I know it has nothing to do with the Bechdel Test, but I could not get this video out of my head.  There’s nothing wrong with the video itself, but here’s as many sexist comments as I could screen-cap before they made me physically unwell.  I don’t think a lot of these guys are trolling:

Let me tell you- movie watching the week of the 15th was fun.

Yes, more fun than this.

I originally wanted to watch Twilight after Disney week (because I know it’s inevitable for this blog and I thought perhaps I should get it over with), but I could not bring myself to do it.  I had been up to a lot and frankly did not have the emotional energy for Bella and her unholy Mary Sue-ness.  But when looking through cable channels (God bless HBO), I saw a different Catherine Hardwicke film I had been meaning to see for months.  I had the distinct and immense pleasure of watching last year’s Red Riding Hood.

Minor spoilers to follow, but really?  Does it matter?

I almost feel guilty looking at this film in any sort of critical way because of how bad it was.  I mean this movie was the kind of bad that makes you feel good about yourself as a person because you were not involved in the making of this film.  It didn’t even have the heart to be campy.  I could really just recap this movie scene-for-scene and make fun of every cliched line and male model trying to get a break in acting.  Every time I thought it could not get any worse something amazing would happen, like Gary Oldman prancing in and making everyone who was underacting (most of the cast) look downright dumb.


“DEED SOMBODDY ORDEUR A HORRENDOUS EUROPEAN ACCENT?  THIS SCEENERY IS NOT NEARLY CHEWED ENOFF.”

But alas, this is not a MST3K blog.  And with all its awful CGI, phoned-in performances, and deliciously stupid plot, Red Riding Hood did pass the Bechdel Test when (far, far) superior movies fail. So what gives?

Catherine Hardwicke has directed five feature films in her career.  I have seen three: This, Twilight, and The Nativity Story.  I should probably see Thirteen, because I at least would be able to take it seriously as a movie (or so I hear), but this triad does speak to certain themes of how to (or not to) portray women.

On the surface, this movie is Twilight with a blonde protagonist.  When I got tired of listening to characters speak I just watched Amanda Seyfried, whose deer-in-the-headlights stare makes Bella Swan look positively philosophical (but don’t get me wrong.  I love Seyfried, and she wrung everything out of that role an actor could.  You would look like you were having a bad drug trip if you were in this movie, believe me).

“There’s a… 30% chance my boyfriend is a werewolf!”

Seyfried’s character Valerie has to choose between two improbably attractive and kind young men who both dote madly on her.  I could view it as a positive sign that in this movie the objects to moon over are the men, but that’s a precedent that betrays this fake suspense/romance as pandering towards teenage girls without any substance (shocking, I know).  I’m not going to throw a party because a poor man’s Gale and Peeta from The Hunger Games stand around flexing their muscles being woodsmen and/or blacksmiths, because the drama still focuses on who Valerie will wind up marrying.

To be fair, this movie is not entirely about choosing a rugged, perfectly bone-structured man.  It passes the Bechdel Test because there is a wide range of female characters, at about a 1:1 ratio with the men.  I will not reveal whether or not the wolf in human form is male or female (You’re welcome.  You are free to watch the movie and discover that on your own), but regardless without discussions of the werewolf and marriage the women get a few good conversations in about witchcraft and their female friends and family and the like.  It also passes the Ledhceb Test, despite numerous conversations where men talk about Valerie and how pretty and/or cursed she is or something.  It was hard to hear the nuance of all the conversations when I was making sarcastic commentary to an empty room (trust me though, my zingers were cutting), but in this rustic society women seemed to hold a place of value- even if they could be sold to men in marriage.  And to be fair, that system is seen as unfair, and not 100% definitive.

Hardwicke as a director has a complicated relationship with female sexuality.  Twilight and The Nativity Story both idealize women who are virginal to an extreme degree (yes, I know it makes sense for the latter, but someone else could have directed).  In this film, however, Valerie has no qualms about what (and who) she wants, leading to giggling in a haystack that makes you roll your eyes and mutter about Kids These Days.  And it’s not even like the act is some sort of tremendous taboo.  Those in on the coital undertaking seem to take it in stride.  The only one who seems offended in any way is Gary Oldman, who, unambigiously evil (nothing in this movie is ambiguous), demonizes Valerie’s sexuality, even later telling her, “EET’S TIME TO POOT ON YOUR HARLOT’S RRRRROBE.”


Seriously, he is the best thing about this movie.  I’m pretty sure the Academy really nominated him for this, but one year late to build up the anticipation.

Even though Valerie is not some kind of Warrior Woman, she holds her own.  She needs to be rescued, but also plays a role in her own escape, and most importantly, she is the central figure in the film’s climax.  Her actions against (or with, no spoilers) the werewolf are not stereotypically masculine or feminine, but simply an intelligent way to act.  Which by this movie’s standards, believe me is saying something.  There are very few people being proactive in any constructive capacity, so it’s nice to see her step up.

So, final judgment:  This movie is fine (not in terms of cinematic quality.  I cannot stress this enough).  I wouldn’t say it’s empowering by any stretch of the imagination, but I have to admire the fact that it avoids most traps that could make this fairy-tale overtly anti-feminist.  Who knows- maybe one of the 57 reboots of Snow White this year will avoid making the character a male fantasy (warrior woman or damsel in distress), and maybe Snow will talk to another woman and then I can actually see these movies that will probably be terrible.  I can’t wait.

Stay tuned for more whiny posts about my year of proving a point, even though I am not entirely sure what that point is.

I am too young to get this reference.

Hugs and kisses!

I MADE IT ONE MONTH!!!

Well, dear readers, it has been a full lunar cycle since I have embarked on this journey of magic and discovery and crying to myself as I changed the channel every time Lord of the Rings was on.

ARWEN, TALK TO YOUR GRANDMOTHER.  YOU NEVER CALL.  YOU NEVER WRITE.

Guys, stop.  I didn’t mean to talk about Aragorn.  We get it.  He’s the heir of Gondor and Arwen’s heart.  Save it.

I just wanted to apologize for not posting lately.  It’s been a hectic couple of weeks, what with the end of winter break and such.  But fear not!  While I have fallen behind on my writing, I have not neglected my movie-watching or feminist snark.  So expect a barrage of posts (read: as many as I can manage without failing out of school) of what I have (and have not) been watching as I slowly descend into madness.  This month was about watching movies on TV at home.  Now that I’m back at school, this month will be about isolating myself from my friends when they want to watch a movie and I proceed to act like a vegetarian and start whining whenever they try to offer me something in which I can’t partake.

I’m a vegetarian, so I can make that joke.  Well, pescetarian.  I don’t want to be a 100% bleeding-heart stereotype.

Also yes, the last sentence in that paragraph was a wickedly awesome avoidance of a dangling participle.  You’re welcome.

February will be the last month that will relatively easy for me, because other than Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (I’m only sort of joking), there are few new movies this month I particularly want to see.  March will be far less kind.

Before I go back and write my post about my movie from the week of last week (the week before is queued), in order simultaneously celebrate this milestone of AYWTBT and punish myself for falling behind I decided to take some time to tackle a sexist Superbowl ad.

Did I just make a pun?  I wish my subconscious would confer with me before doing these things.

I’m not limiting myself from watching non-Bechdel commercials this year (horribly selfish, I know), because their typical length and lack of characters don’t really render the Test relevant.  Still, occasionally one can make the cut, but it’s not always a good thing.

So, the Superbowl coming up, and every year GoDaddy is the center of controversy for its spots.  CEO Bob Parsons, who enjoys making people upset, has responded to allegations of sexism by stating, “Sex sells.”

Of course, “sex” automatically means “sex with women,” because if these ads featured nude men they would be totally gay.

Regardless of whether the creep is right that “sex sells,” bad publicity is still publicity, and the ads likely contribute to GoDaddy’s success.  So, I had to walk by this ad (in billboard form) recently on my way to work.


THIS WEBSITE SELLS VIRTUAL DOMAIN NAMES.

Well, let’s get to it.  Click here for a sneak peak at this year’s newest dose of commercial artistry.

Yes, this commercial does not pass 100%, since Danica Patrick and Jillian Michaels aren’t named, but as celebrities they are supposed to be recognizable and identifiable.  They do not talk to each other about men, but about the flesh statue they’re painting and the irony of GoDaddy ads (points for being self-aware.  This completely negates your blatant sexism).  So it passes there!

Who does not get to speak is model Adriana Lima (also more difficult to find a name for online), looking pleased as punch to have references made to her breasts as she is forbidden from moving.  The ad wouldn’t even show her face if it weren’t attractive.

Here’s a little etymology lesson:  The word “objectify” is built upon the word “object”.  Having a woman pose naked covered in logos like a NASCAR vehicle without speaking or being directly spoken to or treated as a human being during this process might be the teensiest bit illustrative of this word.

And I didn’t even have to look it up in the dictionary.

I could just spend forty days and nights dissecting sexist TV spots as the misogyny pours down around me (see what I did there?), but there are plenty of brave men and women out there already doing so.  Besides, I have important things to do, like watch movies in my pajamas.  While you wait to hear back from me, here is a retro commercial that even has women with names.

Oh, nostalgia.  Don’t you miss the ‘60s?

Blog to you soon, you crazy kids.

Fine, the moment has come.  I must swallow my pride (and affection) for Disney to point out certain… issues they have with feminism.

Get comfy.

A lot of issues with Disney movies, as I have mentioned, are from before the second wave of feminism hit us like a mighty wave of justice.  Disney heroines, for example, are less passive in the ‘90s than in the first few films.  But some problems have persisted.

As you saw from my awkwardly scientific Part 1 post, a lot of Disney movies fail the Bechdel test.  About half, with a little wiggle room with some movies falling into no-man’s land.  But in my last post, I insisted that Disney is full of positive female characters, many of whom are strong, independent women.  So what’s the problem?

Well, remember, the Bechdel test shows us not just female presence, but female interaction (independent of males).  Pocahontas, for example, has Nakoma as a friend and confidant (as well as Grandmother Willow), but few heroines do (they’re too busy being locked up in towers and palaces and cleaning houses and the like).  It’s almost like Disney is doing the minimum to say, “There!  We have a charming young woman to inspire young girls and ample new merchandising opportunities.  Off to bed!”

I imagine Disney’s bed looks like this.

For the most part, men are still the default as characters, and women in Disney movies are only women for a reason.  I’m crazy about Shenzi from the Lion King because she is female but doesn’t have to be; she forms a great dynamic with Bonzai and Ed.  And the female secondary villains are few and far between- it’s usually top billing or not evil at all.  But it’s sort of sad I have to nitpick for someone with about 5 minutes of screen-time.

Don’t even get me started with how much I love Evinrude.

“OK,” you may say to me, sipping on your mug of earl gray tea with your pinky out, as I assume all my followers do, “Disney may not have enough female characters, but at least the movies aren’t full of negatively stereotyped women.”

Well, my sophisticated friend, not all Disney women are heroines.  As I have alluded to, some are, in fact, villains.  And this is where things get particularly sticky.

Ew, feels like gender inequality.

Well, let’s start with the newest female villain.  In Tangled, Mother Gothel was actually one of the most morally ambiguous (though not psychologically complex) antagonists Disney has ever produced (which is to say, not much, but not every single fiber of her being sings out with malice and ill-well towards our heroine).  Even though she cares for herself above all, she seems to value Rapunzel on some level beyond her hair.  Still, she uses Rapunzel (beyond to actually become younger) to boost her own self-esteem, and felt in a lot of ways like a manipulative “bad mother” trope we usually find outside of fairy tales.

NO-LEAVING-THIS-TOWER-EVER!!!!!!

Mother Gothel’s power seems tied into her youth- whenever she starts to wrinkle she completely panics, especially at the end- she goes from being one of the most interesting Disney villains in recent memory to simply being a pitiful mess in moments (yes, spoiler: the good guys win).

In other cases, having a vain villain be unattractive from the start just adds to the humor (isn’t Ursula ugly because she’s fat? LOL).  Female antagonists’ methods and goals are often tied in with changing the attractiveness of themselves or the heroines.  Even Yzma, trying to stage a good-old-fashioned coup d’etat, is extremely vain, and her failure to be attractive and advanced age are recurring points of humor throughout the film.  Of course villains can be egomaniacs (the best bad guys are), why can’t a female villain also have Ratcliffe’s thirst for power through colonialism, or Edgar’s simple monetary greed, or Frollo’s genocidal/religious/sexual complexes (he’s my favorite villain)?

I either just described a Disney character, or the Unsub on the next episode of Criminal Minds.

So maybe everyone has been so busy worrying about what kinds of role models Disney princesses are that we have forgotten that the female villains can reinforce negative stereotypes of women.  Even though the Evil Queen’s power is real, her motivation is unambitious.  Why doesn’t she crave world power with that kind of evil?  All Scar had was a pack of half-witted hyenas and his own brains and he managed to conquer and subsequently destroy and entire ecosystem.

ONE LION DID THIS.  WITHOUT OPPOSABLE THUMBS.

Disney has even corralled a few female villains into the mini-franchise “Divas of Darkness.”  Oh.  Their ambitions and modi operandi center on physical appearance and petty revenge fantasies against individual women because they are too fabulous.  I take this whole post back.

So that’s it for Disney Week!  Don’t worry, I’m sure we’ll be running into our friend throughout the year.  But what have we found?  Well, a body of work as prolific and well-known as Disney is complicated.  You can notice the feminist flaws in the movies and refuse to enjoy them, or you can cover you ears and pretend there’s not a problem.  But how about you watch the most classic animated films ever made, and recognize both their strengths and weaknesses?

When I was in High School, I got offended when my English teacher told me Disney movies were often sexist.  I swore they were not.

“Snow White,” she offered.  “Give me one proactive thing she did.”

“She… cleaned the house of the dwarfs,” was my reply, and she laughed, her point being made.  Because I was wrong.  Snow White is not a feminist figure.  However, liking her does not mean I am not a feminist.  And thinking Prince Eric is dreamy does not mean I crave completion by a man.  For every issue or problematic moment in the Disney canon there is a role model or inspiring moment for children, regardless of gender.  There is always room for improvement, but in the meantime we have to take the good with the bad and sort them out as we get older.

Well, that got touchy-feely.  Don’t worry- I’ll try to be bitter and caustic next week to make up for it.  Maybe I’ll watch Twilight… or maybe I’ll have self-respect.  I haven’t decided yet.

Disney is an extremely fraught subject from a feminist perspective.  Its feature films have been influencing children for 75 years this December.

75?  Let’s be honest, people.  He’s had some work done.

Like any institution that old (with several different people in command throughout the years), it is going to make mistakes that seem much worse in retrospect.  But here’s my personal problem: I love Disney.
 
I love Disney.  I love it.  As in will-take-you-down-in-Disney-Trivial-Pursuit love it.  I know all the voice actors of important characters.  I wake up some mornings and miss Howard Ashman.  I have trained small forest creatures to follow me around when I sing.  And so I admit it can be hard to distance myself from that and look at the company critically.  But I still believe that objectively (from a feminist perspective,) it gets a bad rap.  So this post I’ll defend it, and get to the problems in a couple of days.
 
Of course we should not give Disney a free pass for the mistakes it has made (particularly some pretty heinous racial ones), but it is our job to take the historical and cultural context into consideration.
 
But first, I should get to Tangled itself (little-or-no spoilers to follow).  As a film, I was really surprised with how much it felt like a film from the Disney Renaissance (without being overly derivative or a parody like Enchanted).  It had its flaws, but it is certainly the best feature Disney animated movie I have seen for years.  I even watched it again last night, just in case you didn’t believe my whole “lack of a social life” thing.
 
In terms of the Bechdel Test, this movie passed almost immediately, and the dynamic between Rapunzel and Mother Gothel is central to the film.  In addition, Rapunzel holds her own and is proactive, while still being three-dimensional.  She is oppressed at the beginning, but not by a patriarchy; she has never even seen a man before meeting Flynn.

No, Rapunzel’s emotional (and physical) captor is not a man, but her manipulative Mother figure.  Yes, you could argue Mother Gothel was… problematic, but I’ll get to that in the next post.
 

I said next post.
 
As I mentioned last post, this movie actually borderline fails the Ledhceb test.  The Stabbington brothers who talk to Flynn have no first names, so it’s a gray area (I hope their first names are actually Stabby and Stabward).  Also, only one of them ever even talks.  Still, if my partner-in-crime had the voice of Ron Perlman, I would let him speak for me on-the-job too (and then tell him in private how much I liked Hellboy).  Regardless, there were very few important/fleshed-out characters in this movie other than the main three, and Rapunzel is a fine heroine.
 
When it comes to feminism, Disney can’t win.  Ever since the Little Mermaid, filmmakers have responded to criticisms and worked to make their heroines increasingly independent, but still face controversy every time because of company history.  For Pete’s sake, Mulan is one of the most empowering female film heroines I encountered when I was young!  Those who say that she was only able to succeed by taking on traditionally masculine traits are completely ignoring that what also saves the day is the soldiers disguising themselves as women and bending gender-norms the opposite way. 

I don’t actually knows if anyone says that, but now I have made my rebuttal in advance.

(Also, for me, Mulan managed to make Donny Osmond attractive for the first and likely last time, even though they should have let B.D. Wong take on “I’ll Make a Man Out of You” because he is a BROADWAY SINGER people, and you let Mel Gibson of all people sing in Pocahontas rather than replace him, but OK, great, back to feminism.)

Yes, there are also weak Disney heroines, but often with reason.  Ariel is just a fairly realistic 16-year old, and Prince Eric is her Justin Bieber (but better in a multitude of insert-your-own-Bieber-joke-here ways).  Contrary and adolescent, she rebels against her upbringing through pursuing forbidden man-fruit.  The problem is that she then makes a life commitment based on this teenage act of defiance, but don’t worry, the terrible sequel proves that it works out.
 

If only the movie itself worked out.
 
In terms of movies from back in the day, yes, Snow White is weak, subservient, and honestly pretty dumb (Ah! Cons are NEXT post!), but she is a 14-year-old classic fairy tale character, and I don’t recall the Brothers Grimm character kicking any butt (though there she was 7 years old, and that is a WHOLE other issue I won’t even touch).

“At least we didn’t have her woken with a kiss.”

In its earliest films, Disney changed the fairy tales more in terms of adding fun animal friends and musical numbers than reevaluating characterizations.  Snow White’s prince, for example, does not even have a personality, other than “charming.”  And most sexism in these movies reflected an existing sexism in mainstream American culture.

This ad was from 2 years after Alice in Wonderland came out.  And she got that “Drink Me” bottle open just fine by herself!

Like the Bechdel Test and individual films, you cannot judge Disney based on one princess.  If Disney used the same character every time (no, I don’t think they already do), then it doesn’t matter how strong that one character is because it is still suggesting all women are or should be a certain way.  The point of the Test is to look at trends, and although Ariel and Aurora need to be rescued by their respective princes (though, come on, the three fairies did most of the work for Phillip), Pocahontas is independent, Belle is intellectual, and Tiana is intensely ambitious.

“Intellectual,” “a huge hipster who refuses to talk to anyone with different tastes,” same diff.  JK, best heroine ever.

Disney did not give me unrealistic expectations about men, because I didn’t even develop crushes on characters until I was much older and could look at the films critically.  Disney did not give me unrealistic expectations about hair, because it was a cartoon and I did not own dresses like that or have talking animal friends.  Disney did give me expectations about my life including spontaneous musical numbers, but it does, so there’s no problem there.
 
There.  Now that I have defended Disney most gallantly like a prince snatching a maiden out of the clutches of an animated villain in mid-song, I can begin my work on my next post, where I will become the animated villain intent on imprisoning/destroying/marrying her (or, you know, politely and critically analyzing her flaws.  It’s not a very good metaphor).  But stay tuned!

Lucky for me I already look like this!

sammiefriendshipmountain asked: Wouldn't Tangled pass the reverse Bechdel Test? Flynn talks to the Stabbington brothers (whose names [or at least the title "Stabbington Brothers," which I'm assuming counts] show up briefly on the wanted posters in the beginning) about stealing the crown. Does it count that their names are only written, not spoken? Then again, they might also be spoken and I just forgot, like how I forgot that Mother Gothel's name was mentioned. Regardless, I'm excited for the rest of the Tangled analysis.

Well, the brothers are interchangeable, both being “Stabbington.”  I secretly hope that they’re first names are Stabby and Stabward, but because we don’t know, I don’t feel comfortable identifying them as being “named.”

If there was only one of them, I might let it go.  I don’t recall if the name is used out loud, but written before the credits  counts.  Still, It’s gray area, and could really go either way.  And stay tuned for why Mother Gothel is both a fantastic and terrible villain!