Girls on Film: Defined by Looks
Filed under: Girls on Film
Last week, Peter Bart of Variety wrote "Unlikely Rivals on the Oscar Circuit," outlining how Jane Campion and Kathryn Bigelow were a part of the Oscar race with Bright Star and The Hurt Locker. But rather than simply outlining their accomplishments and discussing their talents, Bart gave the piece this weird, "at odds" theme, kicking it off with their looks. It's apparently strange that the "cerebral, somewhat severe, leans toward post-hippie attire" Campion could helm an all-out romance* while Bigelow -- the "tall, model thin" director with a "gracious manner" -- could bring us The Hurt Locker. As if looks are inextricably tied to theme. As if Wes Craven has to look like Freddy Krueger, or James Cameron has to be a beefy Terminator.
To be fair, kind words are given to both filmmakers; it's just fueled by this strange desire to make things at odds. Its execution doesn't relay a sense of distaste in Campion's and Bigelow's accomplishments, but rather an inability to discuss them without noticing a woman's physicality, without struggling to make connections between their looks and interests. It continues right down to the final line -- "Keats vs. Iraq: Now that's downright weird." -- as if Campion's Piano didn't already face off against the likes of Schindler's List and The Fugitive, as if Juno never faced off against No Country for Old Men, and so on and so forth.
As if women are some sort of alien species that cannot be understood without their physical presence -- they must be judged by it, defined by it.
*Let alone the ridiculousness that Campion has to be characterized as the "severe" woman to Bigelow's cuteness.
This ever-rampant trend to merge looks and thought reminds me of a piece I saw years ago from photographer and activist Heather Corinna. Side by side were two self portraits (work warning: there is some very slight nipple in that link). In one, she's dressed as the quintessential butch woman with the label "Self-Loving Lesbian" and in the companion image, she wears a negligee and sports the title "Man-Hating Dyke." It's an easy trap to fall into -- the one with no makeup and the plain, manly tank has to be the hater while the silk-wearer must be the sex lover. Naturally.
Appearance has become a sort of straight-jacket for women in Hollywood, whether we're talking about the actresses on the screen, or the women behind them. It's not only about that "acceptable" sliver of weight that's allowed to actresses. That itself has created ridiculously distorted body images and a business full of body dysmorphia that's continually encouraged by media showing "too fat! too skinny!" exclamations. (Not to mention questions of depression/pregnancy at any flap of skin or curve of the body.) It's also the cinematic storylines that have to sex women up to make them desirable, the critiques on a woman's demeanor (like Campions "severe" look), and the fact that gender alone creates a whole set of ridiculous expectations.
And it's certainly not a case of women being thin-skinned. As I've discussed before, simply throwing an adjective like "sexy" into a post has caught me flack and encouragements to go write for gossip or teen rags. Men don't like it, so it's only human that women don't care for it either.
Of course, there's something to be said for relevancy. I don't find it particularly terrible for a blogger -- male or female -- to write about their attraction to an actor or actress on occasion. Blogs are supposed to be casual, be opinionated, and, frankly, I've never met a movie fan who hasn't commented on attraction at some point. But it's a matter of context, balance, and more importantly, point. A complimentary adjective is not the same as structuring a discussion of talent based on looks -- especially when looks have zero bearing on the discussion.
I would say that the double standard has got to go, but I'm beginning to think it's more of an alien shock, slices of narrow-mindedness and misogyny mixed in with this crazy idea of women as the alien other. What else can explain for thoughts like Bart's, assumptions that looks are flimsily linked to theme? One of the first ways we learn to understand is through categorization and similarities, so Campion and Bigelow get lumped in with their genres. What? Campion comes off as cerebral instead of romantic? Bigelow isn't a bundle of testosterone that makes Linda Hamilton in T2 look wimpy? Does not compute!
Let's stop trying to confuse ourselves with these trite, archaic, and failing categories, shall we? They obviously don't work and only create double standards, confusion, and all-out wrongness. Women are not aliens, nor are their looks a good indication of their interests and work. Just like men, the world is full of women with a myriad of interests and artistic inspiration. It's no more strange for Bigelow to create her cinematic violence as it is for Peter Jackson, or likewise, for him to create heart-wrenching drama.
I even feel strange writing this at all because it seems so silly and irrational. But every time I begin to believe that these scenarios can't possibly be true, they pop up again ... and again. And most annoyingly, they tarnish the hope I wrote about earlier this month. This year has brought out a lot of notable female-centric fare, films that are not only getting buzz, but also Oscar talk. Is it too progressive of me to wish that this talk and these achievements wouldn't be hampered by sexism, and could just be treated as cinematic work from filmmakers, writers, and actors? Where sex and gender comes to play only in celebration of these works and moments of camaraderie?
Their work deserves more respect.
Jeremy Renner Wants To Be An Avenger
Directors We Love: Jim Jarmusch
Indie Roundup: 'Sweetgrass,' 'Clarkworld,' 'Broken Embraces'
Shelf Life: Fight Club_thumbnail.jpg)
Watch: Famous 'Matrix' Scene Re-Created with LEGOs
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
9-28-2009 @ 9:56PM
Matt said...
Before I get in trouble for what I'm about to say, I'm a gender studies major at university, so I'm not exactly a mysoginist. But I'm getting a bit over the feminist articles that appear almost daily here, on what a year ago was a pretty competent movie news source.
I don't know if this was an editorial decision, but talking about upcoming and current cinema has taken a backseat to the portrayal of women in the industry and an article that begins with 'We don't normally cover celebrity gossip, but...'
Well, you do cover celebrity gossip, and it's irrelevant. So are pieces like this, in my opinion. I'm not saying it's poorly written or its point isn't valid; rather, it may be more appropriate on a gender-politics-in-cinema blog, rather than a movie news blog.
Reply
9-28-2009 @ 10:06PM
Jen said...
This isn't celebrity gossip. It's a response to Peter Bart's bizarre article about Bigelow and Campion as upcoming Oscar contenders.
And I'd hardly call it feminist to point out that the Hollywood fixation on women's physical attributes is so out of control, you have a respected editor who can't even talk about female *directors* without this kind of typecasting nonsense.
9-28-2009 @ 10:22PM
Monika said...
Matt,
I've written for this site since 2006. While the number of writers and scope has increased, this has never been a solely "movie news" site, but a movie site, dedicated to any and all discussions about film. News, opinion, old, new, you name it.
On occasion, pure gossip has popped up now and then, as has the "we don't normally..." sentiment. But since I wasn't beginning an article with that, I'll stick to what applies to me.
This is a site that posts something like 15-20 posts a day, and Girls on Film is only a weekly post, updated from a biweekly schedule after response was positive. I would argue that there are definitely more posts from a female point of view, but this site certainly hasn't become overrun with feminist screed. Perhaps it seems jarring because there was a long while when Jessica Barnes and myself were the only daily female contributors, and now we have a lot more.
If you find my column to be irrelevant, please move on to the next post, although I would hope that someone interested in film and busy with gender studies would find discourse about the two useful.
9-29-2009 @ 12:13AM
snowballa said...
looks like you should change your major matt as you don't seem to be learning anything worthwhile from it
"so i'm not exactly a misogynist..."
the phrasing in that is so telling.
9-29-2009 @ 8:13AM
filmsuki said...
If you don't like it, just don't read it. That's what I do, just run down the article to see if anything peaks your interest..if not, move on. It's too bad you can't filter rss feeds though
When's the "Men on Film" column starting up?
9-29-2009 @ 8:35AM
Jenni Miller said...
How is what Peter Bart in Variety writes celebrity gossip? He's comparing how two women look -- two highly respected directors who are in the running for Oscars, big time -- and as a gender studies major, I would hope that you would appreciate a discussion of why that sort of commentary is even appropriate for a trade magazine like Variety.
As more women make films -- and write about films -- the topic of gender in media is no longer relegated to the hallowed halls of academia. How can a feminist studies major, of all people, not be interested in that? Or even excited by that? It boggles the mind.
9-29-2009 @ 10:02AM
ML said...
"I'm not saying [the article is] poorly written or its point isn't valid" - So basically you're not disagreeing, you just don't think Cinematical should express an opinion that isn't a film review? I happen to disagree. And, excuse me, but I think that your characterization that "talking about upcoming and current cinema has taken a backseat to the portrayal of women in the industry" is overstating the case (ridiculously). It indicates a certain oversensitivity.
10-05-2009 @ 11:37PM
Tigerbos said...
I find it very ironic that as females we are constantly bombarded by 'all things male' yet men get so upset over something so stupidly obvious as in the Variety article. I've never heard of two male directors being compared for their physical looks while almost totally ignoring their talent as directors. Why are men so defensive on these issues? Because they know it's true. They still want to be in control of every little thing. This guy studies gender issues? He needs to take a course in something else as obviously he's not getting it!
9-28-2009 @ 10:23PM
Teg said...
I disagree with the first commentor here. Why is it when a news site starts reporting on women that its suddenly tabloid-ish? Only discussions of men makes it serious?
This article that was the source of this post is just another indication of the struggles women have in Hollywood, specifically as the director. Why must the women behind the camera be expected to maintain the same level of beauty as the women infront of the camera.
I for one have been incredibly impressed at the increase in these news stories on this website. In fact, I used to only check this site every once and a while, but with this increase in news about women I know am a daily visitor.
In fact, I frequently email links to these articles to my friends and coworkers, as I will do with this story here. So it makes sense for Cinematical to keep posting them.
Cinematical is carving itself a niche in the entertainment news media. There are hundreds of sites just like this one, but with interesting pieces like this one, they are making a unique presence on the internet. So bravo.
And Matt, I think you should start listening more in lecture, as I don't think you're actually understanding the material.
Reply
9-28-2009 @ 10:35PM
CParis said...
Danny Boyle, Ron Howard, Gus Van Sant, David Fincher, Stephen Daldry.
What do these people have in common?
All were nominated for Best Director last year. Does anyone know what any one of them looks like? Were there any articles comparing their looks when discussing the Best Director Oscar race?
9-28-2009 @ 11:49PM
Chet said...
Peter Bart is the grandpa who blithely uses labels that make you squirm. He has no idea that he's offending people, and he'll just roll his eyes and mutter if you point it out to him.
The physical appearance of Kathryn Bigelow and Jane Campion deserves about as much attention or comment as that of Darren Aronofsky and Michael Mann.
Reply
9-29-2009 @ 12:30AM
edc said...
snoballa, perhaps you'd like to tell matt what courses to take, or maybe you could butt out?
Reply
9-29-2009 @ 3:23AM
Jen said...
This isn't the first time the guy's been in here ragging on "feminist" posts. Look up the discussion about the lack of girl leads in PIXAR movies.
9-29-2009 @ 12:52PM
snowballa said...
@edc: why should i butt out? he posted it on a public forum and i'm responding. his comment shows he's learned little to nothing from his major.
perhaps, sharpen your commenting skills or butt out.
9-30-2009 @ 6:59PM
Nat said...
Just because something may be about or concerning women doesn't make it simply feminist. I think the the concept and term 'feminism' is easily hijacked and immediately puts people on the defensive. Feminism is about equality first and foremost, but some people can't see past this and immediately look to the suggestion of 'women'.
I think female artists, particularly in the 'film industry' (especially bts production crew) are relevant subjects to be discussed, because it is a traditionally male dominated field. Suddenly when women and related issues are mentioned and raised in articles about film, alarm bells start ringing. I hope there will be a time where there will be no separate distinction between mens and womens issues- that is we no longer need to differentiate between gender related problems. But alas, we are not at that stage, and if we become complacent, we will fall ten steps behind us.
I hope issues of EQUALITY continue to be raised and discussed here on cinematical
Reply
9-29-2009 @ 5:17AM
AdamW said...
It'll be interesting to see if any future coverage of these two directors uses the same kind of language and approach.
Reply
9-29-2009 @ 7:14AM
www.hayda.net said...
Thank you, you answered the question I have been searching for which was whether or not to place keywords when blog commenting. mirc . mirc indir
Reply
9-29-2009 @ 10:00AM
John Muth said...
Maybe it's the subject at hand, but I'm seeing a number of articles/blog comments about these two women and the need to point out the "but they're women" on both sides - the pro-feminine, and the 'Men only please'. I recently saw on another blog, where the author had written about his favorite movies of the year - and included THE HURT LOCKER in the list - he made no mention of Kathryn Bigelow, or anything other than a one-line breakdown on the movie - but then one of the commenters (a woman, seemingly) wrote a long post about "where were the women-directed/starring films" and pointing out the fact that Kathryn Bigelow directed one of the movies the blog had listed.
Then there's the whole ordeal when THE HURT LOCKER was actually released and all of the commotion over "a woman directed *that*!!" which, I guess leads to articles like the one that inspired Monika's, where it's breaking these artists down solely to their physical-descriptions and the surprise in how they deal with publicity and the public.
But, I kind of see it - as given by the examples, I've given - as a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" when talking about movies written/directed, and even starring, women. If a man writes about a movie based solely on how effective a film it is - a la THE HURT LOCKER (sorry, I haven't seen Campion's yet) - without mentioning Bigelow, or that she's a woman; then he's making a major oversight. But, then if there's comments about the women - who I have to admit, are actually attractive, and I don't see an issue with describing how they look (not that it matters in an article that's meant to compare/contrast their award-worthy work), then he's being shallow and overlooking their inherent talents.
As for Cinematical, itself, I was brought to this site via Elisabeth Rappe's work (she's a great and unique voice in the online film-blogosphere - but I've gushed about her before, so I'll stop), but I see this whole site as rather refreshing with it's fairly large female crew - in the ever-growing sausage party that tends to be online film geekery. And I think that the articles presented here are unique and interesting and that's what keeps me coming back. Whether it's articles coming from the female perspective (like this one, or even "the girl's guide to Comic-Con"), or just good articles about movies that happen to be written by women.
Keep up the good work. :)
Reply
9-29-2009 @ 4:58PM
Teg said...
Well said, though I feel the need to add that if an article comments on the film without mentioning its done by a woman (or even mentioning it) thats cool. Thats progress. Sites like this, and women (and male allies) who are involved film studies I think we like to point out the fact that they are women in order to provide ourselves with beacons and icons. The fact that so few women are mainstream film directors makes the few that are, incredible special and we can hold them up as role models, as challenging the 'sausage fest' of male-dominated Hollywood.
They are symbols of hope and encouragement, especially for aspiring female film directors.
9-29-2009 @ 5:48PM
jim said...
The guy's just looking for a hook to fill column inches, the same way you are. The difference is, he thought of one and you didn't--you just decided to pick on his.
Reply