stocky) or a representation of the phallus (women having penis envy or desire, men exposing their phallus/masculinity through the gesture of smoking)."
This is a genius advertising trick. Stupid and silly and I hate that it is effective but I believe it truly is. I knew many young women in high school who would only smoke these- it helped them portray a heightened sense of femininity and class. It set them apart from the "trashy" girl smokers who were smoking Marlboro or Camels. Madalyn has mentioned that she thinks it would be a wise advertising tactic to make condoms that were appealing to women- in feminine colors and shapes with clever slogans. I always thought that is a genius idea and its curious to me that more companies don't do this more often. It perpetuates our hetero-normative culture- which is why I would go CRAZY if there was more gender specific products but from a money making standpoint- companies are crazy not to take advantage.
I also never thought about all of these phallic symbols we have been mentioning in class and in the readings. It scares me that I have been potentially missing all of these messages and just absorbing them. Gross.
"When we are sold these products, we are sold these models of lifestyle"
I thought this was a fascinating interpretation of how we pick out a specific brand of a product because of the way we correlate it to our own lifestyle. I never gave this much thought- but I am a total sucker for this. I have always only bought Dawn soap because on the bottle it says that they use the soap to clean animals that have been affected by oil spills. I've never done research to find out of this is true- but it touches to my humanitarian heart and for some reason my body jumps to that bottle, even if it holds no truth in actuality.
"since their effect is to teach children how to be as adults, to suggest to adults how to be hip, and to show seniors how hip they once were and could still be"
This scares me because of how sexualized the advertisements really are. Not only will girls start smoking or drinking because they think it will make them popular but they also think it will make them sexy. It can then be difficult for young girls to imagine being sexy without being under the influence of any drug or alcohol.
"However, a third group exists between the first two: couples. Whether it be between the placement of two glasses of scotch on the rocks next to an open bottle, or by the gaze of a bachelor at an available young woman, couples could be expressed through the suggestion of inanimate objects or by the straightfoward depiction of courtship (at its most romantic and transparent)."
I NEVER noticed this. To be honest, I rarely see advertisements for cigarettes and alcohol. It's almost as if I have to look for them. Also, since this is not a product I'm interested in I may not see them. This again sends a message to young women and men that this is a very good hobby to engage in with significant others. It may be hard to change this schema once it is embedded.
"Virginia Slims puts a premium on appearance. Slim or thick cigarettes don't change the tobacco content, taste, appetite suppression, or nicotine content, they just change the shape. For both sexes, the cigarette can be considered an extension of the body (women's are slim, men's are stocky) or a representation of the phallus (women having penis envy or desire, men exposing their phallus/masculinity through the gesture of smoking)."
This is a genius advertising trick. Stupid and silly and I hate that it is effective but I believe it truly is. I knew many young women in high school who would only smoke these- it helped them portray a heightened sense of femininity and class. It set them apart from the "trashy" girl smokers who were smoking Marlboro or Camels. Madalyn has mentioned that she thinks it would be a wise advertising tactic to make condoms that were appealing to women- in feminine colors and shapes with clever slogans. I always thought that is a genius idea and its curious to me that more companies don't do this more often. It perpetuates our hetero-normative culture- which is why I would go CRAZY if there was more gender specific products but from a money making standpoint- companies are crazy not to take advantage.
I also never thought about all of these phallic symbols we have been mentioning in class and in the readings. It scares me that I have been potentially missing all of these messages and just absorbing them. Gross.
Last House on the Left
Watching The Last House on the Left I couldn’t believe how casual the killers were about everything. The decision to go find girls was spontaneous and relaxed, to the point where I didn’t realize they were planning to rape and kill. I just assumed they wanted to find girls to party and sleep with (consensually of course).
The scene where the girls are raped and killed is chilling. The killers are so methodical in their actions that it leaves the viewer numb. They molest her than slowly follow her as she stumbles down to the water, where they finally finish with shooting her full of bullets.
Though the scene isn’t the overwhelmingly gory as many horror films are, it is just as disturbing if not more so. Between the unaffected attitudes of the people, the lightheartedness of the music, and the sunshine filled scenery of the woods in morning, the entire scene managed to pervert the calm of nature. It seemed unnatural and disturbing.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The W.I.T.C.H. es: radical for their time
For those interested in the Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell, here are some photos from 1969. There are also some wonderful images and information on feminist scholar Jo Freeman's blog.
The movement was fairly short-lived, only in existence from 1968 to 1970. Other acronym combinations included "Women Inspired to Tell their Collective History" and "Women Interested in Toppling Consumer Holidays."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)