If more women were given budgets to make movies they could show you.
There are loads of critiques out there that go into detail.
Is “Barbie” a good example?
It’s one example. It’s a start but there is a long way to go.
Jane Campion is one of my favourite directors, so I agree.
It’s not that all experiences are the same for all women, of course. It’s that some experiences and perceptions of living in a traditionally patriarchal society are nearly universal among women, while being mostly invisible to men.
Just like there are aspects of living in a traditionally racist society that people of color tend to be aware of, and white people tend to be oblivious to. Same for gay people living in traditionally homophobic societies, and Jews living in traditionally antisemitic societies, and so on.
Of course that’s not to say that a male writer can’t develop an awareness of those aspects of women’s experience, and write female characters in a way that’s informed by that awareness. The point is simply that most men mostly don’t, because the baked-in obliviousness that comes with any form of societal privilege is really hard to get outside of.
That’s why it’s so common for male authors trying to write “strong” “liberated” female characters to simply write the character as though she were a man. Maybe she sometimes performatively copes with some explicit sexist aggression, but there’s none of the nuanced low-level background stuff.
And that’s why reading about a movie premise with a (male-written) “strong” “liberated” female protagonist who is sexually uninhibited and socially unafraid, without any “baggage” involving reproductive-system worries or gender-stereotyped socialization, etc., makes a lot of women reflexively roll their eyes. Because we’ve already seen a lot of such protagonists produced by lazy and/or oblivious male writers, and they don’t really feel like actual female characters.
I repeat that I’m not asserting anything about what the movie Poor Things is actually like, because, I repeat, I haven’t seen it myself. But I agree with NotD that it’s not unreasonable for a female moviegoer to develop an unenthusiastic impression of what the film seems like, just from movies and trailers.
Of course it would be very wrong and unfair to go around making definitive assertions about the nature of the movie based just on that impression. Anybody who says “I can tell that Poor Things is obviously just another artificial male fantasy of a ‘Cool Girl’ badass goddess rather than a realistic female character, even though I haven’t seen it” would be way out of line.
But I don’t think it’s out of line to say something like “The impression I get from reviews and trailers of Poor Things suggests that in some ways it may resemble artificial male fantasies of a ‘Cool Girl’ badass goddess rather than a realistic female character.”
Great post! Well written, well thought out. I genuinely appreciate it (and enjoyed reading it).
This is not a nitpick. I just think it is important to point out:
Poor Things is a fantasy. It riffs heavily off of Frankenstein. It does not even take place on our earth. It is some different place that is not this planet (like some weird, parallel earth). I think it is important to consider the movie through that lens. There is no attempt whatsoever at “realistic” anything (all the characters are very strange…except maybe one).
Yup, totally totally, the existence of the fantasy aspect of the movie is an important caveat that I’m keeping in mind, and that does make a difference. (And thanks for your kind words!)
But…
I mean, Edgar Rice Burroughs’s Barsoom series was also a fantasy taking place in some alternative setting like some weird, parallel earth, with no attempt whatsoever at “realistic” anything, right? With female soldiers, even! And yet…
…the Princess of Mars is still a knockout babe with a “perfect and symmetrical figure” and a “low, well-modulated voice” and “earthly, feminine logic” (meaning, of course, illogic).
Just because a writer chooses a fantasy setting for their fiction doesn’t mean that their fiction doesn’t still reflect preconceptions and stereotypes that are very much of the writer’s own time and place.
Fantasy is usually an investigation of people in different circumstances. But even in a surrealistic film, if a guy is on a ledge, the viewer thinks he might get hurt if he falls, unless it’s been explicitly established that he can fly. Similarly, If a guy is kicked in the balls, the viewer expects him to hurt, unless it’s been explicitly established that he won’t, and if a women has sex with men, the viewer (at least, the female viewer) wonders if she might get pregnant, unless it’s been explicitly established that she won’t.
I’d have to watch it again to see if pregnancy was mentioned (as in, she could not have babies) but I am not quite ready for watching it again (someday).
That said, in a work of fantasy, I think suspension of disbelief is fine. In fact, necessary. The movie is so bizarre and strange that wondering why Bella doesn’t get pregnant (or an STD) doesn’t really register (I admit it did occur to me while watching but that was quickly put out of mind by the weirdness that is this movie). It is very easy to suppose she cannot get pregnant given the circumstances of her creation.
I’d be interested to see if avoiding mentioning this was an oversight or a director’s choice to ignore it (or it landed on the cutting room floor)? (or I just missed it…quite possible)
ETA: I mean, if we are expected to accept that a baby’s brain was put into a dead adult woman’s body which was reanimated then is not getting pregnant really the hard thing to believe?
Honestly that thought never even crossed my mind when watching the film. So no just being a female viewer doesn’t mean that’s what you think of.
As Whack-a-mole says, the science of the film is so strange and bizarre and otherworldly, that pregnancy or STDs were not even on my radar.
That is because the OP framed it that way. Eonwe decided that everyone who got upset at them is a misogynist. They set it up implying they are a woman who is being shouted down by the men. When you set up a battle of the genders, it isn’t surprising that you wind up with men on one side and women on the other.
I did my best to rise above that framing. I pointed out, using examples, why Eonwe’s behavior was understandably seen as rude. The Cafe Society thread is like a bunch of friends who watched a moving coming in to discuss it. Eonwe is like someone who jumps in and trashes that movie, getting several facts wrong, while admits they haven’t even seen it.
It honestly isn’t that different from mansplaining. That’s not a man explaining something to a woman. It’s a man who lacks experience or knowledge condescendingly explaining things to a woman.
I can’t cite my years of experience discussing fiction online. I can point out that I was pitted at one point for discussing a piece of fiction I hadn’t seen. I can compare the process with other experiences. I can make long arguments. But I can’t make you agree.
Speaking of long arguments: I wrote a lot about this in my first post. And I found your reply to me to be insulting. You took one tiny bit of my post—not even a whole sentence—and then assigned to me something I hadn’t said. You accuse me of believing something that I find offensive. Of fucking course I understand women being frustrated by a lack of representation.
Your post was pretty old, so I ordinarily would have ignored it. But you were in effect accusing me of a bigoted belief, and thus I had a reason to point out that said belief was false.
Plus I have long hated it when people misquote me like you did. And, yes, a quote out of context that ignores all the context is a misquote. It would be like me quoting you saying
And, for the record, tone policing is a logical fallacy where a claim is said to be wrong because it is stated in an inflammatory way. It doesn’t actually mean it’s okay to be a jerk. I have not seen any tone policing in this thread. People said Eonwe was wrong because they got facts wrong. Separately, they thought they were very rude.
This is a common misuse of the term “tone policing.” I honesty think maybe there needs to be a fallacy named after this.
It seems very clear to me that Eonwe came off like a jerk. You guys can explain how they aren’t wrong to have the opinion they have, and you’re not wrong. But the way they went about it was a classic threadshit.
I agree that posters got too upset by it. People were being jerks outside the Pit. But it doesn’t mean I don’t understand it.
And those of you who don’t get why it came off badly would be good to know that there are many people out there who would find it insulting. And no amount of arguing with us here is going to change this wider belief.
If you discuss a movie (or any other work of fiction) with people who have seen it, and you trash it even though you haven’t seen it, you will be seen as being an asshole. In general, those with a lack of experience or knowledge shouldn’t tell everyone who has that knowledge that they are wrong.
This isn’t actually something that is different between men and women.
Yes. I totally get why you were upset, and thought it weird that @Kimstu didn’t.
Beck is pulling out all the SWERF tactics at this point, including the one in this thread where she accuses everyone of being a misogynist mansplainer for disagreeing. Or painting herself as the victim. (Honestly, that bothered me more than her take on porn.)
I know that Beck is generally a nice person, and we tend to like her. I plan to continue engaging with her amicably. But I do think her beliefs on this are odious, and that she needs to learn why.
I totally get why you are upset at her. And I actually found it a little weird that anyone was defending her. I think it plays into the framing in the OP of this PIt thread. That set this whole thread up as a men vs. women thing.
That’s because he assumed all those who disagreed with him were men.
No, they didn’t. This is the post that elicited all the hostility. It’s pretty mild. Again, if you thought it was threadshitting you should have flagged it for a mod. As far as I can see nothing in it runs afoul of Cafe Society posting rules.
I think the hostile responses were over the top. Several women (I think) have said they understand Eonwe’s reaction and have explained why.
Oh! Thank you so much for explaining that to me! Can you also explain The Godfather and how the selection tool works in Photoshop?
You repeatedly demonstrate that you do not.
I genuinely don’t understand why you think my quote was out of context. I quoted the part I was referencing. The entire quote can easily be seen with one click if people want more context.
Do we know Eonwe is a man? They did not choose to specify. They are entitled to their opinion either way.
Of course all women won’t and shouldn’t be expected to have the same opinion and minority options and the perspective they come from are also valid. But there have been several thoughtful defenses of Eonwe’s stance that have been largely ignored. How many women have to say, “yeah, I get where they are coming from” before people start to accept they might have a valid point?
How many women who have actually seen the movie have to say that they don’t think it’s misogynistic before people start to accept that they might have a valid point?
Reactions to film are pretty subjective. If a woman enjoyed the movie, that’s great. If another woman {or person) watches the trailers and reads reviews and thinks it looks offensive they are entitled to express their view and under no obligation to watch it. Women are not a hive mind and no one here is trying to get the movie banned.
The hostility to Eonwe’s opinion was unwarranted.
The most hostile person I see here is Eonwe. Nobody suggested that they were not entitled to express their opinion, and it is certainly a valid opinion that a work should be boycotted because there is a broad consensus that it’s misogynistic.
So (not having yet seen it myself) the first thing I did when I encountered this thread was to read reviews from people I respect, especially feminists. There is some criticism, and some positive reviews, but certainly nothing remotely resembling a consensus that the movie is an example of the misogynistic male gaze.
At that point, another perfectly valid opinion is that I don’t plan to boycott the film and that I no longer care about third-hand speculation based on cherry-picked reviews from people who haven’t actually seen the movie.
Men who live with privilege should take great care to listen to women who don’t share that privilege. And the entire point is that a woman has first hand knowledge from her lived experience.
I think you undermine that principle with the ridiculous suggestion that someone who has never seen a film should have their continuing dismissive speculative comments about the content of the film heard with equal deference and respect because of their identity, even when many other women who have actually seen the film disagree. If you want to make a stand about the male gaze in movies, a movie that you haven’t seen and about which there is nothing remotely resembling a consensus among feminists who have seen the movie on whether it’s an example of the problem really does not seem to be the place to do it.
Sarcasm is not hostility. The original post was not hostile.
Where are they asking for deference? A quote from the original thread:
I think this is a thoughtful and valid response. See also quotes by Spice Weasel and Kimstu in post #395.
There never will be and there doesn’t need to be. On any subject.