After both myself and the boy I saw the film with recently finished a course called the Rhetoric of Women Writers, it was difficult to not see certain female conventions unfolding in the film in ways that are predictable, adhering firmly to a (white) patriarchal structure of how film is made, as well as adhering to potentially harmful representations of women. It was also difficult to not notice how women in film do not even have a voice at all without being really hot. The hot woman ends up having to speak over the other hot woman with the voices of the thousands of other women who go unseen because of their lacking in hotness (this was Snow White in a nutshell for me). What seemed to make the film worse, however (despite how fucking visually stimulating it was) was that the film itself seemed to be aware of this dilemma of the representation of the sexes, but still used it to its own advantage as a film.
I have really mixed feelings about aestheticism in film as a whole. Sometimes I see film as a product to be sold, devoured by the eyes, and then tossed back into the macrocosm of popular culture’s images simmering in our minds. Therefore, I believe that the people in film should be tremendously attractive, as it is to be these faces we have to swallow for two hours at a time, and we are paying to swallow them. We rarely even exclusively look at who we’re having dinner with, sleeping with, or pouring out our souls to for that much uninterrupted time, and yet we find ourselves eye-to-gigantic eye with beautiful strangers when we go to a theatre to see a film. BUT. I have a problem with it when the film itself seems to be attempting to expose this very focus on aestheticism as a problem, but ultimately uses it as the answer - a.k.a. Snow White. Even though I was like, totally transfixed by the ridiculously pretty forest scenes, and anything involving chainmail. Basically, I just want to see film be smart when it can be. This one could have been, but wasn't. Super fucking pretty to watch though.
I feel like it is the consumer’s responsibility to be aware that the beauty on film is a product, and it is placed there, not to make the consumer miserable and feel that his or her own beauty is not enough, but that it is there to provide an element of resplendence that film may as well be channeling if it is going to be expecting you to be engaged in the entire thing. I honestly, have a harder time being really engaged in mediocre films in which no one is ridiculously attractive – male or female. And most films are mediocre. It takes some badass screenwriting, directing, or concept construction to make my eyes not grow tired without contact with constant aestheticism. It’s the aestheticism that as American filmgoers, we cannot be blamed to expect. Or if we can be, then at least we can burn at the stake of shallowness with the millions of others who expect it as well.
This makes me think too of the film version of Marie Antoinette with Kirsten Dunst. The film on its own would have meant nothing to me, but shit. There are too many scenes with silk high heels AND cake to possibly be able to divert my eyes. Throw in a couple of Strokes and Radio Dept. songs, and I’m only able to briefly ask myself, “what the…?” before I too, am going along with it because it’s really fucking enjoyable. At least it is to me. A good movie? No. Is there a point? Not really. But Kirsten Dunst’s skin was glowing throughout the entire thing, and the recreational drug-use depicted, the promise of extra-marital sex, and the pastels of the cakes, shoes, and dresses kept me and my eyes aching for more more more.
Whoa, so what am I talking about? Oh. Aestheticism in film. What I’m proposing is NOT more realistic standards for human attractiveness for film to go by. Rather, what I want, is that if women in nearly all films, in nearly all major roles, must be devastatingly attractive, I think that the same should hold true for men. Snow White, I think, pulled this off well. The men were beefcakes, without a doubt. The entire audience was free to objectify equally and brutally (and objectify they certainly did). But many other movies don’t really hold men to extremes of attractiveness. Some do, yes, but I still feel like men can get away with more and still be considered sexy-enough-for-film. They can have visible pores, a less-perfect body, crows’ feet around the eyes and still be the guy to look you in the eye for two hours while he both kicks ass and gets ass.
Basically, if Harrison Ford were a woman, he would not still be considered sexy at his ripe old age of...whatever he is now. But he is. Men are given more room to grow. That is, more room to grow older, than women are.
Film is so freaky because a lot of the time, we live it before we even live our own experiences, so it dictates those experiences before us. Usually the big things, or the things we think are big – losses of virginity, prom, day 1 of college, our wedding day, a divorce, the death of a pet, buying a home, flying a car over the Grand Canyon, getting lost in Europe – we’ve already experienced through film before we’ve experienced them on our own. This means that we pre-assign meaning to these events in our own lives, based off of the representations of them by film, even if those representations have nothing to do with us. Therefore, I think it’s hugely important that film adjusts itself, its characters, its actors, and its accepted scenarios to better prepare us for actual life. I can’t imagine Americans not looking to film to lay out a bit of a ground plan before they dive into their own experiences, so these ground plans need to be a bit more forgiving (or less forgiving), a bit more broad, and much, much more diverse.
There should be a hell of a lot more homosexuality and bisexuality in film because that is without a doubt, the world we live in, and what we are as people. With film acting as such an anchor on how people view their own experiences, to have the gay experience be either completely, or almost completely missing from film (unless the film is placed in a specific “queer” subgenre), is not only short-sighted, but ridiculous. I also think there should be more non-traditional bodies. Individuals with prosthetic limbs, individuals with dwarfism (yay, Game of Thrones), overweight individuals, etcetera, who do not have roles carved out for them that are representative on these physical elements of their identity. Included, yes. But as a focal point for their entire existence as a character? No. The fat girl is never, ever just the fat girl. The gay boy who likes the Misfits is never, ever just the gay boy who likes the Misfits.
So wait. I just totally fucking contradicted myself, didn’t I? I WANT aesthetics, but I also want the REAL (or do I? Maybe I don’t want this at all). I think what I want is for mediocre film to just fucking accept itself as mediocre and not as anything above that so to please, please, keep up with the aesthetics to cover up the fact that the film is horrifically mediocre and therefore acceptable by the American box office, but at least do it equally. But for those films out there aiming to be honest, aiming to do more than just entertain, keep breaking boundaries so that conventions that we eventually live on the other side of that film can be a bit less absurdly contained. I want for people to stop objectifying one-another on a daily basis, but in the realm of mediocre film, I just want people to be able to do it equally. If men can stick their noses right up Katy Perry’s ass, then I’m not about to roll my eyes at a girl wanting to do the same thing to Draco Malfoy in the new Harry Potter movie. As wet, film-soaked Americans, we are going to continue with our own bizarre personal fantasies. Some film will redeem. Most of it won’t. I think that since I see no end to the objectification of women in un-daring film, that I simply want to see men objectified as often as women. Give the men roles in which they do not speak and are only there to fuck and pour coffee while the women give counsel and pass out guns while wearing some kind of super cool furry toga. Um. Wow. I need to not write when I’m on so much prescribed hydrocodone. But if women have to be in this role so many times, men should have to at some point also.
Contemporary film is a whole lot like porn. There are separate spheres of pornography, some of which, I admittedly think could be useful to society and to the self, and some of which I think could be detrimental (if you're dumb about it, which a lot of people tend to be when it comes to visual media). The icky kind of porn (if you can't approach it with a mature mind) enforces negative stereotypes surrounding objectification, human commodification, and even abuse. But a more sophisticated, natural, honest kind of porn can actually open up an audience compassionately and sexually, rather than just give them all a simultaneous boner. If I had to get rid of one kind of porn, I'd definitely get rid of the "icky" kind as I have just called it. But I'd rather not do that either. I'd rather just be surrounded by responsible individuals who can handle their own media. I feel that this is so similar to film in general. Be responsible. Know what you're buying. Know who you are, what you want, and when to separate yourself from the media you choose to swallow. Also, have the nads to respect your fellow human beings, and don't let our created hierarchies represented via film and pornography get in the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment