Stay classy, trollmitter.

Tell me about it.

Women...why don't they lose some weight?

What about catty, gossipy, and vindictive?.

I've seen a lot of film school student films for the past couple of years, and I've noticed that violence against women was in A LOT of them.
They would always have the girls tied up while the villain/barely-disguised-author-surrogate angrily explains to the woman why she is a dirty slut who is a whore who is just like all women for looking at him in that lusty way.

Rape is in a lot of them too, a lot of time used as a "joke."

I didn't even know the book was made into a film. Dammit, Jennifer-- stay in roles like "The Good Girl". Wtf happened to that indie-cred path you were following? GET BACK ON TRACK.

/Hasn't bothered to see any new films except Milk
//Wants to see that Blart movie though. :P

Itś not news, itś bitterundateabledudes.com

Jonathan Hohensee:
Rape is in a lot of them too, a lot of time used as a "joke."

Not that I don't believe you, but could you cite examples? I guess it's so common it escapes my "Did they really say that?" scope.

/Needs to revisit film library.

Life imitating art?

fluffoh: Not that I don't believe you, but could you cite examples? I guess it's so common it escapes my "Did they really say that?" scope.

Zombies and violence against women are the two preferred topics for student films.

Coming in a close third is abstract stuff that would make even David Lynch slap you upside the head.

that article was idiotic. the woman claims that women are portrayed like that in films because somehow, it titillates or amuses men. as if any straight man in his right mind would willingly watch "he's not that into you" or "confessions of a shopaholic."

i love the double standard though. "women are portrayed as shallow and men-obsessed!" they cry. have you watched any movies lately? how exactly are MEN portrayed in films?

that's right. they're portrayed as shallow and sex-obsessed. so who the hell cares?

So she cites two films that are based on books, one written by a man and a woman, and another written solely by a women? Fail.

And how are men portrayed? Sex-obsessed, childish, prone to violence, bumbling Paul Blarts. I see no problems here.

Jonathan Hohensee: I've seen a lot of film school student films for the past couple of years, and I've noticed that violence against women was in A LOT of them.
They would always have the girls tied up while the villain/barely-disguised-author-surrogate angrily explains to the woman why she is a dirty slut who is a whore who is just like all women for looking at him in that lusty way.


Why else would anyone ever go to see a film student movie?

That's not true. Impeach, Impeach, Impeach!

"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."

Jonathan Hohensee: I've seen a lot of film school student films for the past couple of years, and I've noticed that violence against women was in A LOT of them.
They would always have the girls tied up while the villain/barely-disguised-author-surrogate angrily explains to the woman why she is a dirty slut who is a whore who is just like all women for looking at him in that lusty way.

Rape is in a lot of them too, a lot of time used as a "joke."

It's just a lame attempt to be shocking and artistic, don't read too much into it. Why there are even film schools in the first place is beyond me.

fluffoh: Jonathan Hohensee:
Rape is in a lot of them too, a lot of time used as a "joke."

Not that I don't believe you, but could you cite examples? I guess it's so common it escapes my "Did they really say that?" scope.

/Needs to revisit film library.

The two most recent examples is this film where a rapist breaks into a girl's house, but gets kicked in the balls. They then turn the fact that his attempted rape got thwarted into a barrage of "impotency" jokes. ("I never had this happen to me before" "That's ok, it happens to all rapists once in a while")
This other one featured whore (in the literal sense) in the 1800s who accidently farked over some guy with a huge build. The film ended with him dropping his pants and saying "well now, I'm going to get something out of you whatever you pay for it or not" and then the "joke" is the fact that sounds of rape is played extremely loudly over the credits.
I clapped as loudly as I could for the last one, just so I couldn't hear the screams. It was really awkward.

At least part of this is a perception problem of feminists who don't really have a clear and compelling agenda these days. It's very frustrating to older and more 'traditional' feminists that their younger counterparts aren't falling in line.

What never ceases to amaze me is that they never complain about the portrayal of men that goes along with "studies" like this - we need a mommy, we are insensitive, can't do anything around the house, etc.

I think that many young women are aware of the hypocrisy in their stance and have rejected it. Instead of acknowledging that we will only all become equal when they relinquish the privileged place of victim, they relentlessly march on to find the bogey man that's still keeping them down. Most of the young women that I know don't really want to be part of this crusade - they'll navigate their own way.

Jonathan Hohensee:
The two most recent examples is this film where a rapist breaks into a girl's house, but gets kicked in the balls. They then turn the fact that his attempted rape got thwarted into a barrage of "impotency" jokes. ("I never had this happen to me before" "That's ok, it happens to all rapists once in a while")
This other one featured whore (in the literal sense) in the 1800s who accidently farked over some guy with a huge build. The film ended with him dropping his pants and saying "well now, I'm going to get something out of you whatever you pay for it or not" and then the "joke" is the fact that sounds of rape is played extremely loudly over the credits.
I clapped as loudly as I could for the last one, just so I couldn't hear the screams. It was really awkward.

Wow that's tasteless.

Mordechai: "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."

Thread complete.

fta: Now, the only way for a woman to have a complex character on screen is to be depressing, tormented and self-sacrificing.

It is also a sure fire way to get the academy award types to drool and slobber all over you.

You don't like how women are portrayed in these movies? Don't watch them. There are plenty of movies that portray both men and women as the complex beings that they are (sometimes reflecting characteristics like subby's headline but most of the time not). I try to avoid movies like this because they contribute nothing and aren't very entertaining either.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: It's just a lame attempt to be shocking and artistic, don't read too much into it. Why there are even film schools in the first place is beyond me.

I took a film class in college to satisfy an elective. I learned a lot about film and it was enjoyable. Amazingly, the grading was really tough and it was not bullshiat course (not that I thought it would be). There was this one guy who always sat in the front row, and managed to wear his "new york film school" shirt every single Thursday. If it weren't for film school, I wouldn't have guys like that to laugh at. Well, him and the guy who insisted there hasn't been a good movie made since the 70s.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Jonathan Hohensee: I've seen a lot of film school student films for the past couple of years, and I've noticed that violence against women was in A LOT of them.
They would always have the girls tied up while the villain/barely-disguised-author-surrogate angrily explains to the woman why she is a dirty slut who is a whore who is just like all women for looking at him in that lusty way.

Rape is in a lot of them too, a lot of time used as a "joke."

It's just a lame attempt to be shocking and artistic, don't read too much into it. Why there are even film schools in the first place is beyond me.

I agree with you, although I also think that if that was the only reason then you would also see a large amount of films that use poop to shock, or other childish stuff. Their is something about those evil, evil women that make them the subject of films more than anything else.

Also, concerning film schools; hearing the crushing silence after your women-bashing snuff film is shown is the reason we have film schools. Better the students learn to not make shiatty films now than to learn to not make shiatty films later.

I love that they used Audrey Hepburn's picture from Breakfast at Tiffany's as evidence of how the Golden Age treated women so fairly as complex characters. Sure, she's complex, I guess... for a neurotic prostitute who spends the majority of the film trying to marry different men for their money.

And crack open any old female melodrama for evidence of why the Golden Age was even more repressive than today. Women are getting thrown into mental institutions because they don't want to play dress-up and marry the doctor down the street, and the vast majority of plots revolve around putting that uppity woman in her place in the kitchen.

Uh-huh... why don't you whine about it to: A. The women accepting those roles; B. the women who wrote Bridget Jones' Diary, Sex and the City, Legally Blonde, Confessions of a Shopaholic, etc. I don't have a whole lot of pity for the misrepresentation of women when they're representing themselves. If women really object to their representation in Hollywood, they should stop paying to go to the movies. Men aren't the ones (willingly) paying for these stupid chick flicks.

Or, maybe the movies are accurate.

Where's Ric Romero when we need him?
He could turn this article into a month of stories.

Newslash!
Some films portray women negatively!
Some films portray men negatively!
Some films are balanced, with complex and realistic characters!
Some films portray women as unrealistically strong, flawless creatures!
Some films portray men as unrealistically strong, flawless creatures!

Breaking news!
In reality, some women are kinda pathetic!
In reality, some men are kinda pathetic!
In reality, most women are pretty balanced with a combination of flaws AND redeeming qualities!
In reality, most men are pretty balanced with a combination of flaws AND redeeming qualities!
In reality, some women are absolutely amazing people!
In reality, some men are absolutely amazing people!

dbubb: I think that many young women are aware of the hypocrisy in their stance and have rejected it. Instead of acknowledging that we will only all become equal when they relinquish the privileged place of victim, they relentlessly march on to find the bogey man that's still keeping them down. Most of the young women that I know don't really want to be part of this crusade - they'll navigate their own way.

This is a great point. I'm so tired of meeting "feminists" who only want equality when it benefits them. Reminds me of this debate I was in the middle of the other day about the "women and children first" rule in emergency situations. Some of the Woman Logic that was being used was amazing.

They forgot, cold, calculating, pushy and one dimensional.

Or is that just TeeVee?

This post is made funnier by the previous post. Coincidence? I think not

/Nice timing

I think some people take movies way too seriously...

Jonathan Hohensee: The two most recent examples is this film where a rapist breaks into a girl's house, but gets kicked in the balls. They then turn the fact that his attempted rape got thwarted into a barrage of "impotency" jokes. ("I never had this happen to me before" "That's ok, it happens to all rapists once in a while")
This other one featured whore (in the literal sense) in the 1800s who accidently farked over some guy with a huge build. The film ended with him dropping his pants and saying "well now, I'm going to get something out of you whatever you pay for it or not" and then the "joke" is the fact that sounds of rape is played extremely loudly over the credits.
I clapped as loudly as I could for the last one, just so I couldn't hear the screams. It was really awkward.

A couple of things. Threat of rape and/or murder make for a very direct and simple plot point, and is an easy place to start for aspiring film makers. Most likely they wish to hone their technical skills first, while not worrying at great deal with plot, subplots and story arcs. You have a very obvious protagonist and antagonist. In major films, the jobs of screenwriter, director of photography, producer and director are separate positions. As a budding filmmaker, with zero budget, minimal staff, juggling all the roles, a lot of focus is placed on the technical aspects. Zombie films are another good example.

The first example you gave sounds like a decent attempt at dark humor, which is pretty tough to nail down. The second one sounds pretty messed up. Although was the hooker/whore getting paid for the 'rape' at the end? Without seeing the film, I can't judge, but it may have been slightly ironic that a immoral woman who gets paid for sex as a profession succumbs to sexual tension with the main character. Maybe at the end of the credits you see her with a wad of cash next to her, smoking a cigarette, complementing him, and realize it was just part of her day as 1800's hooker.

I wouldn't be too hard on first-time filmmakers.

/emmys judge & board member

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym
I love that they used Audrey Hepburn's picture from Breakfast at Tiffany's as evidence of how the Golden Age treated women so fairly as complex characters. Sure, she's complex, I guess... for a neurotic prostitute who spends the majority of the film trying to marry different men for their money.

And crack open any old female melodrama for evidence of why the Golden Age was even more repressive than today. Women are getting thrown into mental institutions because they don't want to play dress-up and marry the doctor down the street, and the vast majority of plots revolve around putting that uppity woman in her place in the kitchen.

I came here to say this. Did the author even watch movies from the 50's? Does she watch anything but vapid comedies today? We are far from a nidus. There are lot more strong female roles now than there were 50 years ago. I'm admittedly an Audrey Hepburn fan but do I feel sad that we've moved from:



to





Nope, 'fraid not.

Not to mention the fact that the female roles she primarily focuses on are all characters in silly comedies. The men in silly comedies are portrayed just as unfavorably. Movies like "Confessions of a Shopaholic" existed in the 50's and they will always be just what they are: vapid comedies, not a commentary on the role of women in society or even Hollywood's portrayl of them as a whole.

I met my wife, in college, by asking my friends to find me a girl who would be willing to be a 'heroine' in distress, who could scream loudly, and would be willing to be tied to a railroad track, while wearing a bikini.

love at first sight.

MrSteve007: Jonathan Hohensee: The two most recent examples is this film where a rapist breaks into a girl's house, but gets kicked in the balls. They then turn the fact that his attempted rape got thwarted into a barrage of "impotency" jokes. ("I never had this happen to me before" "That's ok, it happens to all rapists once in a while")
This other one featured whore (in the literal sense) in the 1800s who accidently farked over some guy with a huge build. The film ended with him dropping his pants and saying "well now, I'm going to get something out of you whatever you pay for it or not" and then the "joke" is the fact that sounds of rape is played extremely loudly over the credits.
I clapped as loudly as I could for the last one, just so I couldn't hear the screams. It was really awkward.

A couple of things. Threat of rape and/or murder make for a very direct and simple plot point, and is an easy place to start for aspiring film makers. Most likely they wish to hone their technical skills first, while not worrying at great deal with plot, subplots and story arcs. You have a very obvious protagonist and antagonist. In major films, the jobs of screenwriter, director of photography, producer and director are separate positions. As a budding filmmaker, with zero budget, minimal staff, juggling all the roles, a lot of focus is placed on the technical aspects. Zombie films are another good example.

The first example you gave sounds like a decent attempt at dark humor, which is pretty tough to nail down. The second one sounds pretty messed up. Although was the hooker/whore getting paid for the 'rape' at the end? Without seeing the film, I can't judge, but it may have been slightly ironic that a immoral woman who gets paid for sex as a profession succumbs to sexual tension with the main character. Maybe at the end of the credits you see her with a wad of cash next to her, smoking a cigarette, complementing him, and realize it was just part of her day as 1800's hooker.

I wouldn't be too hard on first-time filmmakers.

/emmys judge & board member

As a first-time filmmaker, I understand that 99% of the stuff we make we will laugh at 10 years from now. I am willing to brush off most of the bad aspects of early filmmaking, the repetitive plots, the use of violence, doing that "waking up with an alarm clock" opening, but the "women are evil" thing always bothered me because it seems to come from somewhere deeper. As if the filmmakers has some axe to grind against women. (literally. HA!)

To be fair, the first film I mentioned was actually funny.

enderthexenocide: have you watched any movies lately? how exactly are MEN portrayed in films?

that's right. they're portrayed as shallow and sex-obsessed. so who the hell cares?

Movies? White middle-aged men played the role of bumbling, incompetent losers, the butt of jokes for spouse and offspring alike, in advertising for at least a generation. Twenty minutes of negative social programming for every hour in front of the TV from birth, or a 'Bridgette Jones' flick? Author is the unique sort of myopic idiot only a life hiding at school makes possible.

Jonathan Hohensee: I've seen a lot of film school student films for the past couple of years, and I've noticed that violence against women was in A LOT of them.
They would always have the girls tied up while the villain/barely-disguised-author-surrogate angrily explains to the woman why she is a dirty slut who is a whore who is just like all women for looking at him in that lusty way.

Rape is in a lot of them too, a lot of time used as a "joke."

Let us know when the number of women getting punched/kicked in the babymaker is 1/10th that of men getting punched/kicked in the dick.

"i love the double standard though. "women are portrayed as shallow and men-obsessed!" they cry. have you watched any movies lately? how exactly are MEN portrayed in films?"

You don't get it do you? The unspoken assumption is women are morally superior to men. The nettle is many of the greatest obstacles to them expressing their true nature have been removed in the past 50 years so they are supposed to have blossomed into shining beatitude. Instead they have if anything, degenerated. Feminist academics are flummoxed, must be some man's fault. Couldn't be the premise, that's heresy.

This thread has potential.

Jonathan Hohensee: They would always have the girls tied up while the villain/barely-disguised-author-surrogate angrily explains to the woman why she is a dirty slut who is a whore who is just like all women for looking at him in that lusty way.

Rape is in a lot of them too, a lot of time used as a "joke."

The people in here complaining about the stereotypes are the same people that PAY to go see these kinds of films. Wake-up call: A lot of Hollywood today is CRAP! It's all the same rehashed, predictable plots. There are a few good ones that come out once in awhile, but that's about it. Wanna know how best to invalidate stereotypes? Be a living example of how you think a woman/man should act and fark what anyone else thinks.

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: Zombies and violence against women are the two preferred topics for student films.

Amateurs. Everyone knows the girl is always the hero in horror movies. Well the virgin is anyway. All the whores get what they deserve.

This is a repeat, BTW.

Hey, I can biatch all I want to- I don't see these movies unless dragged to them. Of course, I don't watch dramas much either. Still, I know enough to say that anybody who goes to a comedy expecting to see deep and complex characters having meaningful conversations is kinda missing the point. Stock characters and situations have been part of comedy dating back to the Greeks and Romans at least. And if a formula has been successful for thousands of years, why mess with it?

Besides, women are neurotic. So are men. I honestly can't think of a single person who isn't, to some extent. Hysterical and weight-obsessed- not so much.

Women! Are you upset about the way you're being portrayed in movies?

Come and make love to me. I guarantee you'll feel better!

Dr Diane Purkiss, a feminist historian and fellow of Oxford University , has argued that over the past five decades the movie industry has made its female leads 'dumber and dumber'.

Right....In every ad it's the husband who's being a big whiny baby over his little cough. In every sitcom, a fat guy with pretentious kids inexplicably has a wife 3 leagues above him, who gave up her "career".

Please, "Dr" Purkiss, peddle your crap elsewhere. And my laundry ain't doing itself, by the way.

mrsirjojo: Please, "Dr" Purkiss, peddle your crap elsewhere. And my laundry ain't doing itself, by the way.

The problem with revisionist feminist history is that any exception you throw at them can be dismissed out of hand. If she says that modern movies disrespect women, you can point at Ripley from Alien(s) as one of the baddest women ever to live. But then she'll point out that Ripley runs around in her underwear (to appeal to men) and takes on masculine characteristics in order to triumph over the aliens. Nevermind the fact that Sigourney Weaver in her underwear is appealing to nobody. There's really no arguing with a zealot, especially academic feminist zealots.

I don't understand what they want, to be honest, which makes it all the more difficult. Continuing the Ripley example, what would be a specifically female strength as opposed to her taking on masculine characteristics? And wouldn't assuming genders have specific strengths and weakness stereotype in the same way that the evil patriarchy does?

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Which is probably why the best "feminist" movie I've ever seen has almost no women and focuses on the homoerotic love between French soldiers stationed in Africa.

After working in an office where most of my co-workers are women in their 20s, I would have to say this portrayal is accurate. If they aren't talking about boy problems it's how fat they think they look.

I'm really sick of men being portrayed as infantile idiots who need to be mommied by their wives/girlfriends/husbands/boyfriends.

/feminist who believes the behavior required from men and women is generally unrealistic and limiting.

NobleHam: Uh-huh... why don't you whine about it to: A. The women accepting those roles; B. the women who wrote Bridget Jones' Diary, Sex and the City, Legally Blonde, Confessions of a Shopaholic, etc. I don't have a whole lot of pity for the misrepresentation of women when they're representing themselves. If women really object to their representation in Hollywood, they should stop paying to go to the movies. Men aren't the ones (willingly) paying for these stupid chick flicks.

Or, maybe the movies are accurate.

Why not complain to C: the women who buy the crap books in the first place, making them huge hits? (yes, I do work in a bookstore....)

Chick lit is crap. If you want something light and fun to read at the beach, fine, but don't make it your every read, please.

I would have posted sooner, but I was too busy shopping for shoes (Manolo!), eating too much chocolate, and having a crying jag. ^_^