HIGH PLAINS SCRIBBLER: THE FEMINISM OF FISHNETS

"I think he truly tried to take what bothers and annoys him about the exploitation of women (including, perhaps, his own fetishes )"

Good article. I may be seeing the film tomorrow night, but I like this bit because the first name that came to mind was William Moulton Marston, a.k.a., Charles Moulton, the creator of Wonder Woman.

It came to mind because people often dismiss Wonder Woman, particularly the way she dresses, as sexist and exploitative. The way she was dressed was seen as somewhat scandalous at the time (still bitched about today, of course), but Marston felt that the desexualized image of women in the 30's and 40's was puritanical and ruinous to healthy sexual attitudes, so he devised a character that was unashamed of her body, that didn't feel the need to cover herself for fear of arousing the puerile thoughts of young men. WW was chiefly created for the dominant comic reading audience, young men, and she was created to give them a female counterpoint to all of the burly, non-maternal figures running around, beating people up. Marston referred to himself as a feminist, and was far from being a traditionalist. WW was based on his girlfriend, Olive, who had a live-in, polyamorous relationship with Marston and his wife. Marston also had very unusual ideas of where "feminine strength" came from, something he felt was largely rooted in "submissiveness", which is reinforced in the prevalence of images of bondage and so on in the Wonder Woman comics. 

That was really rambling and all that, but yeah, while WW is in tune with her creator's own personal desires, there was a legitimate social concern there, and I think it's one that is largely misunderstood to this day.

Does that, in turn, mean that Sucker Punch is totally misunderstood and actually works? Nope. However, my views on Marston will probably help me go into the film with a more relaxed attitude, and holding less against it than I would otherwise.

Edit: Another sorta kinda Snyder parallel that comes to mind is Marston wasn't a very good writer of comic book fiction, per se. Marston wasn't all that hot with adventure narratives or strong characters outside of Wonder Woman (which is why most of WW's villains are kind of terrible), what he was good at was sneaking in a lot of sophisticated and subversive concepts, and that's what survives from his tenure, not memorable stories, or even *good* ones for that matter.

This is the best thing you've written yet, Elisabeth. (On this site, anyway. Not familiar with what you've done elsewhere)

Agreed, i always enjoy your writing but this time you knocked it out of the park.

Great Job :)

Thank you. The most frustrating thing in regards to the discussion of this film has been the exploitation issue. It is clear that Snyder was trying to morph what men view as stylistic feminine archetypes (the schoolgirl, etc.) into icons of power. The characters can thus be seen as owning both their influence and power in a "man's world" as well as their sexuality. Also, a movie that shows the oppression of women does not automatically mean that it condones it. That is what has been frustrating when listening to friends talk about this. Thank you for refusing to be ignorant and only look at the surface level. I am not saying this is a great film or anything (though I did enjoy it quite a bit), but I did appreciate what he was attempting to convey. A great essay on your part, Elisabeth.

Elisabeth, also wanted to say fantastic article - not just the reasoning, but excellently written, too. I appreciated the voice of moderation you brought, and it was especially helpful reading a female perspective on the film and its imagery. The contrast with how, frex, Bay shot Megan Fox, was eye opening and a great example of how this film isn't the raging kettle of woman-hate some folks are calling it.

I think the film doesn't quite work - someone in another thread said it was just a script polish or two away from greatness, and I don't think that's too off the mark. It's helpful reading reactions like this and others who aren't just foaming at the mouth to tear it down. (I actually went into it expecting to hate it, and was pleasantly surprised.)

Excellent written article as always, Elizabeth. Makes me reconsider the film; storywise it's still a glorious mess of a movie featuring plot devices that don't seem necessary, but on the exploitation, or lack thereof, it makes me wonder how much was intentional or the result of lack of planning, etc. Say what you will about the movie, but it certainly provokes conversation.

One question I've always wondered: why does any woman appearing on screen have to represent x or stand for y? Why does a woman appearing on film have to bear the whole experience of womanhood? Can't woman kick ass, or wear make up as you say, without it having to mean something (usually to men)? Are we not past that. I guess not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Happenin 

 

One question I've always wondered: why does any woman appearing on screen have to represent x or stand for y? Why does a woman appearing on film have to bear the whole experience of womanhood? Can't woman kick ass, or wear make up as you say, without it having to mean something (usually to men)? Are we not past that. I guess not.

I wonder this as well, and I wonder if it's a result of simply having so much media out there and so many people shouting their opinions. (I love dialogue, don't get me wrong, but I don't like the volume and tone it takes on.)   The quality of female characters has dropped, which I think fuels the fire of desperation, but I suspect that if blogs and Twitter were around during Katharine Hepburn or Audrey Hepburn's heydey, you would have the same kind of shrieking and demands for representation.   They're held up as paragons now, but I guarantee Twitter or Jezebel would be insisting Bringing Up Baby spat in the face of independent womanhood.  Look at what blogs write about Tina Fey. It's exhausting. She's just a comedian.  Liz Lemon is a character. She's not supposed to represent anyone or anything. It's ridiculous.

I don't go to the movies looking for representations of myself.   I want real characters, sure, and once and awhile it's nice to go "Oh man, I identified with that!", but for the most part, I actually want an experience that's alien to my own, from the highest art to the lowest popcorn level.  Also, I want to see hot guys.

The state of women in film has been shit for quite some time.  All I can do is say it sucks, this article rocks, and leave this for you all to have fun with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

The state of women in film has been shit for quite some time.  All I can do is say it sucks, this article rocks, and leave this for you all to have fun with.

Seriously, in a world where you can have outright misogyny happily covered in mainstream fare like the latest Adam Sandler movie, I don't think people need to be looking that hard for where the problems in Hollywoods depiction of women are.

...and that flow chart is frikkin awesome.

I applaud Snyder for the effort, it's just too bad that he's not a strong enough writer to adequately flesh out the ideas he wanted to explore in the film.  Material such as this is already very easily misinterpreted by audiences - sometimes the point missed entirely - and in this case his deficiencies as a writer doesn't help matters.  As you point out though, he shouldn't be raked over the coals for the attempt and subsequent failure - just the attempt is much more than can be said for most writers and directors.  Hopefully there will continue to be interesting discussion regarding the issue of female characters in film (which the legacy of this film should be), especially in the sci-fi/fantasy genre, but the narrative missteps of Sucker Punch may be a hindrance to that discussion taking root in any meaningful way (outside of CHUD, of course!).  And shit, once that wretched Wonder Woman television show hits, Sucker Punch won't be nearly the target it is now.

It is refreshing to get a female perspective on the matter, especially on a film about female (sexual) empowerment written and directed from a male point of view.  You make some very interesting points regarding sexuality, the male gaze, and the writer's POV versus the characters'.  I wish there were more female characters who "owned" their sexuality in a way that, say, James Bond does; it's inherent but not at the fore (emerging alternately with his badassness, stoicism, cadishness and inner turmoil), often used as a means to an end, and neither is he defined by it nor hated for it.  It sounds as if Snyder is still confused on the matter of how exactly one takes control of their sexuality and how that process is appropriately expressed through a character's arc, aesthetically and narratively.  It isn't enough for him to just claim they're empowered because they can wear fishnets and heels and still kill Nazis and robots with the best of them, he's got to explain within the story what the process is that makes it possible and meaningful and genuine, and how the physical manifestations of their own sexuality are harnessed to their advantage in a world dominated by the male gaze.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dajuice7 

It is refreshing to get a female perspective on the matter, especially on a film about female (sexual) empowerment written and directed from a male point of view.  You make some very interesting points regarding sexuality, the male gaze, and the writer's POV versus the characters'.  I wish there were more female characters who "owned" their sexuality in a way that, say, James Bond does; it's inherent but not at the fore (emerging alternately with his badassness, stoicism, cadishness and inner turmoil), often used as a means to an end, and neither is he defined by it nor hated for it. 

A female character cannot behave like James Bond and not be called a whore for it.  Men are expected, even encouraged, to fuck fuck fuck and face no social consequences for it.  Once you start talking about a woman's sexuality on film, it's all anyone can talk about.  Look at the women of Sex And The City.  Yes, the movies are shit, but the television show did a phenomenal job of fleshing those characters out as flawed, real, fun women.  The show is not 100% about sex, contrary to popular belief, yet it is all people ever talk about in relation to the show.  You have a group of guys running around acting and talking like those women, they aren't called whores.  They're called The Hangover.

And speaking of owning sexuality, I read something in the Sucker Punch post-release thread that truly disturbed me.  So there was a sex scene between Babydoll and High Roller that was cut.  Browning discussed that scene as being about a young woman owning her sexuality, about a woman taking charge sexually and seeking pleasure rather than being there simply to get the man off.  Trouble is the MPAA sliced and diced that scene until it became less about Babydoll's empowerment and more about the man's pleasure, so Snyder dropped it altogether.  Reminded me a lot of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, where they discussed how the MPAA is scared shitless of a woman achieving sexual pleasure.

Ultimately, the problem isn't how women are depicted on film.  It's how we are perceived in reality that truly scares the shit out of me.  Sexism is embedded so deeply into our society that it's not even questioned.  Ever notice how people always refer to inanimate objects (ships, planes, cars) as "she"?  Ever notice how the worst thing to call a man is a woman (sissy, girly, throw like a girl, etc)?  That shit is much more insulting and in need of addressing to me than Michael Bay shoving a camera up Megan Fox's snatch.

Son of a bitch. Actual discussion going further that "It was cool when happened" and I can't participate because the movie, once more is not out over here yet. I will have a child solely so I can sacrfice it if someone manages to deal once and for all with all this international release bullshit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

Son of a bitch. Actual discussion going further that "It was cool when happened" and I can't participate because the movie, once more is not out over here yet. I will have a child solely so I can sacrfice it if someone manages to deal once and for all with all this international release bullshit.

You and me both brother, still gotta wait at least another week over here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dajuice7 

I applaud Snyder for the effort, it's just too bad that he's not a strong enough writer to adequately flesh out the ideas he wanted to explore in the film.  Material such as this is already very easily misinterpreted by audiences - sometimes the point missed entirely - and in this case his deficiencies as a writer doesn't help matters.  As you point out though, he shouldn't be raked over the coals for the attempt and subsequent failure - just the attempt is much more than can be said for most writers and directors.  Hopefully there will continue to be interesting discussion regarding the issue of female characters in film (which the legacy of this film should be), especially in the sci-fi/fantasy genre, but the narrative missteps of Sucker Punch may be a hindrance to that discussion taking root in any meaningful way (outside of CHUD, of course!).  And shit, once that wretched Wonder Woman television show hits, Sucker Punch won't be nearly the target it is now.

 

It is refreshing to get a female perspective on the matter, especially on a film about female (sexual) empowerment written and directed from a male point of view.  You make some very interesting points regarding sexuality, the male gaze, and the writer's POV versus the characters'.  I wish there were more female characters who "owned" their sexuality in a way that, say, James Bond does; it's inherent but not at the fore (emerging alternately with his badassness, stoicism, cadishness and inner turmoil), often used as a means to an end, and neither is he defined by it nor hated for it.  It sounds as if Snyder is still confused on the matter of how exactly one takes control of their sexuality and how that process is appropriately expressed through a character's arc, aesthetically and narratively.  It isn't enough for him to just claim they're empowered because they can wear fishnets and heels and still kill Nazis and robots with the best of them, he's got to explain within the story what the process is that makes it possible and meaningful and genuine, and how the physical manifestations of their own sexuality are harnessed to their advantage in a world dominated by the male gaze.

I couldn't agree more.  The story definitely failed in that regard. I'd argue that maybe actresses failed as well.   From all accounts, Snyder was pretty open to their input as far as the script because he didn't want to write something a woman wouldn't say, or that the audience might perceive as stereotypical.  (I think Jack Giroux of FSR has the interview I'm thinking of.)    He mentioned the scene where they decide yes, they'll break out as one they all spontaneously started to cry, and he was shocked they'd done that, and was fearful of how it might be perceived.

If it was that kind of environment, I'm surprised (or disappointed? Or is it too much to even expect?) that no one might have said  "Well, maybe Sweet Pea would say this" or "Maybe Baby Doll should do THAT" so they would own those characters and their journey a bit better.  (And hey, even there the failing would be Snyder's -- if you want kick ass women, maybe you need to make sure you cast ones who have some grit to them.)

And really, I don't even know that I can argue that last point.  Women are, by and large, probably just as confused about the topic as Snyder. He tackled something for which there is no comfortable answer, as evidenced by the reaction the film has gotten.

Thanks for all the kind words and the wonderful discussion, by the way. It's been really enjoyable!

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

A female character cannot behave like James Bond and not be called a whore for it.  Men are expected, even encouraged, to fuck fuck fuck and face no social consequences for it. 

I think this social paradigm is shifting a good bit nowadays. It's not gone by any means, but being a man-whore isn't exactly smiled upon these days like it used to be.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeypants 

 

I think this social paradigm is shifting a good bit nowadays. It's not gone by any means, but being a man-whore isn't exactly smiled upon these days like it used to be.
 

 

Really? I don't think it should be frowned upon either. If a guy and a girl want to have a one night stand who cares? And if that guy is good at having one night stands and doesn't want to settle down go have a good time. The problem isn't that we celebrate men for having sex it's then we degrade women for doing it.

But sometimes I wonder is there more to that attitude than misogyny? I mean obviously there is societal conditioning but it's my experience men and women approach sex differently. Guys have want to fuck alot with many partners typically and women tend not to be as into that. So when you get a percentage of women who approach sex more like men they get labled as "different" and you know how society often reacts to different. I
 

Wa...alt is right. Going from calling women who fuck a lot whores and men awesome to calling them both whores is at best a lateral movement.

I don't think it should really be damned or anything. If it works for you, man or girl, great. It's been my experience that it really didn't work for me and I never liked it. And I haven't seen it work very well for anyone I know either. But I certainly don't damn people for it or judge them on it. I'd advise against it, but whatever floats someone's boat is good enough explanation for me.

All I meant was, I guess I don't notice people being "impressed" by a guy that has sex with a lot of women. I know guys that do, and no one is praising them like the "old days." But a lot of that I'm sure is the "improved" social circles I run in, or more to the point, DON'T run in anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

A female character cannot behave like James Bond and not be called a whore for it.  Men are expected, even encouraged, to fuck fuck fuck and face no social consequences for it.  Once you start talking about a woman's sexuality on film, it's all anyone can talk about...

 

And speaking of owning sexuality, I read something in the Sucker Punch post-release thread that truly disturbed me.  So there was a sex scene between Babydoll and High Roller that was cut.  Browning discussed that scene as being about a young woman owning her sexuality, about a woman taking charge sexually and seeking pleasure rather than being there simply to get the man off.  Trouble is the MPAA sliced and diced that scene...

 

Ultimately, the problem isn't how women are depicted on film.  It's how we are perceived in reality that truly scares the shit out of me...

I agree that female characters aren't allowed by men (and I bet more than a few females) to get away with the same behaviors that male characters do, thus my desire to see more women in film that can do so and aren't vilified for it. 

[Tangent: When Tomb Raider was released in 2001 I think Hollywood squandered a great opportunity to have a female analogue to James Bond, a character that was smart, strong, principled, attractive and who completely owned their sexuality by not shying away from it but not becoming consumed by it; it could be used as a tool to disarm, endear, intimidate, or as an outlet for the character's obvious thrill-seeking compulsions, but never as an indication of depravity or weakness.  Angelina Jolie was perhaps the sole actress in Hollywood who could have embodied those characteristics and not been the target of widespread disapproval because she had carefully (and, admittedly, at points not-so-carefully) fostered her own image as that of a strong, intelligent and sexually powerful woman, and regardless of how one viewed her you couldn't deny her those characteristics.  Sadly, the game's distracting and disturbingly "perky" boobs made their way into the film and the overall execution left much to be desired.  What I give Snyder all the credit in the world for is that he at least consciously and sincerely tried with Sucker Punch to subvert the typical relationship between audiences and the sexuality of female characters whereas Tomb Raider seemed fearful of treading too deeply into those waters.]

I also agree with joeypants that societal mores are continuing to change in regards to gender and sexuality, albeit slowly as always.  I think more progress is being made in television than film in this regard.  Shows like Grey's Anatomy, Saving Grace, and anything on pay cable networks like Showtime and HBO among others are starting to include more female characters that engage in behavior that was previously deemed inappropriate for women on screen.  Sex and the City itself led the vanguard.  I don't know if a show with that title would ever not inspire talk of sexuality when the discussion turns to its leads, but I think the discussion was and still is critical to the evolution of female sexuality on screen.  Bridesmaids may be another step in the right direction, though less in regards to sexuality than general boorishness, if it truly isn't afraid to depict women behaving "badly" and not having them be villains for doing so.

The MPAA story you mention is about as sad an example of censorship I can think of.  Such obvious discomfort with a female taking charge sexually is, as you point out, endemic in our society.  And while I don't expect Snyder to affect widespread change with Sucker Punch, films do hold a unique capacity to influence change by tweaking our preconceptions and our biases on arguably the largest stage possible for the depiction of our society's desires and hang-ups (manly men, subservient women, scary foreigners, etc).  So, strangely enough, Michael Bay's (a sex and violence fetishist of the first order) constantly shoving a camera up Megan Fox's snatch could even serve as a point of importance for discussions of the male gaze and eventually affect some positive change (I think even Fox expressed some discomfort with her portrayal, so kudos to her for that). 

Finally got to read this fantastic piece, Elizabeth.  Just got back from the film and immediately started reading all of CHUD's collective thoughts on it.  I'm kinda tired now, but I'll be chewing on this stuff tonight.