Inequality Between The Sexes In Film?

[lucy_lu]

as part of my a level media studies research I have made up this hypothesis..

in what ways does the representation of women in film promote inequality between the sexes?



What do you think?



Research Ive already done include this statement...



“If you want to use your womanly charms to your advantage then so be it. There’s nothing wrong with being proud of being a woman,�



What do you think?



Any views would be soooo welcome. thanks, lucy

[Steve Crook]

Originally posted by lucy_lu@May 8 2005, 08:00 PM

as part of my a level media studies research I have made up this hypothesis..

in what ways does the representation of women in film promote inequality between the sexes?



What do you think?

I think that's a very loaded question, that's what I think.

What if you don't think that most representations of women in film promotes inequality between the sexes?



They may point out some of the natural inequalities but good films don't do anything to promote or increase any inequalities.



In fact there are many films where the women are really in charge but they let the men think they are - just like in real life



Steve

[sanndevil]

Originally posted by lucy_lu@May 8 2005, 07:00 PM

as part of my a level media studies research I have made up this hypothesis..

in what ways does the representation of women in film promote inequality between the sexes?



What do you think?

Read Laura Mulvey, Angela Carter, Camille Paglia, Andrea Dworkin, Elizabeth Wurtzel et al



However I'm not personally going to be drawn on this subject!

[lucy_lu]

the hypothesis can be read in two ways, the "in what ways" part...can be written as if it doesnt promote inequality?

steve stop bein so intelligent and write some views.!! im not asking you about what do you think of my question just want do you think in answer to the question??? hhmm..confusin

[Steve Crook]

Originally posted by lucy_lu@May 9 2005, 10:45 AM

the hypothesis can be read in two ways, the "in what ways" part...can be written as if it doesnt promote inequality?

steve stop bein so intelligent and write some views.!! im not asking you about what do you think of my question just want do you think in answer to the question??? hhmm..confusin

Well that is my view really, I don't think that film does promote inequality.

Certainly the films I like don't

If a film did promote such an inequality I probably wouldn't like it



Steve

[samkydd]

Originally posted by lucy_lu@May 9 2005, 09:45 AM

the hypothesis can be read in two ways, the "in what ways" part...can be written as if it doesnt promote inequality?

steve stop bein so intelligent and write some views.!! im not asking you about what do you think of my question just want do you think in answer to the question??? hhmm..confusin

I think many films reflected society in the era in which they were made, particularly in American movies. A lot of older films showed women in a poor light because the hero was always male, and the woman was always the one who twisted her ankle when they were trying to flee their captors etc. and slowed him down. Women who hung around in bars were almost always "loose women", and the one who'd win the hero's heart was inevitably the girl next door type. The streetwise saloon girl in a Western was probably a hell of a lot more interesting than the schoolteacher, but the Randolf Scotts of this world would always want the schoolteacher because she was a tee total virgin and that's how society wanted to see it!



Most of the independent non-mainstream women characters in the distant past were often stereotypical outspoken fiery redhead characters; played by Maureen O'Hara, Katherine Hepburn etc but inevitably they would melt into the arms of a hero during, or at the end of the film and their hardnosed character would have become "normal" again and society would leave the cinema pleased that she was now a dewy eyed bimbo, happy to mend her man's shirts, cook his meals and raise the kids!



Also the leading woman was almost always beautiful, in a visual sense, and although actors like Thora Hird and Patricia Hayes were highly respected for their talent, you never saw them in a leading role snogging with Kenneth More or George Sanders! Nowadays many actresses get away with being plain or ugly (or both) and get the leading role; Renee Zellweger, Gwynith Paltrow, Anjelica Huston, Emma Thompson, Sandra Bullock

even with the wildest imagination none of these can be described as "beautiful" in the traditional sense of the word, but this doesn't hamper their careers at all whereas fifty or sixty years ago they would be lucky to even get an audition!



NB. One exception from the past was Barbra Streisand in the 1960s, who was considered ugly by many, but I always thought she was very beautiful. Much of her sex appeal came out in the personalities of the characters she played and they were often very self assured and independent.



Having watched a few old and new Bonds recently I notice that the female lead is always "owned" by the bad guy and the only way out of her predicament is with 007's assistance, that's if the bad guy doesn't bump her off beforehand! They are shown to be weak and powerless and the only strong women tend to be the cruel murderous Spectre agent ones who take on the butch persona of a psychopathic male!

[Steve Crook]

Originally posted by samkydd@May 9 2005, 01:06 PM

I think many films reflected society in the era in which they were made, particularly in American movies. A lot of older films showed women in a poor light because the hero was always male, and the woman was always the one who twisted her ankle when they were trying to flee their captors etc. and slowed him down. Women who hung around in bars were almost always "loose women", and the one who'd win the hero's heart was inevitably the girl next door type. The streetwise saloon girl in a Western was probably a hell of a lot more interesting than the schoolteacher, but the Randolf Scotts of this world would always want the schoolteacher because she was a tee total virgin and that's how society wanted to see it!

I'd also refer you to Lauren Bacall & Jodie Foster. No twisted ankles or frailness there.



In British films I'd suggest Deborah Kerr, wendy Hiller, Pamela Brown, Valerie Hobson and many others.



Steve

[Wetherby Pond]

If we're talking British cinema, the Gainsborough melodramas provide a whole encyclopaedia of food for thought, and certainly rank amongst the most complex and provocative British studies of female-male relationships that stress the female viewpoint. Recommended titles include The Man in Grey, Fanny By Gaslight, Madonna of the Seven Moons, They Were Sisters, The Wicked Lady and Jassy, with The Seventh Veil as a contemporaneous non-Gainsborough title in a very similar vein.



What's equally fascinating is their reception – specifically the fact that James Mason became Britain’s biggest male star on the back of them, even though he invariably played cold-hearted misogynist b*****ds and the relevant polls were largely voted for by women. I don't imagine for one second that 1940s women would state outright that they fancied being beaten up by Mason for sexual kicks, but the evidence firmly points in that direction.



If your library has the Monthly Film Bulletin, there are a number of good Gainsborough-related essays in the August to October 1985 issues.

[sanndevil]

Originally posted by Wetherby Pond@May 9 2005, 02:48 PM

If we're talking British cinema, the Gainsborough melodramas provide a whole encyclopaedia of food for thought, and certainly rank amongst the most complex and provocative British studies of female-male relationships that stress the female viewpoint.

You think so? I don't. They have always struck me as cheaply made, poorly directed pot-boilers aimed squarely at the female market which at the time comprised the majority of the cinema-going audience.



They have certainly captured the imagination of various academics in recent years so I've decided to lead the backlash!!

[samkydd]

Originally posted by sanndevil@May 9 2005, 10:51 PM

You think so? I don't. They have always struck me as cheaply made, poorly directed pot-boilers aimed squarely at the female market which at the time comprised the majority of the cinema-going audience.



They have certainly captured the imagination of various academics in recent years so I've decided to lead the backlash!!*

I suppose the main think to remember is that most screenplays from way back were written by men, and most directors were men so the female characters were very much driven by these men's limited perception of how their female characters would behave, speak, act, walk, kiss, scream whatever.



Things have changed and I would imagine that many female characters have become more representative and realistic.



So now after reading these posts my love, you can get on with your A level homework then perhaps you can go and help Mum with the ironing and make your Dad a nice cuppa before polishing his boots for the morning!

[Steve Crook]

Originally posted by samkydd@May 10 2005, 09:47 AM

I suppose the main think to remember is that most screenplays from way back were written by men, and most directors were men so the female characters were very much driven by these men's limited perception of how their female characters would behave, speak, act, walk, kiss, scream whatever.



Things have changed and I would imagine that many female characters have become more representative and realistic.



So now after reading these posts my love, you can get on with your A level homework then perhaps you can go and help Mum with the ironing and make your Dad a nice cuppa before polishing his boots for the morning!

And the exception, as so often, is Powell & Pressburger. A male scriptwriter & male director, but they often had very strong roles for the women in their films.



Steve

[Wetherby Pond]

Originally posted by samkydd@May 10 2005, 09:47 AM

I suppose the main think to remember is that most screenplays from way back were written by men, and most directors were men so the female characters were very much driven by these men's limited perception of how their female characters would behave, speak, act, walk, kiss, scream whatever.

This might hold true as a general principle, but it doesn't really apply to the Gainsborough melodramas, virtually all of which were at least co-written by women.



Most of the original source novels were also written by women - for instance Eleanor Smith (The Man in Grey, Margery Lawrence (Madonna of the Seven Moons) Dorothy Whipple (They Were Sisters), Magdalen King-Hall (The Wicked Lady) and Norah Lofts (Jassy) - and Michael Sadleir's Fanny By Gaslight was adapted by Doreen Montgomery and Aimee Stuart.



Incidentally, a few weeks ago the Independent published a detailed review of the recently reissued original novel of They Were Sisters, which itemises a great many of the reasons why the films are so fascinating for those more prepared to look beneath the surface than Sanndevil (I haven't seen the film for some time, but it certainly looks as though both novel and film have a huge amount in common).



Frank Launder's films are well worth investigating too - especially Millions Like Us, Two Thousand Women, I See A Dark Stranger and the St Trinian's films.

[lucy_lu]

ooookk.... what a lot of stuff i do not understand. cant you people give simple answers and to more popular current films...as this has to be more a current theme?



arrgghh..will use some of them as quotes in my research though. thank u...



MODIFICATION OF FINAL HYPOTHESIS- in what ways does the way women in film display inequality between the sexes?



what do you think of the representation?

does this necessarily mean inequality? i.e. it reflects society anyway, defining a woman's role in society?

[samkydd]

Originally posted by lucy_lu@May 10 2005, 01:25 PM

ooookk.... what a lot of stuff i do not understand. cant you people give simple answers and to more popular current films...as this has to be more a current theme?



arrgghh..will use some of them as quotes in my research though. thank u...



MODIFICATION OF FINAL HYPOTHESIS- in what ways does the way women in film display inequality between the sexes?



what do you think of the representation?

does this necessarily mean inequality? i.e. it reflects society anyway, defining a woman's role in society?

It's difficult. The last modern film I saw which focused on a woman as the main character was Brigit Jones Edge of Reason. Supposedly independent, free spirited and pursuing a career and coming up against inequality at work and socially, but at the end of the day all she wanted was a faithful partner and cushy lifestyle, so I suppose that reflects modern day young women and men!



It displayed inequality between the sexes because the man had his legal career, and so had the clout to get her out of trouble when she was banged up, something that she could not have done on her own. She was also expected to conform to his upmarket social life, and he was embarassed when she made herself look foolish in front of his legal friends and colleagues! So she was constantly being belittled by him, by being placed in situations that she was uncomfortable with. But despite all that she still ended up wanting to stay with him, so she gave up her dignity and self-respect mainly because she felt that time was slipping away and she wanted a husband at any cost, preferably one with a career and plenty of money! Again, the woman had to conform to the man's ideal of a perfect partner, which goes back to those old Maureen O'Hara type movies!

[Jennie_Kermode]

Originally posted by lucy_lu@May 10 2005, 01:25 PM

MODIFICATION OF FINAL HYPOTHESIS- in what ways does the way women in film display inequality between the sexes?

Even this simplified question leaves you with two things to consider:-



1) Are men and women in films (usually) presented as being unequal?

2) Does the presentation of men and women in films reflect inequality in society?



These questions are not as similar as you might think. For instance, a female character might get more screen time than the male she's competing with, and she might have a stronger and more complex character, but she might spend most of the film with hardly any clothes on. In such a case, so far as the story's concerned, she might be considered as powerful as or more powerful than the male characters, yet her circumstances might still be symptomatic of a weaker position in the society which produced the film.



Furthermore, if I were you I'd be cautious about the assumptions you take into this project. Are you starting out by assuming that you'll find women are always in a weaker position? What types of equality are you considering? Political equality? Social equality? There are certainly films in which men are portrayed as being socially weaker - much of 'Vera Drake' plays out that way, if you want a recent example. This isn't a simple issue, and you should be careful not to take on too much with the limited space you'll be given to write up your findings for an A-level.



Jennie

[lucy_lu]

interesting points! thanks.



this research is blagging my head now. grrr...



concentrating on these films if you have seen them!

how are women being represented?

what do you think of this representation/s?

does it display inequality in your view.





Charlie's Angels

Clueless

Die Another Day

Kill Bill

Scream



thoughts much appreciated again?

lucy

[West Mercian]

Equality between the sexes will never be achieved...on celluloid or in real life. What men gained on the swings women gained on the roundabouts but women are aiming pretty successfully for the swings as well nowadays!

[Steve Crook]

Originally posted by lucy_lu@May 14 2005, 10:07 PM

interesting points! thanks.



this research is blagging my head now. grrr...



concentrating on these films if you have seen them!

how are women being represented?

what do you think of this representation/s?

does it display inequality in your view.

Charlie's Angels

Clueless

Die Another Day

Kill Bill

Scream



thoughts much appreciated again?

lucy

What do you think Lucy?

Do you think that any of these films display inequality or promote it?

And if so, does that truly reflect society?



Steve

[David Brent]

Of course there is inequality in modern film - against the man.



Most men are portraid as sex mad, go getting action men.

Women come across as slightly dumber people who will use their body more than their brains to get what they want - and the male falls for it every time.

Have you noticed that no matter how 'weak' women character's may initially appear in modern film they have this knack of always finishing on top of the plot. In all the modern films you've mentioned the heroine always wins the battle.

Men are supposedly left with egg on their face, bruised ego or a hard on.



Women may be shown as being the weaker sex but they use it to their advantage.

Who can truly work out what a woman is thinking at any given time? Impossible to calculate.

Yet you invariably know what the male is always thinking.....every 60 seconds I believe

Even your male superheroes cannot fight that. It's the kryptonite that can weaken any man (if he's straight that is). It's called female charm or sex appeal.



Women really defeat male ego's all the time and in true Hollywood fashion they always defeat the dumb male.

The sister's are doing it for themselves !



Dave.

[West Mercian]

Yeah that's it...the "deadly female" tack only works with poor sap straight guys! Maybe that's why straight guys have so much animosity towards gay guys...because of their immunity!