RescueMes?

I've seen the advertisement for the new movie, Last House on the Left more times than I can count. It doesn't look all that great, and I don't think I'm going to go see it. From what I can tell, it's about this girl who's beaten badly by some sort of an attacker, and her father subsequently seeks revenge.

I really don't know to much about the movie, but what I do know is this: I am sick of women in the movies who need to be rescued from everything.

Sure, we make movies about career women and strong, courageous single mothers and all that, but a vast majority of women in movies need saving from one thing or another- whether it's a vicious rapist, a criminal organization, or Doc Oc.

I know that in the recent Taken, Liam Neeson's daughter is kidnapped and rather than paying the ransom, he goes directly after the people who have taken her.

In a world where violence is neither uncommon nor surprising, when are these women going to start saving themselves? Oddly enough, the most liberating example that I've seen recently is Enchanted, which I talked about in one of my previous blogs. The main character, a prissy, pretty princess, is the one who rescues Patrick Dempsy from an evil dragon queen.

Another great example? Mulan. For a Disney movie with clever songs and a talking dragon, it's a phenomenal demonstration of a woman taking her fate into her own hands, saving not only her self, but her entire country. Mainstream Hollywood needs to recognize the potential and strength of their female characters. We are not just damsel's in distress waiting to be rescued by our fathers and boyfriends and charming superhero's. We are fully capable of fighting for ourselves and fighting back.

Hardcore Horror

I saw the new Friday the Thirteenth in theaters last week. For a moment, I thought I had stumbled into some sort of an illicit pornography.... but then I remembered I was in MacArthur.

Anyway, I don't think I've ever seen so many naked girls in one movie. It was pretty ridiculous. I went to see blood, guts, and gore, not a diverse array of breasts. Seriously, every other second, someone had their clothes off. It was entirely ridiculous. I know the plot wasn't great, but did the writers and producers really feel that the film was so bad, they needed to get some people naked in order to entice a male audience? And don't tell me any of it was even real. I can guarantee that one, if not all of those girls has had plastic surgery. But I guess if they're going to flaunt naked women through 70% of the film, there's really no point in making them the slightest bit realistic looking. The film was basically fodder for an uncreative wet dream. What does that say about women? Their so much hotter with their clothes off. And moaning. Please. It's 2009... come up with something original. And these girls— the same ones taking their clothes off— they had all of about 7 lines.... total. I suppose they're just so much hotter if they don't speak.

Not that Friday the Thirteenth didn't have plenty to say about masculinity. The majority of the guys in the film were interested in little other than pot, liquor, and undressing their female camping buddies. When the scary parts happened, the wimps died first. The guys who were visible terrified of Jason (a massive six-foot-something axe-wielding maniac.... go figure.) died first. As if this was some sort of last man standing battle for their masculinity. I always thought that it was a natural instinct to run from what's obviously trying to maim and kill you. But then, what do I know? I'm only a woman.

But what I thought was the most interesting, was the people who died. Everyone who died had sex with another character at some point in the film. Two of the male characters who didn't "get lucky" also died... but then again, they were horror's favorite victim: minorities. The only two characters alive by the end of the film were white, and had remained celibate through the course of the film. So obviously, the deserved to live, right? It's frustrating that in such an over-sexed film, promiscuity is punishable by death.

Prada and its Poor Eating Habits

It's Eating Disorder Awareness week, so I thought I'd touch on that today.

I went to an event on Wednesday where we watched The Devil Wears Prada and then talked about some of the eating disorder issues it raises. I was really surprised; I'd never noticed all of that before. The supporting character, Emily, is constantly dieting, even though she can barely weigh more than 105. In order to fit into her expensive coutour, she tries this "really effective diet: I don't eat, and when I feel like I'm about to pass out, I eat a cube of cheese." How disturbing is that? I understand that Prada presents her as a sort of comic relief, and doesn't intend to condone eating disorders, but still. Later, she says she is "only one stomache flu away from her goal weight." Even I think that's pretty funny, but when you really think about it, it's pretty disturbing.

The lead character, Andrea, is totally unconcerned with her appearence, and weighs more than the clothes-obsessed women she works with. Not that she is at all fat. Played by Anne Hathaway, Emily is still very slender. She's just not a waif like her coworkers. But if thin, sexy Anne Hathaway is the fat girl, what does that make the rest of us?

I like that Devil shows that girls don't have to go for the waif, cocain-shic look to be beautiful. Unfortunately, Andrea's before and after looks do reiterate some negative gender norms. Before, she is somewhat frumpy, with long lank hair, and an average build. After, she is (of course) stunning. She fixes her hair and makeup, and dons new and ridiculously expensive clothes. And she drops a pants size. I understand all of the other changes. She really does look much better with her new clothes, and her hair pulled back, but was it really necessary to have her lose weight. To me, this just says that beauty is relative to a number on the scale. Disappointing.

My House Addiction

I love House.

I've never been into any other medical drama. In fact, I really don't follow many programs, but House and The Office are my two exceptions.

I think it's a pretty great show. Mostly I just watch it because I think Hugh Laurie is hysterical. I love his dry, nihilistic wit. It's really very unique.

But what bugs me about the show, and I really only realized this last night, is that all of the female actors are so damn attractive. They all wear revealing clothes and tons of makeup, and somehow have time to straighten their hair before going to work for 15 hour shifts to diagnose outliers of diseases. Come on. It's not like it's unrealistic for a female to be both successful and good looking, but does that really have to be such a big, in-your-face thing?

And why aren't any of the male doctors attractive. There's a short balding guy, and then the nerdy Indian kid. The only two even marginally attractive males on the show are both dating one of the main arm-candy doctor characters. Is that really necessary? It's as if their masculinity can only be justified sexually if they're attractive. It's frustrating.

Enchanted

I really love Amy Adams. Honestly, I think she’s fantastic. I most recently saw her in Enchanted, which is a unique parody of all of Disney’s former princess movies. Amy Adams plays the central character,Giselle, a princess from an animated land who suddenly finds herself stuck in modern-day New York City.
Enchanted was creative. Disney did an excellent job of pulling elements from several of it’s previous hits and turning them into a fresh, new story. But what is most interesting is the way Enchanted deviates from typical fairy tales.
Girls get to save themselves.
Giselle begins as any stereotypical (cartoon) princess, who sings, dresses up, and waits to be rescued. Her major talents include dancing and cleaning the house. Her dynamic character changes from a damsel waiting for her white knight, to an empowered woman who knows what she wants and, more importantly, how to get it by herself. In the climactic penultimate scene, The wicked queen of the enchanted land kidnaps Giselle’s true love and tosses him off the roof of a New York Skyscraper, as Giselle dives after him. It’s refreshing to see the girl save the day.
Of course, all these messages of empowered femininity are watered down for the film’s target audience. Masked behind musical numbers and fairy tales are themes of female pride and independence. It’s comforting to know that at least kids are receiving some accurate messages.

King of Crap....

I was subjected to a stream of sitcoms on TBS yesterday afternoon. It was all complete crap until King of Queens came on. I usually like King, but this episode was frustrating.

The main character, Doug, and his wife, Carrie, realized that they needed $12,000 for necessary home repairs. They didn’t have the money, so the husband went through all of their finances with his father. They major source of debt, they found, was Carrie’s extensive taste for designer brands. Doug then proposed that he be in charge of finances, and that Carrie get a monthly allowance to keep her from overspending.

The situation is feasible, but I think that, out of all the situations that could put a couple into debt, it’s ridiculous that they chose a reason that really stereotypes women. Why did the writers make Carrie’s shopping the issue, not Doug’s gambling or football obsession. The fact that this is the only thing you learn about Carrie in this episode is also offensive. Apparently, the only thing she does is shop. Because as a woman, why would she have any other interests, intellectual or otherwise.

All that aside, the solution of putting his wife on an allowance is outrageous. This is a women who works just as much as he does, in a slightly more prestigious job, no less. Since when does a man have the right to limit his wife’s access to her own income.

King of Queens, although it often relies on stereotypes for humor, is usually a pretty enjoyable show. But this episode, I felt, took those stereotypes too far, and presented an issue that was wholly ridiculous.

PETA

I recently saw PETA’s racy submission for a Superbowl advertisement. (Incidentally, the commercial will never make it on the air- it’s recently been banned.) After every couple of shots, captions read “Studies Show: Vegetarians Have Better Sex. Go Veg.” It features mostly naked women undressing and caressing themselves seductively with asparagus, broccoli, pumpkins.

What the fuck??

While I can neither refute nor affirm this claim, (I’m sure some studies do show vegetarians to perform better, though they were most likely researched by PETA members) I am offended as both female and a vegetarian.

I agree with some of what PETA says; I am all for the ethical treatment of animals, but I’ve never really agreed with their advertising and campaign strategies. I think there are far more effective ways to convince the general public of the meat industry than parading skinny women with big boobs in lettuce bikinis. It’s demeaning that PETA can’t think of a better way to reach out to a male audience than using women (and vegetables) as sex objects.

As a woman and a vegetarian, I feel that PETA has pigeonholed me as some chick who will put out for another vegetarian.
As a woman and a vegetarian, I feel like an exploited piece of meat.
As a woman and a vegetarian, I’m pissed.

The written message is fine with me. The implied one is not.

So, Go Veg and I’ll Give You a Hug. Cut Class Not Frogs. Recognize that Meat Is Murder. Have Better Sex.

Whatever. Just don’t sell my body.