Feminism in movies: refreshing or overplayed and extreme?

Tools    





Not to devalue anything you said (I actually loved the above story), but what can you expect from a book like Twilight?
Well, I didn't assign her Twilight, it was a book she wanted to read because it was big in pop culture at that time. It just made me laugh because even this little girl (who I think was 10 at the time) was able to see through how poorly written the main character was.

It's true that you can reach back to the classics, and some students are willing to go that direction. But it's also true that most kids want contemporary literature. It's like the Alien problem. If your best reference for a good female sci-fi protagonist is a movie that came out 40 years ago, that's a problem. I think that we need to constantly be creating media with diverse main characters because everyone deserves good art. (Which is, obviously, not the same as saying all demographics must be represented equally in every subgenre). And part of that is being aware of mechanisms that might prevent that art from being more widely seen (ie why many female authors use/used male pseudonyms but not the reverse, how nepotism and implicit bias lead to powerful people mostly hiring people who look like them, etc).



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
One movie that I was told is popular on Netflix now is 365 Days, which seems to be an anti-feminist movie from what I read about it. My gf says it's popular on Netflix now so I am taking her word for it. But I am wondering if it's popular, could the reason be that it's a response because people are tired of the Hollywood feminist agenda that is being pushed, like some believe, and therefore, now a more extreme, anti-feminist movie is being flocked to as a result?



The trick is not minding
One movie that I was told is popular on Netflix now is 365 Days, which seems to be an anti-feminist movie from what I read about it. My gf says it's popular on Netflix now so I am taking her word for it. But I am wondering if it's popular, could the reason be that it's a response because people are tired of the Hollywood feminist agenda that is being pushed, like some believe, and therefore, now a more extreme, anti-feminist movie is being flocked to as a result?
I doubt most people take the time to consider such things.
I think it’s more like Occam’s razor. Maybe it’s just a good film.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Why can't she invest her money in an original movie...



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
It's all about business... Unfortunately many who aren't aware take what some celebrity says and runs with it, and then their followers do the same, and pretty soon it has nothing to do with its original intent.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh are you saying someone took Robbie's words and ran with a story?



Why can't she invest her money in an original movie...
You think that Margot Robbie is paying for the Pirates of the Caribbean movie?

For what it's worth, she does have a production company, and they have produced/help produce films like I, Tonya (for which the Producer's Guild of America nominated her for a PGA Award), Terminal, and Dreamland.

And let's all remember that the original Pirates of the Caribbean was a film based on an amusement park ride. Everyone thought it was going to be garbage. It was, before it came out, considered the height of Hollywood hackery and lack of imagination and originality to base a movie on a theme park ride.

Maybe Robbie's pirate movie will be hot trash, but it's not like she's tarnishing some pristine franchise.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh sorry I thought she was producing some money into it, my mistake. But why even do an all female remake of a movie that's not even 20 years old yet? That's what I don't like about Hollywood right now, is that they keep doing remakes and reboots to the point where it feels bankrupt of imagination.

Also, the word feminism seems to have gotten a lot of negative connotation lately. 10 years ago, feminism was a positive word overall I thought, and I considered by myself to be a feminist in many ways.

But now the word has taken on a more negative meaning, and today, a feminist is a person who is an extremist that wants their cake and eat it too, and is never satisfied, how much you try to please them in the end. Why can't people call this type of person something else, rather than feminist?



Oh sorry I thought she was producing some money into it, my mistake. But why even do an all female remake of a movie that's not even 20 years old yet? That's what I don't like about Hollywood right now, is that they keep doing remakes and reboots to the point where it feels bankrupt of imagination.
They aren't remaking the film. They are basically making a spin-off but not wanting to call it that. Notice that in the same article they refer to the fact that they are "rebooting" the original. Basically they are doing a male-centered remake and also making a "woman pirate" movie. Putting Robbie's move in the Pirates of the Caribbean "universe" lets them use the name recognition of that original series in advertising.

It's the same trick as when they say "from the people who brought you XYZ movie!". They are banking on the name, but often it's because it's the same producer, not the same director.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh okay, but I fail to see how a spin off is better since you are re-using the concept, and trying to use an older movie to promote the material.



Oh okay, but I fail to see how a spin off is better since you are re-using the concept, and trying to use an older movie to promote the material.
Well, it's a well-worn advertising strategy.

For example, at least two of the Hellraiser sequels were originally totally unrelated horror movies. The studio decided they wouldn't sell on their own, did rewrites to add some Hellraiser mythology, boom.

I think that we'll just have to wait and see. All we know right now is that it's a lady pirate film. Connecting it to the Pirates franchise lets us know probably what tone they are going for (action/comedy, PG-13, popcorn flick).

But who knows? After all, Logan falls in the Marvel universe but it's a really different film from most other films under that broad franchise.

Again, Robbie's movie might be trash. But movies being part of a franchise, or being a spin-off, or being a remake isn't always a bad thing.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh okay, yeah I guess it could help sell the movie then, it's just so far, whenever a movie has advertised itself as an all female movie, so far they haven't been good it seems... Not because of it being all women, just the quality otherwise I mean so far.



Oh okay, yeah I guess it could help sell the movie then, it's just so far, whenever a movie has advertised itself as an all female movie, so far they haven't been good it seems... Not because of it being all women, just the quality otherwise I mean so far.
Maybe from an action point of view. But Bridesmaids, for example, kept getting sold as "an all-female raunchy comedy". Similarly this was a big part of the marketing for Pitch Perfect.

Right now the movie isn't even made (and maybe not all the way written?). It will be a bad sign if the movie is getting released and the only thing they sell it on is "all female cast!".



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh okay, well I like Bridesmaids, but haven't seen Pitch Perfect. I guess with some movies, the all female aspect feels shoehorned in lately, where as Bridesmaids, I expected to be all female because of the title and the concept. But like you said, more raunchy.



Aaaand it took me two more months even after the above message. Sorry!

We can whittle this down a fair bit from here on out, though, I'm sure. I don't think we're that far apart.

But your whole chain of logic starts with the fundamental premise that women are more empathetic than men. Empathy is not a "you have it or you don't" trait. People can learn empathy. It might be true that in our society women (generally) are more empathetic than men, but it's not a static state of things. Ebert once referred to movies as "a machine that generates empathy". If men find it challenging to empathize with a woman, I'd rather film/art/media tackle that head-on rather than accepting it as "just the way things are". Maybe women are more empathetic than men because they are more constantly being asked to sympathize with an "other"--ie a protagonist who is not like them. Maybe the problem is that boys need more practice with this.
Agreed, but again, nothing in my statement suggested we should not tackle it, or excused the disparity in any way.

I have some pretty nuanced views on aggregate traits across sexes that you may or may not agree with, but I haven't laid claim to any of that. For the point in question, the only thing necessary to point out is that there's currently a significant disparity. I'd also say the disparity is not wholly socially-influenced, but it's okay to disagree about that (or, more likely, about the degree). I think we should be able to note these disparities without it being suggested that we're excusing or defending them.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "lack of interest", though. Women turn up for films that cater to their interests.
Right, they show up disproportionately to the "women's films" you were mentioning earlier.

The crowd at the showing of Wonder Woman that I attended had a much higher proportion of women than any other superhero film I've ever seen in the theater.
At a certain point we need to be able to talk about this without anecdotes, though. I don't think anyone denies there's something of value/importance to women here. The question is, how much?

And even if we suppose that many or even most women don't care for action films or don't particularly care about a female lead in one, there are millions and millions of women in the US alone. If even 10% of women are interested in seeing a female lead, then it's a marketable strategy to make some films this way.
I think we disagree here, a bit. I don't think that's how the economics really work. Interest is not binary, particularly in a world where people do not lack for options. I think a better way to look at it is by determining which things get people over the thresholds of forking over their money: women may, when simply asked be interested in more female leads, but it's not clear they'll refuse to pay to see male leads. But is the inverse true for men? I don't think so. I think men are more likely to refuse on this basis. Not saying that's good or right, but I think that's the baseline reality that studios are grappling with when making these decisions.

It's dangerous to assume that the lack of a product means that consumers aren't being vocal enough. Many parents will tell you that books with characters who are demographically (race, age, ethnicity, gender, etc) like their children are important. But despite some very recent strides, most children's books are not very diverse. It's not a lack of interest, it's not a lack of willingness to invest in such a product. It's that the industry itself is set up in such a way that impact the output in a skewed way. Movies are no different. After Michael B Jordan was cast in the Fantastic Four movie, Josh Trank wanted to cast a Black actress as his sister. He uses the phrase "heavy pushback" to describe the studio's reaction. The studio wasn't pushing back on a specific actress, they were pushing back on the *idea* of casting someone in that demographic.
I disagree that it's "dangerous." I also disagree with the implication that I'm "assuming" anything. I think I've made it pretty clear that there's no way to objectively know which is happening or in which proportion, so we have to lean a bit on ideological priors to estimate probability. I've laid my priors (and the thought process behind them) out pretty clearly: market-based explanations are simpler and more frequently the explanation for things like this. This does not mean I'm "assuming" this is the primary explanation (let alone the only one), and it does not mean that representation of the kind you mention is not "important."

I feel like a rather large percentage of my responses are suddenly about me having to say that I wasn't saying something I clearly did not say, simply because it's something someone could say, or perhaps something you're used to people saying when you have this kind of discussion. I can understand that on some level, but I think this discussion has gone on long enough that it should be obvious I'm actually qualifying these statements appropriately.

Did Wonder Woman drive away men who weren't interested in a female protagonist? Maybe. But did it attract female consumers who might not have otherwise watched a superhero film? Yes.
I think I agree with that, the question is which group is larger? Let's consider the possibility that they lost more in men than they gained in women, or that this is something that can easily happen, and that this is probably what stops studios from doing this kind of thing more often.

I'm not saying "women led action movies" is a subgenre that is an untapped billion dollar profit just waiting to be exploited. But I do think that there is a market for them.
Fair enough. I think the position that there's some money to be made here is a reasonable one (while the idea that there's tons of money to be made here probably isn't), so this clarification is a good one.

I think the tricky part, too, is that there's "a market" for a lot of things, but the scale we're talking about is hundreds of millions of dollars, so the only things that get made at that level are things that hit all four quadrants. Which means, by definition, it ends up catering to the "lowest" of them, in terms of willingness to pay to see things that they can't see themselves in as easily. In other words, empathetic people who can watch any character are always going to be underrepresented in massive blockbusters. It's built into the logic of the economics.

And how do you imagine women demanding such art? Take one of my students: she's 11 years old, Black, girl, athletic. She would love to see someone who looks like her in a superhero movie. How does she make this happen? By NOT watching other superhero films? Nah, she loves superhero films! So what is her recourse?
I think the first part of this paragraph is a good question, but it's undermined by the latter, since you segue into talking about a specific person. There's no way for an individual to demand a $200 million blockbuster for themselves, and I don't think that's a problem. It is unremarkable and unproblematic that the highest budgets are reserved for things that appeal to the greatest number of people, which means they will always reflect the demographic makeup of the market they're in.

Usually these things happen a couple ways, I think: the studios are, of course, constantly doing market research, and they see whether smaller bets pay off and scale up accordingly. A specific sub-demographic or sub-culture can be crying out for something but they can probably, from its total size, have at least a rough idea of what the ceiling for success would be for something catered to that group, and in some cases it's just not going to be high enough to demand a massive budget. Regardless, the fact that there's no official form to fill out doesn't mean

That last qualifier is the important one, I think, because while we've ended up talking a lot about representation or equality in general, the genesis of this topic is about a subset of a subset of cinema.

But most action films are, by any metric, unrealistic. Again: if a male action star can fire a machine gun while ziplining out of an exploding building, get knocked flat by an explosion but not suffer any injuries beyond superficial bruising, and then take on 8 bad guys in hand-to-hand combat, we don't worry that little boys will think they can zipline out of burning buildings, do we? Most action films reflect an unrealistic aspiration for male characters.
The only thing I don't agree with in this paragraph is the word "but," which implies it's a contradiction or disagreement, even though I started my reply by agreeing with the premise.

TBH, a lot of these replies feel like they were written for "generic person arguing this general position," given how often they seem to be taking down things I didn't say or fighting for something I've just agreed with. Again, I can sympathize with this, I'm sure huge portions of this discussion feel cookie-cutter or very similar to past discussions you may have had, but I think a close reading will show that I'm stopping well short of the things you're arguing against.

"But girls will grow up thinking they can be stronger than boys!!". Meh. I have a lot of male students who watch sports and read books about sports. When the guidance counselor asks boys in my class what they want to be when they grow up, a solid HALF of them answer "NFL player." Even if you only look at athletes in the NCAA, only 2% of them even go pro (and specifically in football the numbers are lower, 1.6%). It's not about girls thinking they can grow up to be stronger than boys. It's about thinking they can grow up to be strong and stand up for what is right, which is the same message I would hope boys take away from action movies. This is where what is literally on screen (Scott Adkins backflips and kicks two bad guys in the face simultaneously; Gina Carano punches out a man) co-exists with the bigger theme (standing up to corruption; protecting someone who is helpless). We all just pretend to believe the former; we're supposed to walk away with the latter.
Agree on all counts. This reminds me of one of my favorite Chesterton quotes, in fact, and I think it sums up all super hero films:
“Fairy tales are more than true — not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten."
The nuance I was talking about is the fact that unrealistic depictions can be harmful (I doubt I have to give examples), and that in the examples we're discussing now, truth is not really abandoned, it's just that the truth of the message is taking priority over literal realism. But like anything, it can be done badly or thoughtlessly, and turn into facile power fantasies or mindless pandering.

"Huge" disparities? Hmm. I mean, it seems to me that as fewer barriers stand in the way of different professions we tend to see smaller disparities. More women in the military, more men in primary education, more women directing movies, more men working as nurses.

I'm sure that some disparities will still linger, but I can't think of a profession that has gotten more skewed in the last 40 years. But maybe you are thinking of certain specific counter-examples. None of the women I've known in the military signed up to prove some sort of "girl power" point.
I think there's a subtle but crucial distinction here: you ask for examples of a profession that has gotten "more skewed," but nothing about the claim that there can be "huge natural disparities" requires that, as evidence. Huge is a relative term, and in this case it's in relation to "perfectly proportional," and not to what you seem to be asking about, which is "whatever it happened to be in 1980."

There are, indeed, "more" examples of male nurses or women in the military than there were, I just don't think it's indicative of a problem if those things end up being a long way from 50/50.

I believe it. I think that there's sort of a slingshot effect that happens. For example, take women staying at home to care for children. It's not cool when that becomes the default--"You are a woman, therefore you will give up your job to stay home". Then you see pushback. But that kind of strands women who do want to stay home and care for their children--because they might feel like a "traitor" for having that feeling. In a more open society, women would feel comfortable saying "I want to stay home with my kids and it's more important to me than continuing my former career". But I would also argue that in that same society you'd also see more men staying home with the kids. I have a few male friends who are the stay-at-home parent (usually because their partner's job has a higher salary), and they get comments and push back quite frequently because that's not a "man's job" and their wives get a ton of comments about whether or not it's "safe" to leave the kids with the dad.
Yes, big agreement on all counts. And this is kind of my concern with some of the other parts of this discussion: good, thoughtful calls for examination and representation can turn into rote checklisting, and stereotypes can be thought of as so dangerous that the only acceptable depiction is the opposite stereotype. Which leads to a really bizarre situation where the only safe thing to depict in fiction are the things that happen less often in reality.



CringeFest's Avatar
Duplicate Account (locked)
I dont think the movie industry is really capable of combatting people's foolish prejudices...one thing that bothers me about movies in general is everyone is always so goodlooking, women tend to be very effeminate and men tend to be macho/masculine. If directors/producers included uglier actors that would male for more interesting experiments, but they would laugh at my request because that means less sexual interest by viewers.

To answer your question, i think movie feminism is a bit overplayed, and i overall loath the idea of using diversity politics in choosing who goes in to a movie, it should be about who is best for the part...



...one thing that bothers me about movies in general is everyone is always so goodlooking, women tend to be very effeminate and men tend to be macho/masculine.

If directors/producers included uglier actors that would male for more interesting experiments, but they would laugh at my request because that means less sexual interest by viewers....
That's a good point actually, and one that's not usually made.

With all the attempts at diversity in TV/movies it's still largely all about the 'beautiful people'. Breaking the 'beauty barrier' and including all types of looks in actors/actresses would seem to me to be just as important as any other faux steps Hollywood takes to infuse their movies with so called 'social correctness'.



So school is back in full swing and my plate is very full. I'm going to respond to a few points here. But if you feel like I skipped over a point that you thought was really important, let me know and I can go back. One of my pet peeves in a discussion/debate is when someone responds but conveniently skips over a point I thought I'd made really well. I'm not trying to do that, so feel free to redirect if I didn't respond to a particular part you want discussed.

I have some pretty nuanced views on aggregate traits across sexes that you may or may not agree with, but I haven't laid claim to any of that. For the point in question, the only thing necessary to point out is that there's currently a significant disparity. I'd also say the disparity is not wholly socially-influenced, but it's okay to disagree about that (or, more likely, about the degree). I think we should be able to note these disparities without it being suggested that we're excusing or defending them.
And I don't mind noting those disparities. My only objection is when something like empathy it's regarded as a static and not a fluid characteristic. Because if we talk about something like empathy as if it's an unchangeable metric, then it can become an excuse for not expecting more empathy from people. (ie "Men have a lower level of empathy, full stop, so we just can't ever expect them to like/want art centered on women.").

At a certain point we need to be able to talk about this without anecdotes, though. I don't think anyone denies there's something of value/importance to women here. The question is, how much?
I go to anecdotes only because I've had a hard time finding hard data on the gender breakdown of specific film audience. You can find generalized data (like this 2018 MPAA study), but I've had trouble finding data on specific films. You can sort of look at something like IMDb ratings, but I'm not sure exactly how well that translates.

I think we disagree here, a bit. I don't think that's how the economics really work. Interest is not binary, particularly in a world where people do not lack for options. I think a better way to look at it is by determining which things get people over the thresholds of forking over their money: women may, when simply asked be interested in more female leads, but it's not clear they'll refuse to pay to see male leads. But is the inverse true for men? I don't think so. I think men are more likely to refuse on this basis. Not saying that's good or right, but I think that's the baseline reality that studios are grappling with when making these decisions.
That's why I specifically said that some films should be made this way. If a studio could only release one film a year, then you have to go with the one thing with broadest appeal. But these days theaters can show a lot of films at a time, and large media companies have many methods of distribution at their fingertips. It's a fact that films with more diverse casts make more money. This is shown in two separate studies (referenced HERE and HERE).

I hear what you're saying about gain/loss. If a male-centered narrative pulls in 100 male and 100 female audience members, and a female-centered narrative gains you 10 female viewers but loses you 30, you're at a net loss. I get it. But I would really like to see some actual studies about how the gender of leads impacts a willingness to see films.

I disagree that it's "dangerous." I also disagree with the implication that I'm "assuming" anything. I think I've made it pretty clear that there's no way to objectively know which is happening or in which proportion, so we have to lean a bit on ideological priors to estimate probability. I've laid my priors (and the thought process behind them) out pretty clearly: market-based explanations are simpler and more frequently the explanation for things like this. This does not mean I'm "assuming" this is the primary explanation (let alone the only one), and it does not mean that representation of the kind you mention is not "important."
You said that a lack of consumer interest was a more likely explanation than systemic bias. This is the "assumption" that I'm referring to. We can use the word "assert" if that better fits your intended meaning.

I actually stand by my use of the word "dangerous" here. When a group is underrepresented (or in any other way under-served), I think that it's a problem to say/assume/assert, essentially, that they must not care enough to advocate for what they want and are not interested in equitable treatment. It puts the onus of change on people who (despite being an economic force) might not actually have the power to force such change (I will again here reference diversity in literature and specifically in children's literature). If you look at the second study cited above, you'll see that having a diverse cast made a difference of $120 million in terms of profits. Clearly there isn't a lack of interest, so the explanation that makes more sense is one of systemic bias. The kind of insidious part is that you can't really know until you actually make such films, and I'm uncomfortable with using that uncertainty as an argument for maintaining the status quo.

I feel like a rather large percentage of my responses are suddenly about me having to say that I wasn't saying something I clearly did not say, simply because it's something someone could say, or perhaps something you're used to people saying when you have this kind of discussion. I can understand that on some level, but I think this discussion has gone on long enough that it should be obvious I'm actually qualifying these statements appropriately.
I'm responding to what you're saying and what I think the implications are of those statements. I promise you that I'm trying to read and understand things in good faith. If I restate something you said incorrectly, just say so.

I think I agree with that, the question is which group is larger? Let's consider the possibility that they lost more in men than they gained in women, or that this is something that can easily happen, and that this is probably what stops studios from doing this kind of thing more often.
And this is where some actual data/metrics would be really useful! I try to cobble things together by looking at IMDb numbers and comparing films I think are comparable. But I'm not a professional statistician, and thus I realize that even my best efforts will be flawed.

I think the tricky part, too, is that there's "a market" for a lot of things, but the scale we're talking about is hundreds of millions of dollars, so the only things that get made at that level are things that hit all four quadrants. Which means, by definition, it ends up catering to the "lowest" of them, in terms of willingness to pay to see things that they can't see themselves in as easily. In other words, empathetic people who can watch any character are always going to be underrepresented in massive blockbusters. It's built into the logic of the economics.
That goes back a bit to the question of if/how many people will be lost by putting a female lead in one of these huge films. Again, that's where some actual hard data is necessary. Hustlers had a budget of $20 million, but made $156 million. So a female-led, ethnically diverse drama film somehow managed to do almost as much business as a Will Smith-led action sci-fi film that had a budget of $138 million. There are a lot of cautionary stories about films that, logically, should have done really well, but didn't.

It is unremarkable and unproblematic that the highest budgets are reserved for things that appeal to the greatest number of people, which means they will always reflect the demographic makeup of the market they're in.
But this isn't true. Look at the MPAA study again. White audiences make up 53% of frequent movie goers. Latino audiences make up 24%. Women make up 51% of the movie-going audience. I don't think that these demographics are reflected in most blockbusters.

The only thing I don't agree with in this paragraph is the word "but," which implies it's a contradiction or disagreement, even though I started my reply by agreeing with the premise.
You wrote "I agree with films being aspirational, though that can be bad, too, when depictions are unrealistic in certain ways, or because the defense of art as "reflecting truth" is inevitably weakened when the truth its reflecting is a value judgment or desire about what things ought to look like "

In the context of this discussion we were specifically talking about women leads in action movies being aspirational. I was disagreeing the premise that it's problematic if depictions are "unrealistic" or "reflecting judgement or desire about what things ought to look like." I'm pushing back to say that this is true of pretty much ALL action, not just action with female leads. I just don't see why it's "bad" to have such aspirational films for women/girls.

The nuance I was talking about is the fact that unrealistic depictions can be harmful (I doubt I have to give examples)
I mean, I'd like some examples. How might a female lead doing unrealistic things be harmful? (Any more so than a male action lead doing unrealistic things.)

I think there's a subtle but crucial distinction here: you ask for examples of a profession that has gotten "more skewed," but nothing about the claim that there can be "huge natural disparities" requires that, as evidence. Huge is a relative term, and in this case it's in relation to "perfectly proportional," and not to what you seem to be asking about, which is "whatever it happened to be in 1980."
You wrote: "I believe, pretty confidently, that more equal societies will still see huge disparities in choice of profession, entertainment, and other things like that."

I reacted with surprise to this because it seems to me that as societies get more equal there are fewer gender disparities in profession and entertainment. I'm not disputing that there would be some gender disparities in a perfectly equal society (say, more men in the military), it was the word "huge" that surprised me. How big of s disparity is huge in your mind? Is 55-45 a huge disparity? 60-40?

Which leads to a really bizarre situation where the only safe thing to depict in fiction are the things that happen less often in reality.
I know that's where some people are terrified film is headed, but I just don't think it's true.