Movie Question For The Ladies
 

Which movies do you think have the best social commentary on women, as well as a good/great movie.

What do you mean by this?

Are you using the conventional meaning of "social commentary" as in you want films that highlight challenges that women face in whichever society they live?

Yes, but since you brought it up, is there another meaning of social commentary you were thinking of? It might be just as good or better.



I have my own idea of some very good movies centered around women, but I'm curious what women think, since I'm looking from the outside.

i think he also means "uniquely woman", as in something that woman would relate to as that awkward set of adjectives/nouns that everyone perceives them as...

No, just making sure I understood what you were looking for. I'll think on it.

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

what do u mean? im confusing?

Not that I ever thought about it, but Christine (2016) imo (I know I always bring it up). It’s funny that, as a woman, I really can’t think of any, and I’ve been at it for about 7 minutes.

Wanda
Sweetie

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

This is just a satirical comment about this thread's title (which does not apply in context) but is still humorous anyway...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_08Wp94drs

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

The Joy Luck Club (1986) - I love this movie, but granted it's about women within a specific ethnic / cultural context.
Still a great film about women.

While I think that many challenges faced by women can also be faced by either other groups (ie women and racial minorities can face hiring discrimination) or by men (ie men can be victims of objectification or sexual violence), here are some films that I think offer social commentary on issues that are definitely linked to the gender of the main character (though that might not always be the main point of the film):

Lilya 4-Ever
The Naked Kiss
Far from the Madding Crowd
Orlando
Jeanne Dielman
The Fits
Portrait of a Lady on Fire
Osama
Visiting Hours
The Second Mother
Wasp
Revenge
Polytechnique
Mustang
Four Months, Three Weeks, Two Days

While I wouldn't call it "great", the recent horror film Lucky had some interesting things to say about violence toward women and the social response to it.


Separate list for documentaries:
Girl Rising
Domestic Violence
The Invisible War

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

tbh i don't really consider social commentary when watching a film. i can just read twitter for that.

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

oh damn, there's also that movie that came out in the past 5-10 years (and i was thinking about it because i think about demographics/identity at times...) that has a dystopian feel to it, about gender, and the main character is a woman...the pictures i saw kinda remind me of the matrix, but if someone could bring that up again i'll be sure to write down the title...people were talking about it here i think this past summer...she had a shaved head and she was wearing kinda a simple brown shirt...

This looks like a fairly solid list.
I’ve seen Portrait of a Lady on Fire, The Invisible War (great Doc), Polytechnique and Revenge and all are good.

I have Osama, Orlando, and Mustang saved to watch soon as well.

Would Malena fit? That’s a personal favorite of mine as well.
Maybe The Childrens Hour? I’ll be watching that soon as well, since I have saved and I can’t pass up a film directed by Wyler and stars Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine.

Thanks!

I haven't seen either of those. Malena has vaguely been on my watchlist for a while now. I've been passively interested in The Children's Hour after the discussion about it in The Celluloid Closet.

The films I listed above are all ones I'd rate 10/10 or 9/10. I didn't look through my 8/10 films yet, but there are probably a few more good ones in there.

How about Silence Of The Lambs, Batman Returns, or Fury Road, though?

In terms of challenges faced by women in society? Honestly, I'd have to rewatch the first two (which I haven't seen in well over a decade) and think about it through that lens. As for Fury Road, it's not really a film I think of as commenting on challenges faced by women so much as film that does a really good job of creating a compelling action film where the most satisfying character arcs come from embracing things that would traditionally be considered more "feminine" values. I mean, the women in the film are literally used as breeding stock, but Max's body is also commodified as a glorified blood bag. It's a dehumanizing social situation for anyone who isn't at the very top.

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

Does Set It Off (1996) count?

Does it?

Just ask yourself, "What do I think the film is trying to say about women or women's place in society?". If you have an answer to that question, go ahead and share those thoughts.

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

I would second a lot of the films Takoma listed, especially Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Orlando and 4 Weeks, 3 Months, 2 Days.

Some others to consider:

A Taste of Honey (1961)
Cries and Whispers (1972)
Thelma and Louise (1991)
Wadjda (2012)
Suffragette (2015)

I turned it around and asked myself what are the films that spoke to social commentaries about men.


I found the question really difficult because what are the universal "male" social issues? Are there any that are relevant to us all? Are there movies about testicles?



A couple that I thought of were "Predator" because the testosterone in the movie drips off the screen. Realistically? No. But strongly (absurdly) 'male.'



And the movie "Falling Down" (1993 with Michael Douglas) because it deals with the pressure of being a provider. But it's perspective is from the perspective of a Western white male. So, in that sense it may not be universally "male."



Edit to add that maybe what are the "male" and "female" issues are not elemental but necessarily linked to social context.


Also, is it possible for the male to understand issues facing woman in society? Maybe not from a personal experience perspective, but certainly a man can study and read and be tuned in to the experience of others.


The first movie I thought of as having a strong feminine perspective, at least in terms of dealing with uniquely feminine pressures, was "Thelma and Louise." Maybe it wasn't insightful, but it was certainly told from a strongly feminine point of view. Edit to add that the movie deals directly with trying to liberate the elemental feminine from the societal and male influences that would otherwise try to define them. Of course, the only way they become truly liberated is to drive a beautiful '65 T-Bird convertible over a cliff. Not a very optimistic message about the possibility of unfettered feminism. We all have to swim in the waters of our own little fish bowl.

Good ol' Takoma. ;)

LOL.

But seriously, when I think about social issues facing men, I mainly think about the way that societies define masculinity and the idea of being a "real man".

To that end, I think of a film like All Quiet on the Western Front, where men are not only expected to participate in horrifically traumatizing events, but then to return from them and speak of them with a sense of pride and even gratitude.

Visiting Hours is a three-for-one, when you think about it.

Ah, the male's inclination for combat and competition. So, we have the older films' where war and sports (and politics?) are the exclusive domain of the men. Not so true anymore as women assume more and more of those roles.



Compare two movies about a dangerous river run: "Deliverance" and "The River Wild' (Streep). The former is a strongly masculine movie while the latter is strongly feminine. The action in the movies are not radically different, but the 'flavor' of the movies are.



In terms of a protest against male stereotyping, what about a film like "Animal House"? The movie is strongly male but it is also a frank protest against the rigid roles expected of young men.



And then there is the feminine stereotype for nurturing and child rearing. What about films like "Juno" and "Grandma" ? They seem to tackle womanhood from a particularly strong feminine angle.



And on the other side of the coin is the satire of "Mr. Mom" with Michael Keaton and Teri Garr,



We see the migration of women into roles more traditionally occupied by men in contemporary film. Outside of comedy and satire, do we see the opposite? Is that because women had so few roles in society (there are no roles for men to invade) or is it because no one wants to see stories of nurturing/strongly feminine men?



How about Chris Hemsworth' character is the 2016 re-boot of "Ghostbusters (2016)." Instead of a beautiful bubbleheaded woman secretary serving coffee ("Bialystock and Bloom! Bialystock and Bloom!"), we have the beautiful bubbleheaded hunk doing it instead. But it comes off as funny, an obvious irony and satire at the women stereotypes of older films. Does it work if done in earnest? Does the audience buy it?

I'm not talking so much about who gets to participate in war, but rather the idea of "real men" enduring situations like bloody battles and being expected to come back from them without any serious side effects. I think that some anti-war films rightfully ask, "What are we asking these men to do? And why are we expecting them to be okay with it?"

I certainly would not want to watch that. “Nurturing” is a broad one but “feminine” men as a deliberate characteristic, and an entire story constructed around that, how is that in itself of interest? I just don’t see the point in such gender swaps. I have never seen such a trope reversal “work in earnest” or “bought it”. If anything, it evokes a kind of annoyance in me, because why? It is incredibly artificial. There is the British secretary John Hooker in Mad Men who however insists he isn’t one at every opportunity, and I don’t think that’s made comic there, but let’s be honest, a male secretary is still a kind of aberration.

Disclaimer: I have no faith in secretaries of any kind, but I would not hire a male secretary. I don’t have a good argument for that, but a certain amalgamation of personal experience that suggests it wouldn’t be a good idea.

yeah, all the different voices you acquire in your head about "being a man" can be and often are as crappy as being expected to look pretty in a very specific fashion friendly way, play the role of "nurturing happy female", etc. The thing that generally bothers me about these conversations is it really is unique for each person, a lot of women who i've talked to have said "i only have guy friends because i don't like having female friends", so the diametrically opposed binaries don't apply. Appearing tough isn't much more than a shield and burden.


I was thinking about that in the movie "Dead Presidents" (not a good movie imo, btw): in the beginning the boy gets jealous of the main characters pool playing abilities and loses, then when the main character demands money for winning the boy slits his face with a knife and threatens him to get him to stfu around town...then when the main character comes back from the war, the boy who threatened him says in front of his friends "i kicked his ass years ago!", but nobody really cares about such pompous insecure behavior a lot of the time anyway, it's not impressive and more often than not un-attractive.

I don't think that the film would be constructed around a man being feminine. But to give a recent example, the lead character in tick tick BOOM had some feminine attributes, and I was genuinely surprised when his character turned out to be straight. (And not only straight, but his relationship with his girlfriend was a key plot thread).

Some men are just naturally more "feminine". I think that a narrative can be interesting if you see the way that someone functions when they don't have the outer appearance that is expected of them. And I also think that feminine men can be interesting characters outside of their mannerisms (as with tick tick BOOM).

Aw :(

I've worked with three different male secretaries via some sideline work I've done for my parents' business. Male secretaries are fine.

Film and literature handles this both ways; in terms of the glory of combat and in terms of human frailty and the tragic outcome of unspeakable physical and emotional trauma of military mayhem. And both takes are true.



Historically, the horrific nature of combat took a sharp turn with the American Civil War with the industrial revolution and the emergence of technologies of mass killing. But we still have voluntary military service.



Is this thirst for the glory of combat innate? For eons it was the exclusive endeavor of men. Now we see women here as well. Was it innate in women all along and simply denied them or, is the phenomenon of the soldiering woman an artifice and being fostered and nurtured as a social norm?



As for enduring and coming out of combat as a whole person, is that a determinant of a "real" man or just luck?

Right. Haven’t seen that or heard of it - definitely worth checking out. I don’t think all/most effeminate men are gay, or anything like that, it’s far more complicated.

It’s all about approach. I think “effeminate” can mean an interest in fashion and whatnot, and, yes, looks, taking care of one’s appearance, but it’s when emotional reactions come into play that it gets tricky for me. I think this may have been brought up in the cliches thread, but it’s when men are portrayed as “whiny/hysterical/gutless” that the role reversal becomes a bit on the nose imo. And this happens a lot now. I’m not suggesting these reactions are unique to women, and I love male characters (especially antagonists/villains) who are not, on the face of it, tough - like Loki. :) they don’t have to be gay. But to me it’s a bit as in it’s not pc to have hysterical women any longer, so all hail hysterical men.

I rewatched Prisoners tonight. I enjoy it each time, though it’s not flawless. A lot of screen time is dedicated to setting up Keller as “tough”, contrasting with Franklin’s “softness” (he cries a lot, refuses to engage in physical violence, can’t keep secrets, what else… plays an instrument instead of hunting? :lol:). I think that film is an uncomfortable watch on many levels, as was intended, but every time I revisit it I’m reminded that I would not want to go through any crisis with someone like Franklin by my side. Again, I know that is not Villeneuve’s “point”, but I think that is so far outside the realm of, I guess, biologically expected behaviour, that to me it would have to be a pretty central part of the plot.

I do agree in advance that if done well it becomes seamless.

Again, I suppose that was a bit of dark humour on my part. I’m sure male secretaries are fine ;)

But they often don’t like reporting to women and I don’t like the atmosphere that creates.

I think that going through a crisis with anyone who is very emotional is challenging, regardless of gender.

When done right, a hysterical/emotional character can work really well for a scene. Like the son in Moonstruck being all upset and his dying mother is like "Oh, for heaven's sake!". The most (irrationally) emotional/hysterical character in The Witch was the mother, in my opinion, but effectively so.

I do agree with you that hysterical women have gone a bit out of vogue when it comes to generating an easy laugh. Then again, I rarely find hysterical characters all that funny to begin with, so it's not a big loss from my point of view.

Yes, to be fair, two of the three male secretaries I worked with interacted directly with a male supervisor.

That’s very true. And yes, dear me, The VVitch is great, but the mother was something else. I’ll revisit Moonlight for that alone.

You do have a point. In a sense that makes me think that hysterical characters in general are incredibly hard to get right. Don’t remember much about Girl, Interrupted, but I rewatched There Will Be Blood yesterday, and while Paul Dano’s Eli isn’t exactly hysterical, the religious ecstasy scenes made my spine tingle all over again.

Sorry, Moonstruck! Moonstruck! It was a mis-type. I just corrected it in my post.

Exactly.

It's not hard to make a hysterical character grating, but having them actually work as part of a scene is trickier if you want them to be more than one-note.

Ha, thank God! My mind went “WHAT!?”

Moonstruck is very weird but awesome.

As soon as you very diplomatically were like "Yeah, I'll have to, um . . . rewatch Moonlight for that moment" I was like "I HAVE MADE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE".

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

Migrating a bit from the feminine, but the movie scene that has the best depiction of hysterical characters is "Return of The Living Dead (1985) where there is a long warehouse scene when a closeted corpse first comes to life and actors James Karen (who I love), Thom Mathews and later joined by Clu Gallagher absolutely nail the state of human panic. Awesome scene.

Let's not sell the film short on it's social commentary about how hard it is to be a woman.

Specifically how hard it is to be a woman when you're just trying to dance naked in a graveyard and secret government gas gets acid-rained down on your nude body and also somehow your vulva has disappeared.

I mean, talk about a problem facing women every single day in this country!

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

That situation is pretty cliched :)

"I was watching a movie with this woman and . . ."

"Let me guess: she was dancing naked in a graveyard with a missing vulva and secret reanimating gas released from a nearby building acid-rained down on her? YAWN."

I think Fury Road does comment on the challenges that women face, even in a post-apocalyptic society (the more things change, after all...), since Joe's "wives" are obviously a group of women being exploited specifically for their gender, after all. That is a good point about the "feminine" values of the movie, though, and one I was actually already thinking about for my Men & Women Of Action thread, as part of a larger trend within Action movies (such as in First Blood & Die Hard) to have their protagonists reject toxic/alpha male masculinity by being emotional, like the way that Max is

As for the other two movies I mentioned, I'd say that the social commentary on women in Silence Of The Lambs can be found in the way that...



...while Batman Returns fits into this conversation with the way that Selina is shown...

I'd say that Lambert in Alien is a good example of an effectively hysterical character in a movie, considering how horrifying the situation she's stuck in is; I know Veronica Cartwright said that she disliked the character's "emotional weakness", but she accepted the role because the filmmakers convinced her that her character was meant to be a reflection of the fear that audiences would be feeling (which makes perfect sense), plus, it was also a reflection of how she reacted for real while filming the chestbuster scene, since she really did go into hysterics when a stream of fake blood splashed her unexpectedly (but who can blame her for that?). It's one of those things that would've been potentially problematic if she was the only woman in the movie, or if Ripley reacted in a similar way, but, since Ripley's actually the coolest-headed of the entire crew (possibly because of the fact that every character was written in a gender-neutral manner in the screenplay), and the movie ends up being balanced on that front.

But Max is also being exploited specifically for his blood type. Though I agree that exploiting the female body as essentially breeding stock is something that women face or have faced. More broadly, the way that a woman's control over her own body is legally regulated in many places can also be connected to the idea of these women being forced to bear children.

I'll keep your other points in mind when I revisit the other two films. I especially like the point about using Clarice's literal point of view. It's very much what I love about the film Lilya 4-Ever, in which a girl is repeatedly sexually assaulted as part of being sex trafficked, but the assaults are always shown from her point of view.

Oh yeah; I mean, Demme used the "characters staring into the camera" device in some of his other movies, but never as effectively as in Lambs, where it's not just a striking aesthetic choice to make a general connection between the characters and the audience, but also a brilliant commentary on the treatment of women in society specifically, one that can't be avoided regardless of the gender of the person watching the film.

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

I am not a lady, but when I watched Patty Hearst last year, I found it really interesting in how it depicted the way sexual abuse can become normalized in certain contexts and how it's rationalized by both the abuser and the victim. (How good the movie is in this respect is all the more surprising given some of Paul Schrader's Facebook posts, haha.)

Oh, come on. Believe in yourself a little!

Fine, I will subject myself to this Pygmalion-esque makeover.


*raises pinky*

Great! Now fetch me my slippers!

In the name of making you independent, I will instead foster a very unhealthy co-dependency. Welcome to being a lady!

Heh.
You made me chuckle.

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

R.I.P. Jean-Claude Lord.

Special feature interviews of the discs of "Return of The Living Dead" has a great story about how Trash's (Linnea Quigley) missing vulva came to be.

Apparently they started filming that scene with Quigley in her natural bushy state. A producer who understood ratings standards walked on the set and started yelling that they couldn't show her bush and then left the set again.

So the crew, accepting that a bushy beav was a no-no, implemented creative problem solving skills and shaved Quigley. They started to shoot again when the same producer came on set again and started screaming, "Now you can see EVERYTHING!"

So they hid Quigley's junk and she danced as a Barbie. In the words of Vincent LaGuardia Gambini, "So, I wore... this ridiculous thing... for you..."

Based on Quigley's interviews, she was not a shy girl. She wasn't shamed at all by filming the scene. "Somebody get a light over here, Trash is taking her clothes off again!"

Yeah, I'm very familiar with the story.

And what it says about the discomfort with the female body, even in the context of trying to cash in on the female body, is really something.

that is sooo funny i wasn't even thinking about batman returns as feminist social commentary, i was watching the movie with my cat haha, but yeah cat woman is victim blaming in that scene and overrall that movie is the best batman movie i've seen so far...i guess cat woman is kinda like Valarie Solaris, l an extreme misandrist who can't bone batman because of it.

Yup. It is pretty much split-personality-level insanity trying to balance lust, the universal appeal of the female form and Freudian hang-ups. Compare that to male nudity with practically no market whatsoever. Boy's junk in film is almost exclusively for porno, occasionally for giggles (The Dewey Cox Story), rarely to make us uncomfortable ("Eastern Promises") and very rarely as a symbol of male power ("Ganja & Hess" 1973). Pretty much no one wants to see it.

Disagree.

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

I've enjoyed reading all your responses!


If someone doesn't mind being personal, if you see a movie of a woman who reminds you of yourself, it would be interesting to know. Hell, I might just watch it to get to know you more, but I'm generally very curious about anything relating to the human condition.


The movie I thought of was "Rachel Rachel". She might not be the typical or average woman, but I think there's a good chunk like her, and it seemed kinda real, which is what was important. If you haven't seen it, Paul Newman directs Joanne Woodward who is great in this. The narration was great, and has one great opening scene (Joanne was touching her bush without the graphics) but it's very, very important, tasteful, and hints at a bigger problem. She's 35, single, virgin, attractive but maybe a bit shy, lives at home with her domineering mother, is a teacher, sees an old neighbor fella from high school. She falls for him, but the love is unrequited. As a man, I really "fell" for her. I don't ever see myself in a relationship, but I might have made an exception for her.



"Falling Down" is a good one for men, because it shows all the pressure it goes to be the provider, as if a man is nothing else. It's typical to hear or read women (regardless of how "woke") tear down a working-class man who is barely supporting himself and child support, and always using that criticism to make him less than human. However, I think society would ignore or laugh if a man asked a woman for financial help to take care of their child, but it would be cool to have a good movie about the 10% of men who get sole custody of the children.



I think men and women who are involved should help each other to understand. I took down over 200 of my videos, but there's a great episode from 1962 from "The Tonight Show" where each actress is asked what about women's issues, what they love about men, and what they can't stand about men. It's a great time capsule just to compare with today. It would be extra great if they did the same show today, asking the same questions, with the closest accurate actresses.


If you want it, I don't mind sending you an e-mail of a private link.

I stand corrected! Takoma's message to filmakers everywhere, "Free Willie!!!" :D

Since we're on the topic of Return of the Living Dead, check out what someone added to the trivia, and try not to laugh at how terrified this dude sounds of male nudity.

O'Bannon figured the film would appeal solely to guys and included Trash's nudity for that reason, but he was surprised to discover just as many female fans. "I'll never make that mistake again," he says, adding that going forward his nudity will be equal opportunity, even though guys statistically go to films to see nudity significantly more than women do. In fact, male nudity has been proven to keep guys from seeing films more than female nudity drives female viewers away.

It's been PROVEN, guys! PROVEN! Guys will want to see a movie until they find out there's a p-p-p-p-penis in it! LOL.


Anyway, I very much identify with Bathsheba in Far from the Madding Crowd (though if a hunky sheep farmer wanted to come and woo me I would not be opposed!), and with Molly Shannon's character in Year of the Dog (there but for the grace of God, etc, etc). Though with Shannon's character it's not about her gender so much as just her personality.

While we’re on the topic of exposed penises depicted in film, and as heterosexual male who has no issue with it, off the top of my head, I know I’ve seen the peen in The Man Who Fell to Earth (like, 3 different guys?), Wild Things (This girl I watched this with in college made me rewind it over and over as she kept exclaiming “Yessssss!”), Eastern Promises, Forgetting Sarah Marshal, The Crying Game….Yeah, that’s all that comes to mind without thinking too hard (pardon the expression) on it.

LOL!!!!!

Just remember everyone: there is no market for male nudity. Hee!

I still remember her excitement over Kevin’s, erm, bacon. She literally wasn’t interested in the movie until that shower scene and she was all like “Wait! Did….did they just show his penis?? Rewind it!”
*minutes after rewatching it*

“Yesssssss! Rewind it again!”

I can’t recall, but she might have paused it, as well. lol. College. Good times.

I'd like to think this wasn't true, but I've known a lot of guys over the years who would consider a movie having too much dick in it to be a deal breaker. Especially if they know before hand. I think there are worries that in such a case, people might suspect they went to the movie BECAUSE of the promise of wang.


It's a ridiculous and gross charade that unfortunately I even danced along with when I was a teenager. I remember a friend once renting a porno which, as we watched it, quickly shocked us when suddenly all the men started blowing each other. My defence against such a thing was to put my hands in front of it so not to see anymore. But more importantly, so my friends would see I had quickly protected myself from it. Like seeing such a thing would be enough to have me labelled gay to others in my school. That my hands would shield me from any homosexual lust transmission. I was already suspect enough amongst friends in that I never had much interest in pornography to begin with. Me getting caught with the reflection of a cock party in my eyeballs and I would have been done for.


It's of course all so shameful now. But it felt so important at the time, not only to be straight, but to continually prove it. I don't know how prevalent it still is, but there once was such a painful fragility surrounding a lot of male hetereosexuality, that there are no end of little infractions that could rob you of the title.Back then simply staring at the spot on a television screen where a dick might suddenly appear was definitely one of them. Pathetic, but fairly true.



Thankfully, in regards to helping my enlightenment along, it would turn out that friend who rented that movie was in fact gay (and to this day still denies renting such a porno intentionally), and I would end up spending most of my twenties in gay bars with him. Places where gay porn would be filling every TV screen available, and I would sit watching it all with the similarly glazed over expression I probably give to football when I'm in a straight bar. Just something to stare at while I wait for my next drink. And while those cock fears all seem so distant now, they were very real at the time. And very childish. And very harmful. And according to the comment you posted, still being hidden behind by men who can't face the possibility of being mistaken for being gay, even for the briefest of moments.



This nonsense runs deep.

It's true, and I wrote and deleted something about how sad it makes me that guys have such a precarious relationship with a huge subset of human bodies just out of deep-rooted homophobia. And by extension, that men don't see themselves in films as having genuine erotic potential. Like, the idea that men are socialized to see their nude bodies as either (1) comical or (2) threatening is generally upsetting to me.

Now that said, I think it's still kind of garbage to suggest that male nudity should be kept off screen out of deference to the homophobes. That's like saying we should keep non-white people out of leading roles lest we alienate the dollars of the racists.

It absolutely does.

I think that my posts sometimes suggest I'm just desperate for more male nudity on screen. I'm actually often pretty indifferent to nudity (of either gender). But I generally think that seeing a wider range of bodies on screen would be a good thing for a lot of people. I remember watching a film whose name escapes me, and an older woman was shown nude and people in the theater actually went "Ugh!" or "Ew!". And this was, like, an art-house crowd!

[quote=Takoma11;2274356 how sad it makes me that guys have such a precarious relationship with a huge subset of human bodies just out of deep-rooted homophobia.



[/quote]


This is your complete explanation for why male full frontal nudity is rare in film and judged harshly by ratings agencies, male deep-rooted homophobia?

Indeed, I object. It's not homophobia, but old-fashioned sexism and objectification of the female form.

EDIT: Actually, never mind.

Well, this is a good point. I bet one thing we've never seen in a film that wasn't rated at least NC-17 is an ERECT penis.
Like, you can slip one into an R movie as long as it's flaccid. But once that thing gets excited, whoah!, look out MPAA!!!

To be fair, it was pointing right at them. They felt threatened.

To be fair to myself, because that's absolutely how I feel, I work with dozens of women I am friendly with and several of my closest friends are women and they basically all sing the same refrain all the time:
"Nobody wants to see y'all's junk!"

And you hear that enough you start to feel like it's probably true and another irreparable division between men and women exists.

Damn thing could go off any second!

I could do without seeing the private parts of any actors in serious movies unless it serves an artistic purpose above base sensuality. It's debasing and tends to reduce the actor to the level of a prostitute. If we're going to go there, let's please have a good reason. For base sensuality there is an entire genre dedicated to it which does it better than R-rated fare.

It winked at them

It was a deadly weapon, cocked and loaded.

Exactly. The line between art and eroticism can be blurry with regards to depiction of the female form because the state of sexual readiness is not as evident (unless we get all Larry Flynt) as it is in the male.


With men, it is cut and dry: Erect phallus = eroticism. Non-erect phallus = not eroticism.


The objectification of the female form is not restricted to strait men. We need only browse briefly though any fashion magazine like "Vogue" to see a sensual, semi-erotic presentation of the female form. Thus, objectification of the female form is driven as much by women as men.



Seeing full fronting nudity of men in film is simply shocking. There are several reasons, with homophobia taking a back to seat to most of them:


1. Seeing full frontal nudity in men is rare and it pops off the screen when we see it simply because it is rare.



2. Parents. When adults have a child, their view of the world can be fundamentally altered where they are highly sensitized to providing a safe and wholesome world for their children to live in. Parents with pre-pubescent children commonly don't like adult nudity in this world as they want to control how and when their children are introduced and exposed to strictly adult themes, especially sex.


3. On a related note, sexual repression stems from the idea that sex is a base instinct and not particularly safe or wholesome. Thus, sexuality is suitable only in very private and intimate circumstances. How far these tolerances are taken in art and media varies with the degree of guilt and repression of any individual. Male nudity strum these tight wires and therefore their images on screen will be met with varying degrees of discomfort as we are getting into deep waters where a lot of people simply are not prepared to deal with, especially from their entertainment. .


4. Sexual repression is transmitted vertically. Parents frequently want to transmit their attitudes on sex to their children in a highly controlled fashion. Sexual imagery and attitudes transmitted via the media will be met with substantial resistance by those parents who want to control how sex is presented in society at large. Nudity can be an issue for them.



With regards to homophobia, Kinsey saw a full spectrum of sexual flexibility even in males. But, homophobia is not triggered by the male phallus, especially a non-erect one, but images of homosexual emotional and physical intimacy. Viggo's junk in "Eastern Promises" is not going to tweak any but the most extreme homophobe, while the tender scenes of making out between men will send a shudder to a greater swath of an audience, male and female.

Well, certainly not in a non-consensual context.

Like, what is the context in which they are saying that? I know a lot of women (and some men) who talk positively about male nudity in films. But these same people do not appreciate being flashed by drunks or being sent unsolicited pictures.

It would take me like pages and pages to unpack what I think are unfortunate dynamics between men and their own bodies, men and the bodies of other men, and between women and the male body (where the male body is seen as an object of aggression and not one that is passive or to be enjoyed). And since I'm not a man, a lot of it would just be me working from what I've observed and what I've been told by the subset of men who are my friends who are open about such topics (about half of whom are gay, which obviously adds another layer).

Suffice it to say, wherever the messaging is coming from about the male body being either a joke or a weapon, I think it's too bad. I think it doesn't serve men and I think it doesn't serve women.


Well, we've turned a thread called "A Question for the Ladies" into a conversation about men's feelings, so, uh, mission accomplished, eh?



I leave you to it, bros!

https://external-content.duckduckgo....gif&f=1&nofb=1

Oh, I am quite comfortable with saying mine definitely serves women.
👍

Sorry…..I’ll see myself out….

But should it be debasing?
I mean, what's wrong with us as a society that nudity is "debasing" and reduces people "to the level of a prostitute"?

No, it's not so much any of that as women constantly telling me that mens' genitalia are "gross" and other similar adjectives. And I mean, LOTS of women, I've probably had that exact conversation with no fewer than 30 different women in my lifetime and probably lots more. Imagine if the opposite sex was constantly telling you that your genitals were GROSS. Instead of literally the most desirable thing on Earth to them.

And I don't think we've turned a thread "for the Ladies" into one about men's feelings, I think that's rather an unfair portrayal of the mere inclusion of men's perspective and questions actually, five pages in, that was absolutely topically relevant to the direction the larger conversation we were having had gone.
But we "bros" will miss you.

That is depressing. I don't know what's wrong with people.

It was mostly a joke, but isn't it interesting that a thread asking for a female perspective has so quickly become male dominated in terms of both who is posting and what we are posting about?

I appreciate the perspective (especially yours and Crumbsroom's), but this is now a conversation about men and how they relate to their bodies in reality and on screen. The only female perspective that I can offer here is to say that I don't think men should be shamed for their bodies and that I think it's messed up that they get that message (from women or from other men). The conversation is welcome to continue, because it's where the thread went on its own. You guys are more qualified to hash out the conversation than I am, and that's fine. I just don't think it's a conversation I want to participate in as the only woman. And I'm sorry if me trying to be glib/funny in exiting was hurtful.

It IS a great gif tho.

Depends on the purpose. Viggo fighting naked in Eastern Promises was an artistic choice which makes sense as was the naked Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen. The former emphasized vulnerability, the latter emphasized invulnerability. It's not mere nudity that is debasing.



If, however, you're getting paid to do sex work, you're a prostitute. Porn actors are prostitutes. The closer your job takes you into a space that is occupied by people in this category, the more you become a prostitute. Getting naked so that you're sex organs can be displayed for sexual gratification of watchers before/during a scene depicting simulated sex for the same purpose, you're doing sex work. When Seth McFarland did that send up at the 2013 Oscars "We saw your boobs" the actresses who were in the audience we're clearly humiliated, because it was a reminder that actresses (who want to work) have to bare their breasts to get work.

It seems you are using the word prostitute as a dirty word, a substitute for a moral failing, and then funnelling the actions of anyone who performs a public act you link to sexuality towards that word. And, ultimately, that moral failing. Which hardly addresess what I think Wooley's point was; that maybe we should stop being so uptight about nudity. And I would argue, maybe stop being so judgemental towards what people do with their own bodies, for whatever purpose they deem acceptable.



This isn't to say there aren't loads of issues that arise through the business end of prostitution. Or that Hollywood isn't traditionally exploitative of women's bodies. Both are undeniably true and there is an overlap here. There are criticisms to be made. But you seem to be adopting the 'tsk tsk, how shameful' tactic of painting the open expression of sexuality with one brush. And this is not a tactic that has generally reaped great advances in reducing sexual exploitation.

But is that... I dunno man. I think it's a problem with people that they can't see someone naked in the shower in a movie without it being prostitution.

But I also agree with crumbs, there's really nothing wrong with prostitution.

It is a dirty word.





Substitute?





We are less uptight with nudity. We have been for decades. There is a whole sea of porn out there for you. Rape porn. Incest post. Scatological porn. Every combination of every demographic. You can see any body made into an object to serve any purpose that allows you to get your rocks off.



https://external-content.duckduckgo....jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Why then do we need even more salacious images in mainstream fare? Did we need to see an actual blow job in Brown Bunny?



Is the great failing really that we don't see erect penises in bedroom scenes? That we haven't gone far enough? I don't need to see my protag taking a dump. I don't need to see the turd splash into the bowl. I don't need to see breasts of the protag merely for the sake of seeing breasts.





You're free to your opinion. I am free to mine.



The only thing we disagree about, or so I assume, is where to draw the line. You would object to showing anal penetration on the Disney Channel or prime time ABC TV shows. If you do object, perhaps maybe you should be less judgmental about what people cram up their backsides on camera on media designated for wide societal viewing? How dare you! It's a purpose! They are people with their own bodies! If you don't, then we don't have any frame of reference for discussion. I object to the idea that we need more exposure of flesh in films made for wide release. We can both accuse the other of being prudish about where to draw the line, but we all draw the line somewhere.





Yeah, that's probably because it is a fundamentally exploitative and debasing sort of trade. "This isn't to say that there aren't loads of issues that arise through the business end of kids working in coal mines."

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

I never met a woman who bought a Playgirl magazine, and even straight women seem to prefer the female body more, anyway.


Many years ago, people seemed to see a movie because a busty actress showed her stuff.. I'm not against it, but I think it reels people in, makes a lot of money, and people think "OK, this is the formula"... Even those who thought the rest of the movie stunk won't necessarily have that opinion reflected because of the high box office.


LOL --- I just remembered being a teenager and wanting to see "Young Einstein" simply because someone told me there was female nudity..



"Blue Is The Warmest Colour" to me is an example of nudity for nudity's sake.. Not a bad movie, but anytime someone mentions that movie, all the responses are about the nudity. But, I wouldn't want there to be pressure to stop that... I'm all for artistic license, even if its not "fair". Let the director have their vision without interference.

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

Speaking as member of the female sex. I have been enjoying this thread. Even if it has gone off the rails.

I think you can look at almost any movie and see it as a social commentary on the lives of women (except Boys in the Band).

Right now I am in the middle of watching a Betsy Drake and Cary Grant joint in which a young woman pursues an accomplished man as people pursue their career goals. There is no one mistaking her for a gold digger. She is in pursuit of what is consider her legitimate career of wife and mother in which she has a college degree no less.



Just looking at the expected place of women in post WWII society is almost commentary enough.

Nope




Ah yes, to you they are one and the same. How foolish of me to think you weren't outright calling women who have shown their breasts on camera (or men who show their penises) prostitutes.





Yes. It's called progress.




I'm not talking about porn (we can enlist Rock to handle that ;)). We are talking about the inclusion of sex or nudity in art. Can there be an overlap of these things? Yes. Is everyone's definition of these two terms different. Yes. Am I talking about film that, to me, only exists as wank material. No, I am not. Nor am I shaming anyone who is involved in this business (as much as I am very much on record as not liking 'pornography' pretty much at all, otherwise I'd be taking Rock up on way more of his recommendations)





Yes, for that film, the blow job scene is actually one of the pivotal moments of the whole thing. Let's call it the climax, for lack of a better term. Before this moment, it is a film of complete emotional stasis. So, to then show a supposedly unsimulated sex scene, cuts through this in a way that simply having a traditional curtains blowing in the moonlight scene you might prefer, would not. It's realness is the point. This is the purest of human contact, where before this every character seems to be floating through life completely alone. It is depicted as an act of love and desperation and sadness. And, taken very specifically in the context of the movie, it is an extremely tenderly rendered scene. Some might even call it beautiful. Which is what art does. Giving us a new way to view something others might reflexively pull their hair out over and call 'dirty'. It cuts to the chase and shows us something deeply human, and honestly, not dirty at all from my perspective.



But I will grant you that Brown Bunny is also a good example of the problems of such scenes. To know the history of Vincent Gallo's abusive personality, and to wonder over the ulterior motives we may rightfully suspect he had in shooting such a scene with his ex girlfriend, this does bring your concern of exploitation to the surface. I'll agree there are legitimate layers to this particular onion to peel back before people like me talk about how 'beautiful' and 'human' this moment it is. The good and bad things of such a scene are inter-related, and I would admit it is fair to talk about this maybe being 'too much'. But not on the level of 'how dare they show that in a film'. That it is inherently wrong or dirty to do so. I'm not personally interested in that puritanical reading. Just like I'm not interested in the outrage the sight of a woman's ankles can cause in some parts of the world. It's irrational, dehumanizing nonsense.


I think art fails us when it turns away from what we are. And this includes all of the things you claim not to want to see. Do they need to be in every movie? Obviously not. Should they be represented in some? 100%. Some of us look to art for guidance, for representation, to give us faith, to help us understand who we are. If we took all art that has ever been made, and there wasn't a single erect cock or dump represented, I would say that it has deluded itself.



Maybe you were in the audience during the first showing of Psycho, and were most outraged that Hitchcock dared to show a toilet on screen, but for me this is a fundamentally important thing he did. To break down the barrier between us and what is on screen. That what we see up there isn't being transmitted from a place where people don't need toilets in their washrooms. That it is coming from our own bedrooms. And bathrooms. Art is us, and the more we try and exclusively put a surrogate life on screen for us to consume, the less us it becomes.



Um, yeah. I wasn't aware my disagreement with you had the power to strip you of your rights.




Your inclusion of Disney films into this conversation is obviously dumb. I believe parents have every right to shield their children from what they find objectionable. And I believe adults have every right to know what they are getting into when they watch a film, if there are certain things they are uncomfortable with (Hitchcock definitely should have warned his audience about that toilet)


As for me being less judgemental about 'people cramming things up their backsides', I am far from a non-judgemental person. I am riddled with judgement. But I also know it's none of my ****ing business what other people do with their bodies, and if I'm finding myself standing alongside the tsk tskers at times, I have no issue keeping it to myself. To do my best not to shame others. To try and empathize with whatever kind of things I view as completely alien to me. It's not a lot to ask.




I imagine we do. My lines are generally drawn where others are being directly harmed. They aren't based in some kind of pre-ordained outrage over sex stuff. And so in a situation where 'flesh being shown' is harming the person doing the showing (and there is no doubt this happens), we will be allies. But we are going to disagree when you consider showing flesh itself to be the actual line that is offensive to cross. There is nothing inherently bad about nudity. And most of the damage that can come from showing skin, is the irrational shame attached to it. Which is why I'm hesitant to draw my lines around simply showing the human body. A dick to me isn't any more offensive than a hand (though I admit I am only willing to shake one in greeting).




Some would call sex work liberating. Some would call it enjoyable. To me I know it is something I would want absolutely nothing to do with. But that's just me. In my personal life, yeah, I'm a prude, and others are free to view the trade in as positive light as they like. There is of course lots of exploitation involved in it...but fundamentally debasing? I disagree there. It all depends on how we look at sex. And there are many ways to look at it.


As for coalmining, I'm glad you brought that up yourself and I didn't have to make that connection myself. Because to me most labour is exploitation. But for some reason we don't feel the need to throw blankets over miners when they come up all dirty faced, as if the sight of what they are doing is some kind of moral disgrace. And if someone told me they like working in the mines, I wouldn't demand they accept my interpretation they are being exploited. Their body, their business is a mantra that applies even to coalminers.

Now I can't resist watching that movie!


I don't think there's a "male sexual preference" or "female sexual preference", there's no way of knowing why one person may like something or not get aroused at all. I'm with you in the sense that I love female nudity, and male nudity is beautiful to me even though I don't get very excited about it.

Yeah! Only MY opinions can strip people of their rights. Just who did they think they were talking to?

Give it a rest, Yarn.

Getting back on topic, I remembered a film from 2000 called The Contender that would fit. It’s seriously a good political drama that focuses on a Female Senator picked as the next Vice President and has to deal with the hypocrisy and double standards that face women in not just politics, but at large, when rumors of her college sex life surfaces and she’s forced to defend herself.

Are they true? Are they false? The better question, asked by the film, is…does it matter?

It’s a terrific movie. Seen it twice.

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

Would "Fried Green Tomatoes" (1991) get any votes for a film that effectively addressed female social issues?

The only thing worse than a tomato is a green tomato. Just because they fry it is hardly enough to win any votes from me. For all I care, Jessica Tandy can stuff those fleshy monstrosities right up her keister (no judgment)


Disclaimer: I've never seen this movie.

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

So, that is one 'No" vote? :nope:

I never saw it, but like a few others mentioned, I'm just waiting for the women to voice their opinions.

Re: Movie Question For The Ladies
 

I'm literally twitching, trying to avoid replying to some of this. Clearly I've already lost that battle as I am here, posting this, now. This is not the greatest reply in the world. It's only a tribute.

I am already on record as supporting on screen nudity that has an artistic purpose and have voiced support for male nudity as well. I say again, that nudity is not necessarily debasing. Again, I think the nudity in Eastern Promises and Watchmen has merit.

However, if you ask me to strip down so that you may take gratification in my nudity, then that is debasing. "Turn around. Bend over. Shake it." If this is why I am nude and if I am being paid to be nude, then that is sex work. It's a mild form of prostitution.

The further we go, however, the less mild it gets. Most films today are pornographic films shot for internet consumption. The only legal difference between "prostitution" and "porn acting" is that in porn a camera is in the room. There is, however, no substantive difference. It's sex work. And the further we push things in mainstream movies the more the line gets blurred.

We've spent so many decades objectifying the female form in film that we take it for granted we will get to ogle boobs and see a hot grinding simulated sex scene with our principal actors. We're numb to it. It's the norm. Even when it serves no purpose save base gratification, we expect that to be on the menu.
Progressing towards what? It's certainly change. If you say it is progress, you will have to establish some metric of value.
Why not? It's all art, right? Isn't this what we're progressing toward? Why do you get prudish about the "progress" of Chloe's blow job in Brown Bunny? These are adults and these are their bodies, so anything goes, right? Apparently not, because you're not talking about porn.

OK, so you're not an absolutist. There are limits. Propriety is a thing. If so, however, you should have a care with libertarian warrants in argument and casual references to "progress" as if "more" is simply "better."

What matters is not where you draw the line, but that you draw a line at all. We only differ in terms of where to draw the line. I, personally, I am tired of seeing young people exploited. A requirement for working as a Hollywood actor should not (de facto) be "willing to show my sex organs on camera" or "willing to convincingly simulate sex acts."
And I object to a film that has a scene that only exists as wank material. That part of the film that in old VHS rentals that would get worn out.
I am. I wouldn't want my son or daughter to grow up to be a porn "actor." I would not be happy to find out my father or mother was involved in such work. It is fundamentally demeaning and degrading.

Likewise, I don't support smoking cigarettes. You have a right to do it, but it's still bad for you. I am glad that my parents effectively normed me against ever picking up the habit of smoking. They made me feel shame at the thought of ever doing so. It worked.
Sure it is. If I don't see the guy who hired the actress but in her mouth on screen, I just won't get the emotional complexity of it all. The f**k outta here.
Rape is also natural. Most sexual contact in the animal kingdom involves one member of a species forcing itself on another member. Arsenic is natural. And what could be more natural and relieving than taking a massive dump on the throne? Why don't we get to see this? Why don't we get to see the departure of turd from anus, a koan to the transitivity of energy as it is consumed and reconfigured, a miniature representation of life itself, and the splash into the bowl. Why be prude? Everyone does it! It is perfectly natural. Everybody poops!

How far shall we roll with the naturalistic fallacy here? That we have biological functions does not mean that it is appropriate for wide release in sectors of "typical viewing" (e.g., the family domain of Netflix and the local theatre, as opposed to quarter-driven peep shows and porn sites).
Art does a lot of things, not all of them good. Everything these days is art, so calling something art is saying next to nothing. And if we hold that art does have value and can be noble and have a good purpose, then we must hold that art can also be ignoble and be debasing. Either way, calling it "art" doesn't advance us a step in analysis.
Again, it's just a question of where we draw then line. I maintain that it should not be a standing (de facto) expectation, that actors must do sex work for the sake of the sexual gratification of the audience.
We all draw the line in different places, but that does not mean that drawing lines does not matter or that moving lines or blurring lines does not matter.

If the average person would NOT be humiliated in being asked to do it for an office party, then I am fine with it on screen. But if Bill is asked to show his penis, because you know, we wanna see it, then Bill has a sexual harassment suit on his hands. Likewise, if Jill is asked to show her breasts and convincingly simulate sex with Bill, and if she wants to continue working in this field, them's the breaks, then Jill is a sex worker. If it would result in a lawsuit at the office, then it is questionable as to whether it should be a "day at the office" for the actor. This is an imperfect way to draw the line, but it speaks to the concern we should have for people in this industry. We finally turned over the casting couch, now we should consider what they're asked to do on screen.
At the time, that was a transgressive act. It was an edgy thing to do. It did matter. For us, who are thoroughly debased, we view our numbness as progress, but that is not necessarily the case, for we do NOT need to see everything that happens in the bathroom or the bedroom on screen. Moreover, it should NOT be a standing expectation that there will be a butt scene, or boob scene, or penis scene, or sex scene, or bum docking with toilet dilating to excrete waste scene.

The conversation matters. And moving the line to the left every time is not necessarily progress, let alone the right thing to do. There are moments when we need to move the line back a bit (otherwise we are committed to the absolute - something that you have denied in not wanting to include porn in the discussion).
I didn't say that it did.

You said, "maybe stop being so judgemental towards what people do with their own bodies, for whatever purpose they deem acceptable." This is a dismissive straw claim - the claims that I am telling people what they should do with their bodies. Full stop. Hey, if you're behind closed doors, have it. If you're making it for a porn site, do your thing. If you are, however, making it for mainstream consumption, issues of propriety enters the picture.

Expressing judgment is a part of "having something to say." And I am trying to challenge you to consider that judgment. So yes, I will be judgmental. And so will you.
How can they? Kids are one click away from a sea of porn. If your kid does not have a personal electronic device, everyone at school does. How, pray tell, can parents actually parent when even mainstream film and television is involved in these depictions? You can be Amish or you can pound sand. Parents have been done dirty. Film snobs don't care, because they think that blow jobs in crappy art films have merit and should be there, because, you know, progress and stuff.

And even Disney makes some pretty mature fare now. Disney own everything and Disney products follow industry norms.
You're straw-manning again. I am not talking about what you do in the privacy of your own home. I am talking about what we put on screen, and why. I am talking about the standard expectation that an actor will need to be sex worker to get work in Hollywood.

Again, that you draw a line in this area means you don't get to stridently stand on this ground, not when you've already ejected porn from the conversation.
If the default expectation of your industry is that you will do things that would be a sexual harassment lawsuit if the boss at State Farm asked you to do it, then we have to consider the prospect of harm. If you want to do work in Hollywood, especially as a pretty one, you will be expected to do sex work, sex work for the gratification of millions. And that's raises the prospect of harm. Why do you think the casting couch was thing in the first place? Actors are treated like meat on screen, why wouldn't they be treated like meat off-screen?
I didn't say that there was. How many times must I say it?
Why not? Here. Shake my penis. Don't shame me by your refusal.
Some people are idiots. Some are debauched. No little kid grows up dreaming servicing truck drivers to afford the next hit of their drug of preference.
People like you are something else. You protest that capitalism is bad to the core because it is fundamentally exploitative, but then argue people being exploited for sex is "free choice" and "art" and "progress." Newsflash, if to get work you have to show your boobs, you're being exploited, and exploited in a way more demeaning than that person who has to fetch coffee.
Really, you're just going to shrug at the thought of 12-year-olds working 12-hour shifts in the mines? You don't think that that is a moral disgrace? You don't think that the coal industry isn't putting tons of carbon into the atmosphere?

I am disappointed ☹️