Ok. Intro information: I am not a feminist activist. Most feminist “issues” don’t really bother me that much. But this is getting me more upset each time I see it. Anyone who has been to a Clearview Cinemas theater recently will (hopefully) know what I’m talking about. (I’m in NY, for the record.)
It’s about this stupid pre-movie dos and don’ts thing that runs each time after the previews. The one where they blatantly GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to put stupid white pearls on the wrist and neck of the woman, who is the ONLY one who is committing the movie-goer sins (ie talking and smoking). They couldn’t have alternated. Nooo. They had to put the PEARLS on her fucking wrists to make sure we knew who was out of line. BOTH times. And the way the guy tells her to be quiet… like she’s a stupid little woman or something. “Shhhhh honey, the movie’s starting now.” <pat pat on head> REALLY FUCKING CONDESCENDING. And each time I see this stupid thing, I want to scream my lungs out. And it gets worse each time I see it. If the right (wrong) person got pissed off by this thing, they’d be in deep shit.
And I won’t even go into the weird racial suggestions of the usher who smiles and winks at the end of the deal. What is with that? A black guy’s “features,” but with white skin (with weird shading)? What’s with that?
I know that you can choose not to be offended by this pre-show ordeal. I know that it is not “intentionally” sexist or mean. But I am still REALLY offended! And they should have realized that going out of their way to specify the gender of the person talking and smoking during the movies or previews was a little risky (understatement), especially when they could have made it a small child or alternated genders or something. And some (probably most) people don’t even notice it.
Anyone else here bothered by this ass-wart steaming-turd mung-squirt movie bullshit?
[Maybe I should just write a letter to a PR dept for Clearview, informing them that it is possible to construe their pre-movie gig as sexist…I just felt like bitching, and finding out if there were any others out there who felt like bitching, too.]
So, they guy at the end there. It bothers you that he looks kinda black, but not black enough for your liking? Maybe it’s just me, but to suggest that this guy’s features imply that the commercial has “weird racial suggestions” is a little over the top.
As for the rest of it… from the information presented, I don’t see how this is sexist. Maybe I’d feel differently if I actually saw it. I do know that it’s a pretty common thing to have one character represent the “bad guy” across several examples of “bad guyness”, and in this commercial, they chose the woman. Luck of the draw - they had a 50/50 shot.
Now if this cinema has done a string of these commercials, and they consistently portray the woman as the wrongdoer (and the wearer of pearls), that’s something else entirely. But I don’t see sexism in just this one example.
I realized as I was typing that the part about the usher would probably get me flamed. So I was careful to put “features” in quotes, and to mention that I didn’t want to get into it, because my main gripe was with the woman.
If you do see the usher though, there is something weird about the way they picture him. No, he is not “not black enough for me.” Everyone else in the movie is a black cut-out figure, except him, and he has weird features and a weird coloration. But like I said, this isn’t my main problem with it.
What you call a 50/50 decision to pick the woman as being the “bad guy” is kind of short-sighted, in my opinion, because I have offered two solutions that would have made all the difference in the world.
1- who usually talks in theaters? KiDS! Put a kid there!
2- they could have had the woman smoke, and the guy talk, or vice-versa. Or even better, they could have left the huge white pearls (which really stick out on the black cut-out figure) OFF!!! They could have had gender-nonspecific hands putting out the cigarette! They didn’t have to go out of their way (my main problem) to make her a woman, and to have the guy telling her to stop doing her stuff in a really CONDESCENDING demeaning way.
But… they didn’t. They went out of their way (as I mentioned in my last post) to make the “bad” person the same person throughout the entire thing. They happened to choose a woman to be this person - would this ad have offended you less if they chose a man? If they chose a kid?
If they had different people being the bad person, and they were uniformly women, hey, you’d have a point. But that’s not what they do.
Ok, stereotyping? Puh-lease. Kids talk. Sometimes people give them shit for it, sometimes they don’t. They do it almost all the time. And if you want to call that stereotyping, fine. The kids don’t mind, and I am not saying anything against kids. But it is a rather universally understood and supported stereotype, and one I don’t mind agreeing with.
As for the rest of your post, I understand. But I am still offended (not losing sleep over this, mind you!). And yes, people might have had something to say if they changed the genders and had the woman smoking and the man talking. Ex: “Does this mean women smoke more than men? Hun?” Therefore yes, point taken. All they had to do, however, was leave off the blatant jewelry, and the feminine cigarette holder, and leave it at a gender-less cut-out!
I’m more on the look out for anyone else who might have seen this and who might have thought the same thing. Anyone?
If it was always women getting slammed, I think you’d have more of a point. Lately I’ve started to notice how many commercials portray men as blowhards or idiots. But when I gave it some thought I decided it wasn’t worth getting too worked up over. I just don’t think a TV commercial, or a 30-second announcement in a theater, should ever take on so much importance.
Oh, Jesus Fuck. Get a life–if you’re looking for sexist behavior in movie trailers, you’re obviously not getting out of the fucking matinee often enough. I’m a relatively new registered member (though a long-time lurker), and this has to be one of the most ridiculous fucking OPs I’ve read, bar none.
RobotArm: Yes, the movies were great! And thanks for asking. You are right about the commercials… I was in no way implying that this was a trend or anything… And I didn’t go looking for it either…
The rant I made, which is viewed by some as being a new low in stupidity, was more a display of mock-shock reaction than of hardcore outrage. Ya, ya, I said “I am REALLY offended.” It’s the mood! I guess I didn’t portray my tone well enough… I know a few other people who have been bothered by it, so I know I’m not being a crazy fuckhead either. I just felt like blowing off some steam.
It’s out of my system anyway. I know if you go looking for stuff like this, you can find it everywhere. Sorry for wasting your time. It did feel good though… <rant mood over> And tomorrow, I get to see it again. <sigh>
There’s a ClearView/AMC Theater right near my house, so I see this thing about once a week. (FTR, my girlfriend along with most of the other people in the audience either laugh at how stupid it is or ignore it completely)
However, (and let me just say that I realize that this doesn’t seem to actually be a really big deal for you) you seem to be most upset that her jewelry is so prominently displayed.
I always took this to be an implication that it the movie theater was concerned about the rich/snobby people (the ones who would actually wear jewelry to the 8 o’clock showing of Urban Legends) being the inconsiderate ones, not female movie-goers.
Also, I thought the jewelry and other ‘extravagant’ animations were a way to get the audience’s attention, and make it more visually exciting than a genderless loudmouth.
Admittedly, it was my first post in the Pit. In the future, I will attempt to inject more vitriol into my Pit posts. For what its worth, if you want to start a new thread ranting about how the Clearview thing upsets you as a snobby female, I won’t contradict you.