IMPress Polly
08-26-2017, 07:01 AM
So recently there's been some debate over the Wonder Woman movie because famous filmmaker James Cameron (Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Titanic, Avatar) has claimed that the film represents "a step backwards" for female representation in film, saying it was "male Hollywood doing the same old thing" in responding positively to "an objectified icon". He posited Sarah Connor from the first two Terminator movies and Ripley from Aliens as having been better alternatives, highlighting Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor in particular: "Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon. She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit. ...I mean, half the audience is female!"
Wonder Woman's director Patty Jenkins has responded essentially by pointing out that it's not a contest:
James Cameron’s inability to understand what Wonder Woman, or stands for, to women all over the world is unsurprising as, though he is a great filmmaker, he is not a woman. Strong women are great. His praise of my film Monster, and our portrayal of a strong yet damaged woman was so appreciated. But if women have to always be hard, tough and troubled to be strong, and we aren’t free to be multidimensional or celebrate an icon of women everywhere because she is attractive and loving, then we haven’t come very far have we. I believe women can and should be EVERYTHING just like male lead characters should be. There is no right and wrong kind of powerful woman. And the massive female audience who made the film a hit it is, can surely choose to judge their own icons of progress."
Look at that! Both can coexist in the same world! This movie AND the likes of the new Star Wars in the same year! Who would've thought?
And I have to admit that I too do get tired of the mansplaining on the question of sexuality. It does seem to be mostly men who raise that particular objection to this film. I consider myself to a feminist (and am female) and personally I LOVED the Wonder Woman movie! It's my favorite movie this year so far!
Sure, there are a those who think that any display of sex appeal is automatically sexual objectification, but I'm not one of those. The important thing about Gal Gadot's character, in that connection, is that her sex appeal is an outgrowth of her agency rather than something that is simply imposed upon the character. The film treats her as sexually appealing for being physically and intellectually strong, not for being victimized (or infantilized like a certain other DC female), and it's hardly the sole quality of Diana Prince as a character that we're presented with. The camera does not strategically linger in those places that we've come to expect it to from male-directed films either. It doesn't feel demeaning to me, but rather like just one more reason why the target audience wants to be her and finds her all-around awesome.
Would you like Batman as much if he looked very average rather than like an impossible ideal of masculinity? I doubt it. Superhero movies are fantasies. Power fantasies more specifically. It just seems to me like the relatively few critics of this movie don't get that and expect more realism than befits a character who is supposed to be a more or less all-around idyllic fantasy for women.
The lame-ass Baywatch movie is what sexual objectification looks like. This is not.
I did a whole thread on the difference between sex appeal as such and sexual objectification here (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/83675-Sexy-vs-Sexualized-The-Difference) if you may find that pertinent.
(As to the numbers competition, Wonder Woman's viewing audience was primarily female, which is remarkable for a genre in which it is usually less than 40% female.)
Wonder Woman's director Patty Jenkins has responded essentially by pointing out that it's not a contest:
James Cameron’s inability to understand what Wonder Woman, or stands for, to women all over the world is unsurprising as, though he is a great filmmaker, he is not a woman. Strong women are great. His praise of my film Monster, and our portrayal of a strong yet damaged woman was so appreciated. But if women have to always be hard, tough and troubled to be strong, and we aren’t free to be multidimensional or celebrate an icon of women everywhere because she is attractive and loving, then we haven’t come very far have we. I believe women can and should be EVERYTHING just like male lead characters should be. There is no right and wrong kind of powerful woman. And the massive female audience who made the film a hit it is, can surely choose to judge their own icons of progress."
Look at that! Both can coexist in the same world! This movie AND the likes of the new Star Wars in the same year! Who would've thought?
And I have to admit that I too do get tired of the mansplaining on the question of sexuality. It does seem to be mostly men who raise that particular objection to this film. I consider myself to a feminist (and am female) and personally I LOVED the Wonder Woman movie! It's my favorite movie this year so far!
Sure, there are a those who think that any display of sex appeal is automatically sexual objectification, but I'm not one of those. The important thing about Gal Gadot's character, in that connection, is that her sex appeal is an outgrowth of her agency rather than something that is simply imposed upon the character. The film treats her as sexually appealing for being physically and intellectually strong, not for being victimized (or infantilized like a certain other DC female), and it's hardly the sole quality of Diana Prince as a character that we're presented with. The camera does not strategically linger in those places that we've come to expect it to from male-directed films either. It doesn't feel demeaning to me, but rather like just one more reason why the target audience wants to be her and finds her all-around awesome.
Would you like Batman as much if he looked very average rather than like an impossible ideal of masculinity? I doubt it. Superhero movies are fantasies. Power fantasies more specifically. It just seems to me like the relatively few critics of this movie don't get that and expect more realism than befits a character who is supposed to be a more or less all-around idyllic fantasy for women.
The lame-ass Baywatch movie is what sexual objectification looks like. This is not.
I did a whole thread on the difference between sex appeal as such and sexual objectification here (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/83675-Sexy-vs-Sexualized-The-Difference) if you may find that pertinent.
(As to the numbers competition, Wonder Woman's viewing audience was primarily female, which is remarkable for a genre in which it is usually less than 40% female.)