#Feminism in Film

[battyblog]

Feminism is not a genre of film!

Does anyone else feel like cinema is kind of popping off in 2024 so far? Watching films has become my coping mechanism for winter. Recently, I watched the film Poor Things which has taken the world by storm; with ‘Best picture’ and multiple other Oscar nominations to prove it. Aside from the gorgeous aesthetics of Poor Things, the film’s story has fuelled the fire for the current feminism in film debate. For anyone who hasn’t seen the film, this post will contain spoilers and I really do recommend you watch it! Poor Things is the story of Bella Baxter, a female lead who’s journey to mental maturation is a key aspect of the film. We follow Bella who is revealed to be an amalgamation of mother and child, the mother’s body with the brain of her infant child (An aspect of the film which receives NOT enough attention). What the film does focus on is how her brain develops and how the young brain being treated as the adult shell affects Bella’s view and experiences of the world. The film covers topics of the 20th Century society, and how women were treated within it, prostitution, marriage, manipulation and suicide.  

Is Poor Things a feminist film? Seems to be a key question in the discourse. But I think that we need to take a moment to question what this concept actually means, what is a feminist film? Whilst there are many great smaller films that cover feminist topics well, I want to focus on these big blockbusters as these moneymakers allow us to also think about the role capitalism plays in this debate. Film is an industry after all. A common theme in these female-led Oscar noms is that none of them are labelled as ‘feminist’ in their promotional materials. Feminism is still a divisive term, and in the pursuit of profit, it can be risky to give a film such a label. ‘Feminist’ is a label that is both given and taken away by the media and discourse surrounding a film.  it is an umbrella term for various socio-political movements, it is a lens in which to view the world and a standard to hold things to. How could this be encapsulated within a film? Within Feminism itself there are internal arguments, one person's feminism may look completely different to someone else's. 

Take a look at Barbie, celebrated by some as a feminist classic, but belittled by others as not being feminist enough. How could Barbie be a perfect feminist film? In 90 minutes could the film have covered aspects of a movement that’s history varies so hugely from country to country. There wouldn’t be time to then expand into intersectionality*, would Warner Bro’s dare discuss abortion issues, Barbie meets a TERF? By putting both Barbie and Poor things up to this impossible feminist standard it leads to them being torn down by an angry mob. It is important to view film critically, especially when these topics are covered, but when these films face so much backlash it can have knock on effects and scare filmmakers from attempting to cover women’s issues in their projects. Barbie is a film that set out to make money, it’s based on a bloody toy! While we can acknowledge that there were issues with the topics covered, it is important to also be grateful that a film like this exists, made so much money and definitely introduced or expanded upon feminist topics to the audience. 

This leads me to ask, where is this energy for films without a male lead? Feminism can be a critique applied to all films yet seems to only be extended to those with a female lead. Just because a film has a female lead doesn’t mean it is feminist. I think this echoes the emotional labour that society puts on women to represent feminism and fight for respect for themselves and other women. Do we all lack the object permanence to remember feminism unless we’re directly gazing upon a woman? In order to be successful, feminist practices need to be adopted in all aspects of a film, yes with female characters, but also behind the screen. A role can be written and directed by a man, just because it is played by a woman does not mean it is feminist or not exploitative.  

Capitalism wants to sell us feminism as this neat little package, it wants us to buy into it and forget that there is no way to price an ideology. Poor Things is a fantasy film, not a feminist film, feminism is not a genre. Yes, there are Feminist themes, but there are also prominent themes of class issues, yet no one is rushing to label it as a communist film. If we cannot decide a set framework or criteria for a feminist film, we need to stop trying to use that label. Feminism is a critique that can be applied to all media, and feminist debate surrounding film needs to also expand to cover those behind the scenes. Let’s just enjoy some cinema and accept that it cannot fit into the high standard, but by sparking a conversation it can do more and still be used to educate people. 

*Hey, don’t know about intersectionality? Thats cool, but you should acquaint yourself. Intersectionality in feminism is an acknowledgement that gender based oppression isn’t one size fits all and that other factors such as class and race can have a huge effect. Read up 

[chaotic-aphrodite]

The way that the mainstream Indian daily soaps are STILL obsessed with producing content that glorifies the "perfect" desi bahu who will basically just stay in the kitchen, serve her husband and his family, have no identity of her own besides her husband, take any bs, no questions asked. While the female characters that are typically demonised are the ones that aren't afraid of voicing their opinion and having their self respect, and they are usually mocked with the title "modern" or maybe even "chudail".

Feminism is all about choice. It can be a woman's choice to want to be a stay-at-home wife or serve her family but such dependence on your spouse should never be romanticised unless the family is well to do (which is not the case among the majority); and it should definitely not be forced upon any woman.

Again, we have way too much of this stereotypical representation anyways. We want to see women doing whatever the fuck they want to, unapologetically. Give us complex, selfish, ambitious female characters. The media which is produced and which the audience consume makes a huge difference. We are sick of people trying to look down on feminism, don't let patriarchy take over a silly thing such as entertainment too.

This is not intended to hurt anyone's feelings but just a few words I've wanted to share on here.

[vesper93]

One of the things that really hit home for me from Bones and All was a message that feminists have been screaming about for years:

"Men are scared of being rejected, women are scared that men will kill them."

The scenes with Sully really hit home for me, especially the one in front of the café/van where he simply cannot take the fact that Maren doesn't want to go with him. He believes that because he showed her a part of him ("we dried off together"), that she owes him something in return.

He cannot take her rejection, which then directly leads to Kayla's murder (revenge) and the attack on Maren and Lee at the end.

Basically it all falls apart because of one man's fragility and his inability to hear no from a woman. It smacks of the "nice guy and therefore..." rhetoric.

Just ignore the cannibalism for a moment (lol - that's a hell of a sentence), how many times have you been in a situation where you tried to desculate, like Maren does, multiple times, because a man seems like he might be capable of hurting you? She even tries the "it's not you, it's me" tactic.

TL/DR: Sully is an incel, and Luca was showing us how dangerous they can be.

So yeah, that's what stayed with me.

[goldlock1]

Because I am a female director, but more because I am a woman, I have always been concerned with the representation of a female self in my works, life, and profession.

Zhang Nuanxin

[gaylorvader]

Just watched this movie for the 1st time and I'm obsessed.

We don't talk about 'Atlantis: The Lost Empire's Helga Sinclair nearly enough, and it's about damn time that we started, I think.

For context, we're talking about the year of our Lord 2001. As far as I recall (and bear with me, I was about 5 years of age at the time) the feminist undertones that have flooded Hollywood films in recent years - as, arguably, a direct result of the 'Me Too' movement - weren't particularly noteworthy, much less noticeable.

There were some outliers, quite possibly, but it was pretty 'meh' at this point in the game, when it came to empowerement, feminism, and straight-up compelling female characters in the animated film front. They weren't the norm, or the trend. We were lucky if a Disney Princess managed to subvert expectations - even just a little - in a satisfying way, rather than fall prey to tired old tropes, such as the over-sexualization of female characters. Exhibit A: Pocahontas.

(feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken)

So, here comes Atlantis: The Lost Empire, at the turn of the milennium, blaring a horn that seemed to say 'hold my beer'. To this day, I still find it shocking that this film actually got made. The representation present in this film is so staggeringly good, it makes me mad and want to cry. It's that good.

Sure, you could easily try and argue that in certain regards it falls prey to stereotypes from the groups it tries to portray, but this is one of the very few films that I'd be willing to argue (and defend) didn't actively do it out of malice, or as a blatant, on-the-nose attempt at representation as we see on today's blockbuster-obsessed film landscape. It reads more like an honest attempt, flawed though as it may be in some regards, rather than being the butt of a lazy punchline.

It's not your typical 'Le Fou is going to be our first gaaaaaay on the live-action remake Era! 🌈 #Pride ' or 'empowering feminist moment in an MCU film, deeply undercut by the fact that this character barely has any screen-time or a compelling character arc'.

The representation in Atlantis - again, perhaps not perfect, if you actively try and find glaring flaws in it, you absolute killjoy - was simply way ahead of its time. And, sadly, remains to this day. Few films today seem as invested (as Atlantis) to try and replicate what adds up to a genuinely groundbreaking moment in modern cinema history. Hell, some films seem downright terrified of the prospect, due to fear of poor box office returns, being cut out of certain foreign markets - who happen to bring in a lot of money... as long as you stay in line and don't try anything too radical - or worse: turning out to be problematic. Hastag gasp.

How many queer characters have been kept secret or vague or relegated to a blink-and-you-miss-it scene in the past 5-or-so years? Off the top of my head, you've got Paranorman, Frozen, Finding Dory, with many other films like Storks and The Mitchell's vs. The Machines faring a little better, with the end result being equally unsatisfying and restrained. And that's just in the animated film landscape. 3 second lesbian kiss on Rise of Skywalker, anyone? Le Fou in Live-action Beauty and the Beast? Gay *unnamed* character in Avengers: Endgame? Queer-coding in Frozen? LUCA?

(again, if you feel like some of this examples are unfair to enlist, feel free to explain why)

So, Helga Sinclair. What. A. Character. Here comes a woman who seems insanely -refreshingly so - confident in her own body, who likewise seems well aware of her sex appeal, and who, even in her very last moment - despite being painfully aware that this is the end of the line for her - decides to go (not so) gently into that good night with an EPIC one-liner that remains engraved in many of our heads to this day. Ugh, her MIND. When I think of memorably female characters in animated films, she's easily in of the top spots.

On top of that, I feel like queer folks - especially women - can find a lot to love in her character. Her confidence, her sass, the animation work, the voice acting, her physicality, the fact that she feels like an active participant in the story and like there's more to her than meets the eye. She's one of the antagonists, but you can literally see her hesitation, and her shock, and how she reacts to the world and situations she's caught up in. She's not just a villainesque, femme fatale-type, one-note side-kick. She's a legit character that's a joy to learn more about. As a queer man, I find her character to be so flawlessly executed, even though she's neither a protagonist, nor queer (arguably), or one that has such a significant amount of screentime, compared to a character like Kida or Milo.

So, you know, give us more of that, perhaps? Not just more characters like Helga Sinclair (boy, do we need them), but just... more daring and inclusive and unique films. Don't be afraid to make mistakes; work your hardest to make sure you avoid them in the first place. Listen and be humble. Approach individuals who actually know about our respective struggles as minorities. Don't guess; ask.

And even if you do make mistakes, why let that discourage you from trying? I'd take a refreshing and unique character - or narrative - that tries to approach storytelling differently, over the sterilized, formulaic tired-old tropes that are quickly becoming the only way to approach representation in film and the media we consume in general.

Take risks, and try. It's okay not to be perfect and right, all the time.

[mysharona1987]

This is something a serial killer in a bad Hollywood movie says. GOP strategists openly say thid.

How are women in the USA not going Kill Bill on men right now?

[sisteroutsiders]

Audre Lorde to her students during a poetry workshop, as shown in A Litany for Survival: The Life and Work of Audre Lorde (1996) dir. by Ada Gay Griffin and Michelle Parkerson

[six-demon-bag]

LAURENCE FISHBURNE as Captain Miller SAM NEILL as Dr. Weir EVENT HORIZON (1997)

[it-isbel]

Chantal Akerman (1950 - 2015)

[whereserpentswalk]

Just saw a "feminist" video essay (by someone who just happens to only talk about feminism in relation to cishet white able bodied women) say that the Hays Code was good for women because it "prevented them from sexualizing women by preventing onscreen depictions of sex". Never before has a video said something that made me vocalize my disgust of it's takes, but this did it.

I didn't think I would have to say this but if you defend the Hays code you are horrible and not in any way progressive. And if you don't know what it is please look it up because it's probably the most important piece of history when it comes to all media analysis in the western world.

[365filmsbyauroranocte]

I Saw the TV Glow (Jane Schoenbrun, 2024)

[icedsodapop]

I don't see enough analysis about May December and how Whiteness played a role in Joe's continued abuse at Gracie's hands. How Joe's racial other-ness being the only Korean kid in his White neighbourhood made him more vulnerable to Gracie's abuse. How Gracie's Whiteness made it easier for her to get away with marrying her rape victim and starting a family with him in broad daylight. How Gracie's White womenhood allowed her to live with some semblance of normality as a wife and a mum and a small business owner in suburbia despite being a registered child sex offender. All things that Black disability activist Ola Ojewumi pointed out, happened to the real-life woman Gracie is based on in this thread.

And then, that same White female gaze that Gracie projected onto Joe, the gaze that dehumanized him and viewed him as nothing but a sexual object, is also perpetuated by Elizabeth.

[katyswrites]

You guys already know what I’m going to fucking say…

[angeleternity]

.　　★　° : .　 . • ° 　 .　 *　:.　☆

[femaleradicalized]

if u only like horror movies with excessive violence towards women, you like violence towards women. you don’t like terrifier because it’s ‘scary,’ you like terrifier because you want to see women hurt. men are always producing these types of horror films at the expense of women.

[secretceremonies]

Movie mirror. (Vol. 1, Nov. 1931-Apr. 1932)