One of the joys of a liberal arts education is that you get to take random classes that will probably never serve you again save a few key moments. I realized the other day, though, that one of things I took away from my Psychology 1 class freshman year was the following phrase: "'is' does not imply 'ought'" While the professor was invoking Hume's wisdom to talk about the fact that though a certain genetic pattern may exist, it does not mean that it should necessarily demonstrate itself, I adapted the phrase to fit my own meaning. See, I was chatting with my younger brother who is the biggest movie guru on the face of the earth and I started asking him about movie trailers. I did my usual thing where I partially ask him a question and partially harass him about his response. Seems to me that if a Martian (yes, bear with me, a Martian) were to visit Earth and head to the nearest Loews, he/she/it would assume that most men are slobs and that women are beautiful props.
Movie trailers for films like the recent "The Other Guys" with Will Ferrell and Eva Mendes, "Knocked Up" with Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl, "Dodgeball" with Vince Vaughan and Christine Taylor, and practically any Judd Apatow film paint comedy through very masculine lenses. And not strong, heroic, valiant lenses but rather slovenly and grotesque ones. Furthermore, this perspective also clouds dramatic and action film trailers like "Fast and the Furious" so much that it leaves very little room in the way of 3 dimensional female characterization: in a 45 second clip, 25 seconds are devoted to cheesy dialogue between men, 15 seconds are allotted for gunshots and explosions and 5 seconds are left for a hot babe to sashay sultrily through a room. It's a tried and true formula.
Typically, when I notice portrayals of women like this, I get a frustrated because they're just other instances of females being relegated to second tier roles. It wasn't always this way, though. Movies like "Marnie" from 1964 and 1961's "Breakfast at Tiffany's" centered on the female protagonists, with all of their flaws and endearing characteristics. There was no effort to hide their weaknesses or romanticize them but they were instead given the decency of being examined from all angles. Even movies in the 80's like "Sixteen Candles" focused on Molly Ringwald and all of the frustrations that come with being a teen girl. So when I started to question my brother about why it is that women aren't the focal point of many popular movies, whether comedic or dramatic, he gave a very simple and understandable explanation. He told me that the biggest demographic of tickets sales are men aged 18-30. Of course movies come from a very masculine perspective because they're primarily pitching to a masculine audience and, considering this is a capitalist society, that equation makes a hell of a lot of sense.
That's when I thought back to the "'is' does not imply 'ought" equation. Simply because movie goers tend to be male, does that mean that a female perspective should be left out? I mean, after all, women do make up 50% of the population so it seems like an odd omission to pretend that their only function is to be shrewish figures whose bodies men crave but whose opinions they could do without. But a story of sexism towards women is an old one, staler than that loaf of bread you've held onto too long in your kitchen cupboard. What really started to interest me, though, in that moment is how unfair these movies are to men.
I get, as my brother told me, that these types of films represent a fantasy: a man can be however disheveled he wants (in comedic films, that is) and get a hot chick. Who says, though, that men want to think of themselves that way? That they want to maintain the lowest common denominator of proficiency at life? No doubt, the prospect of being able to do as you want and act like you want is a freeing one but it doesn't represent men in a positive light. Is every man comfortable with the fact that a huge sector of media represents them as socially inept losers with little going for them and a sense of humor that doesn't transcend gender lines? In "Superbad," for example, the funniest bits of the film are when Seth Rogen and Michael Cera engage one another but as soon as women enter the equation, they feel the need to tone their banter WAY down. There's definitely truth to this sort of behavior but it doesn't feel idyllic to me.
If I were an average dude, age 18-30, I'd rather pay $15 to watch a movie where a basic dude with a basic job and basic hygiene gets a supermodel. Not a Jonah Hill, Michelin Man-look alike or an unclean looking Vince Vaughan type. And the worst part is that it’s not as though these movies are entirely humorless: in fact, they can be extremely entertaining. They would be ten times,funnier, though, if there wasn’t the added distraction of wondering how on God’s green earth Seth Rogen managed to make a modern, working woman like Katherine Heigl keep his baby after a one night stand. I wouldn't fantasize about being incompetent because that wouldn't reflect well on my membership in the male species and it wouldn’t speak highly of my standards for myself.
So as much as it bothers me as a chica to watch movies that turn people like me (i.e. those with breasts) into bobble heads or uptight princesses, I'd really like to see the movie industry paint a better picture of what it is to be a man. How is it that a male dominated field can't manage to balance relatable actors and a few redeeming qualities in its characterization of men? Dude, what's up with that?
No comments:
Post a Comment