WIRED: People often point to sexism in movies for what happens onscreen, but really, it’s in play before our heroine has a chance to say a line. It happens when she’s cast. It happens when she’s costumed. It happens when she gets her paycheck. But before all of that even has a chance to go down, it happens in the script—the very first keystroke that could make her a well-rounded individual, or a reductive pile of cliché. Far too often, she’s the latter.
5 comments:
I had heard of the Bechdel test, and I always thought it was incredible how many movies, plays, etc. do not actually pass that test. However, I think this is a really interesting new test to see how sexism exists in works prior to their actual creation. At the very creation of a female role, the writers, not always intentionally, are automatically sexist when describing their female characters. I also think it is very interesting how many writers submit their own character descriptions and are startled when they realize that those descriptions actually were sexist without meaning to be. It is really fascinating exactly how the writers identify their female characters though. Even though the personalities of the characters is typically pretty important to the writers, they only describe in detail how the character appears physically. It is interesting to compare this test to the Bechdel test, as one deals with sexism post-production, and the other deals with sexism pre-production.
If this isn't proof to men that "beautiful" means nothing when that's the only compliment you can think to give a woman, I don't know what will. Ask yourself, oh privileged male hollywood writer humans, when you envision yourself accepting an Oscar for that script (and I know you have), do you expect to be told how beautiful you look on the red carpet? Do you picture being asked who you're wearing, or getting photographed from every imaginable angle, or changing for the after party? If you wouldn't want to be appreciated solely for your looks on a night that is supposed to be about celebrating your talent, then don't limit the characters and the actresses who will ultimately contribute to you winning that award to such reductive descriptions. Not that you could actually deserve such an award anyway, because "beautiful", like I said, means nothing in such context. "Beautiful" takes no effort. You wanna say she has a beautiful personality, a stunning character, an ugly bitterness or an unattractive ego, be my guest. At least try to act like you care. But if everything you say about her is rooted in her "look" you might as well not consider yourself a screenwriter. She is a person, goddammit. A person. Start writing her like one, and you might notice this miraculous thing deep within the depths of your talent called "originality." Now wouldn't that be a nice thing to be credited for when you accept your Oscar?
I really like this article because it not only highlights the sexism inherent in Hollywood but also addresses the root of the problem. So many articles are written complaining about the two dimensional portrayal of women and other minorities on screen, however these don’t seem to be actually effecting any change. This article puts the spotlight of the problem on the writers, no just the directors, producers, and actors. While it is important to have good representation within the entire entertainment industry, the creative teams can only do so much when the sexism is inherent within the script. Look at how much people change Shakespeare plays nowadays whenever they are staged. Because we recognize the sexism within those texts we change the productions to almost beyond recognition. But when the sexism is invisible and more subversive, as modern sexism tends, to be the creative team is usually passive enough to let it slide therefore seep into the overall culture of misogyny. I think putting the spotlight on sexism in the scripts and causing the playwrights “soul search” is an excellent place to initiate change.
what I liked about this is the fact that actual famous screenwriters participated in this and admitted up to their possible mistakes. That means that its inciting change already. I had never even realized how inherently sexist chracter intros were. And it makes sense. Also I guess I had never realized the juxtaposition between how many older male roles there are in movies as opposed to older females. There are so many who get cast so often, and have notoriety for it, but we have Meryl Streep, Judy Dench and maybe a few more. But why do they require such young "gorgeous" females for the roles that could be played by anyone, and have a more interesting character to boot. And I liked the picture on the article being the charaacter of Jane from Thor, played by the talented actress Natalie Portman. But let me try to list any of her characteristics other than appearance: She's.. smart? I guess. And probably adventurous I don't know she doesn't really get a lot of interesting, funny or charismatic things to say. It's focused on her being beautiful. Which is so boring. We need to stop putting emphasis on looks as opposed to the content of the story adn the character around female characters.
I've always thought of the Bechdel test as the best indicator of positive portrayal of women in film/TV, but I think that this test might be even better. The Bechdel test is great for the analysis work that is already finalized, but this test helps to prevent sexist work from ever being released. Like Helena said, this method really helps to address the root of
the problem rather than just criticizing work that is already out there. The writer of a piece is the person who has the initial control and decides how a character is formed. Ultimately it should be their responsibility to make sure that their characters are both diverse and not sexist female stereotypes. Women have been forced into the same tired and worn our roles for years, so the only way to make change is to acknowledge that there is a problem in this way. This test has the potential to do this if writers fully embrace it.
Post a Comment