Tough Teen Chicks and the 83rd Annual Academy Awards

When presented with the words, “teenage girl” and “movie” perhaps cultural artifacts such as Twilight or Justin Bieber come to mind.  Or, if you’re a feminist, perhaps you mutter something about how the audience is impressionable yet underserved.  Looking at last night’s Best Picture nominations, though, one can’t help but notice that the 2010 films featured an uncharacteristically high amount of teen chick badassery.  Specifically, I’m referring to Winter’s Bone and True Grit. In Winter’s Bone, seventeen-year-old Ree is saving her family’s home and taking care of her mentally absent mother and two younger siblings in the absence of her meth-cooking father.  In True Grit, fourteen-year-old Mattie goes after her father’s killer.  In both cases the girls are simply fighting hard and putting their safety at risk to do what they think is right, and what no one else is willing to. The girls also both have no time for even a passing glance at a boy.  And don’t get me wrong; I thoroughly enjoy teen sexual tension a la Harry Potter and Glee.  Nevertheless, it’s refreshing to see this is not a requirement in creating a teenage female character.  The other cool thing—or not-cool thing—depending on how you look at it, is that these films weren’t necessarily aimed at teenage girls.  I’m an advocate of anything that presents the general public with a positive representation of our nation’s female youth, but I suppose I wonder if the girls themselves are seeing these films or others that promote general female kickassery.

WTF: "Cyrus"

I'm not seeing Cyrus, and I'll tell you why: It's a lady's nightmare. I've said this before, but as a female viewer, I naturally align with or feel connected to the female character in the film. Even if one is neutral to this phenomenon, we can still note that it's considerate to America's women to include at least one interesting or positive representation of the gender in any given movie with women in it. The problem with the Marisa Tomei character is that she's playing out every woman's nightmare: living with a weird adult son only to then snag a chubby divorcee. Cool. I mean, really? Must the schulumpy man-children invade the quirky Fox Searchlight relationship dramedies?  Does the world really need more movies about lame dudes who don't really do anything but still land hot chicks?  I hope my girl-crush on Catherine Keener can survive this.

 

Girl Power on "Parks and Recreation"

Ron: Come on Leslie, you know I'm not sexist. I love powerful women.
Leslie: You do attend a shocking number of WNBA games.

I love Parks and Recreation. Really, if you’re not watching it, start. GQ named  Parks and Rec "Sitcom of the Year" for 2009 and I found this very exciting when I first read it, since I've always thought of Parks and Rec as a highly feminist show.  (In one episode, protagonist Leslie rejects a potential suitor when he mistakes her framed photo of Madeleine Albright for her grandmother.) Parks and Rec is about women, and smoothly and subtly recognizes feminist issues while still being a show both men and women can connect with. 

The last episode, “Woman of the Year” was no exception to the awesome-streak Parks and Rec has been on this season. In this episode, Leslie excitedly opens an envelope from the Indiana Organization for Women, expecting a female empowerment award recognizing a camp she started for troubled girls. It turns out the award is for her boss, "the opposite of a woman" Ron Swanson. Right away, Ron announces to us (but not Leslie) that he recognizes Leslie should have received the award: “Awards are stupid, which is why I fully intend to decline this nonsense and recommend it go to Leslie because she works really hard and I don't.”  He then announces that he's going to mess with Leslie for a little bit longer, to prove a legitimate point about the insignificance of awards.

Ron usually doesn’t show interest in much other than breakfast food, so it was sweet to see him care this much about Leslie. The plot still let him be himself, though, staging a fake photo shoot to torment her: “Which of these objects most represents women for this portrait? A pot? Or this deputy director Barbie? Isn't it adorable? She's got a little briefcase.”  Since we knew he was only giving her a hard time, Ron was able to really torment Leslie, which was simultaneously funny and good character development.

Another notable feminist episode this season was “Beauty Pageant.” When intern April tells Leslie she's entered the Miss Pawnee Beauty Pageant, Leslie responds, "That is why I decided to be a judge.  So that awesome girls like you who aren't, you know, classically hot, can be rewarded for their intelligence and savvy." Unaware of how she turns a compliment into an insult, Leslie's unrelenting honesty and well-meaning oblivion allows us to not only laugh at her, but align with her.

At the pageant, Leslie immediately votes for the girl who really should win the contest: Susan, a homely history major who plays the piano and volunteers at the children's hospital. However, the other judges immediately decide on Trish, who has "been on YouTube" and likes wearing bikinis. "Trish will win this pageant over my dead body," Leslie says, and locks down the judgement, 12 Angry Men style. Of course, Trish wins the pageant.

But Leslie isn't the only feminist aspect of the show.  Rashida Jones' character doesn’t declare herself a feminist the way Leslie does, but Ann functions as the normal person with whom the audience can align.  She's the "Jim" of Parks and Rec, and simply casting a woman as the "everyman" character is feminist in itself. Another note about Ann is that she leaves her schlumpy, unemployed, Seth-Rogen-style boyfriend, Andy, early in the series. Andy has turned out to be a funny character on the show, but it makes me happy that he’s no longer with a woman who is working hard and struggling to support him and clean up after him. Leslie and Ann are different, but both are genuine, positive interpretations of the modern woman.

It’s a show about a feminist that’s honored by a men’s magazine. That’s great news. Parks and Rec may not be the best show (just a damn good one) on television, but it is probably the most progressive show on television.


For more girl power with Amy Poehler, check out her web series, Smart Girls at the Party.

Superbowl Ads 2010: Angry Towards Women, Insulting to Men

Note to CBS and real-life Mad Men: Women also watch the Super Bowl.  Many women like football.  Those who don't are watching because the men in their lives like it, and they'll sit through something that's not their favorite to spend time together.  Because that's what you do when you love like someone.  The ads last night were full of misogyny and the general notion that women are a pain in the ass, and somehow stripping men of their masculinity, and in some cases, intellect.

Dodge's "Man's Last Stand" takes the prize as most offensive as the narrator, weakened and depressed, rattles off the drudgery of his domestic life: "I will put my underwear in the basket," "I will say 'yes' when you want me to say 'yes,'" etc.  At the end of the ad, he's able to at least drive what he wants to drive: a Dodge Charger.  Titles slam the screen: Man's. Last. Stand. Men who made this stupid spot: Cleaning the sink out after you shave is what real men do.



Moving on, the Budweiser ad, "Women's Book Club" is as insulting to men as it is to women.  In this ad, a man puts off his baseball game to sit in on his wife's book club because the ladies are drinking Budweiser beer.  The women are discussing a book they read; one explains that in the book two women are "thrust" together by a war they don't understand.  The man goes "Ooohh, thrusting!" Somebody's married to this guy?  I don't think that's what men are like?  When asked if he liked "Little Women" he says he's "not too picky." It's insulting to all parties that a buffoon husband is a normal dynamic.



I'll go ahead leave you one more gem. This one is an ad for Dockers, where men wander, pants-less, through a field.  The narrator calls on the men to reclaim their masculinity: "Calling all men: it's time to wear the pants."  That's always been an offensive phrase.  Why can't we all wear pants?  Or be powerful in skirts?  Speaking of skirts, also check out this spot for FloTV, where the narrator tells a man shopping with his girlfriend to "change out of that skirt" and watch sports on his mobile device.



So, as it turned out, the Focus on the Family, Tim Tebow ad was one of the more tame spots of the night.  It's only offense being that it was stupid.  "Timmy" also unnecessary tackles his mother, but we'll let that one slide.  What ultimately disappoints me is how irresponsible CBS was this year.  They rejected a gay dating service's spot, but Dodge made the cut?  That doesn't make any sense.  Read more about, and see more these terrible ads on BuzzFeed, and Salon.  And then go watch the cute Google ad a few times to cleanse your palate.

The Chubby Guy Gets the Girl in "The Invention of Lying"

The chubby guys are on a roll, and it's not down a hill.  Last week I watched The Invention of Lying, Ricky Gervais' comedy about a world in which lying doesn't exist.  While I love the idea, this was not my favorite movie.  In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm disappointed in TIoL. My expectations were high, and with several of my favorite actors, it had a lot of potential: Ricky Gervais (funny), Tina Fey (strong female), and Rob Lowe (hot). Plus, I can almost never resist a high concept like those of The Truman Show, Groundhog Day, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  The thing about alternate universes, though, is that there have to be rules, and they mustn’t be broken.  TIoL is inconsistent in its own universe, and as a result, falls flat.  Two hours later, I was left thinking about what could have been in what was ultimately a fantasy movie for the slightly-below-average male, much like, but not quite as terrible as, Knocked Up or (Ugh) Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

The movie started out strong enough.  Establishing the world was fun.  Not only do people not lie, but they let out every thought, no matter how insulting to others. (While I question this interpretation of truthfulness, I recognize that an author is free to create the rules in their own alternate universe.)  For example, when meeting him for a blind date, Jennifer Garner's character, Anna, tells Mark (Gervais) that she's disappointed in his looks.  He tells her he feels awkward for showing up early.  This whole date could have been much more charming if we were rooting for Anna and Mark to get together.  I didn't really want them to get together, though, because much like Anna states several times, she's way out of his league. Specifically, she makes more money and she’s more attractive. And let’s be honest, she’s significantly more attractive than Gervais.

The not-too-attractive guy getting the totally hot girl feels like a trend in movies, and it’s a problem. While many real couples certainly have a more attractive half—and I definitely applaud the use of average-looking characters—it’s bothersome that in films, the less attractive partner is almost never the woman. In fact, average or overweight women rarely appear on the big screen. This sends a message that appearances carry a heavier weight (no pun intended) for woman than they do for men.

Film is often an escape where the viewer imagines themselves as, or empathizes with the hero. Of course, the hero is typically a man, and while the female viewer can often connect with the male character, she is also drawn to, or imagining herself in the role of the female lead. In this case, the female viewer does not feel empowered or as though she’s fulfilling some sort of fantasy because none of us are really dying to sleep with a pudgy, lying guy. While we are left feeling a sense of “If Garner gets him, who does that leave me with?” the male viewer is feeling a false sense of empowerment. He perhaps more attractive than Gervais, and feeling as though he too could snag any woman he likes. If Gervais can get Garner, who knows what he can do. A movie making a viewer feel falsely empowered in this way is a common form of scopophilic pleasure, but it's skewed to the pleasure of the male.

This brings us to another strange fantasy being played out here: Mark gets dangerously close to raping a woman.  When he first discovers lying, and realizes he's the only one who can grasp the concept, he tells an attractive businesswoman on the street that the world will end if they don't have sex right then.  This is definitely a would-be rape, because the woman believed her life was threatened if she didn't have sex with Mark.  He gets her to a motel room, then his conscience gets the best of him.

Even if we go beyond superficiality, there still isn't much chemistry between Mark and Anna.  It's unclear why he loves her, and we never really learn who Anna is.  We know she wants children, and she's looking for a good genetic match; she doesn’t want “little fat kids with snub noses.”  Fair enough, but it’s still unclear why she doesn’t have any relationships other than one with her mother.  The question, of course, is whether or not relationships and love exist without lies.  I’d argue that love does exist (in this world), based on clues we can gather from a pair of recurring extras.  When Mark first learns he can lie, he approaches the couple who are arguing, and whispers something to them (presumably, "you’re going to get married and be happy" or something like that) and they suddenly put their arms around each other. This shot is part of a montage to show how Mark uses his newfound power.

Now, I'm going to go ahead and spoil the end.  The last scene of the movie shows a pregnant Anna serving dinner to Mark and their fat, snub-nosed son.  Dinner looks terrible, but the guys tell her it's delicious.  When she turns away, they give each other a knowing thumbs-up.  Does cooking for and serving your chubby/unattractive/lying family while pregnant sound like fun?  Not really.  This movie is again constructed from the male perspective, and while this in and of itself isn’t problematic, Anna’s undesirable situation is, because, well, I want the woman to be in a good place at the end.

I had conflicting feelings about this film because it did pose some interesting questions, such as those relating to the role lying plays in our lives and relationships—and how in a lot of ways it helps us keep our sanity. About midway through the film, too, Mark accidentally invents religion, a ballsy suggestion in our Christian nation that religion can only exist simultaneously with lying. While I don’t usually give audacity points...that was not bad.  But I'll leave that for another day.  In any case, The Invention of Lying is an interesting movie, but not kind enough to women to receive my approval.

The Separation of Church and Charlie Brown

"A Charlie Brown Christmas" is my all-time favorite Christmas special.  This article on The Onion pretty accurately summarizes how I'll react if my future child doesn't love it as much as I do.  The way Charlie Brown searches for meaning in the season, questions the commercialism, and worries he's not happy enough rings true to me, and feels so relatable.  In the end, Charlie Brown realizes--at least until the next cartoon--that he's good enough, and the little tree he picked out was perfect all along.  All it needed was a little love.  Charlie Brown quickly forgets his frustrations from the day, and enjoys the moment, being with those he cares about.  It's very sweet.

I DVRed the "A Charlie Brown Christmas" last week, and I noticed something I hadn't thought about before: it's a religious special.  It ends with Linus quoting scripture, explaining the true meaning of Christmas to Charlie Brown.  Prior to this year, I'd always thought of Charlie Brown's rejection of commercialism, and his ultimate thankfulness as themes of the show, not Christianity.  As secular citizen and lifelong Peanuts fangirl, I found this conflict bothersome.  Though I do believe the word "God" should be removed from the dollar bill and the Pledge of Allegiance, I wouldn't typically care about religion in a television special.  But I do in the case of Charlie Brown. Adding a religious element to anything excludes those of other faiths, and those who don't connect with religion at all.  And to me that clashes severely with the universality and spirit of Peanuts and Charlie Brown.

Charlie Brown is the ultimate protagonist and neutral hero.  Though he suffers from frequent failures, his optimism keeps him likable, his insecurities and poignant observations of others keep him relatable.  Even the drawing of Charlie Brown is so simple that anyone can sort of project themselves onto him and feel connected to him.  To see Charlie Brown enlightened by a Christian belief threw me off because I'd always considered the comic strip and television specials to have complete and timeless universal appeal.

This bothered me for a few days, and then I read that article in The Onion and realized I'm the person it parodies.  I do want to watch "A Charlie Brown Christmas" with my kid some day.  I'm standing by the special.  At it's core, it's about Charlie Brown reconciling his feelings of inadequacy, and seeing that his feelings were natural all along.  He learns that Christmas is a time to reflect on what you're thankful for, and to enjoy time with your friends and family.   Ideally, in addition to a Separation of Church and State, we would also have a separation of Church and Charlie Brown, but in the spirit of the holidays, I'll take it.  Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown!

Film Review: Paranormal Activity

I had to be dragged to this movie. I generally shy away from horror movies (I'm chicken), found-footage movies (hand-held makes me sick), and anything involving Ouija Boards (that's just stupid). That said, I liked Paranormal Activity. The main characters are a young couple, Katie and Micah, who have moved into a new house. Katie believes she's had a paranormal entity following her since her youth. Therefore, it's not the house that's haunted, but Katie. Micah doesn't believe her, so he buys a video camera AND A TRIPOD (thank you!) and rigs up the house to disprove Katie. Of course, they catch some very strange things in the middle of the night, and spookiness ensues.

The movie was creepy because of noises in the night, and everything we don't actually see. It's an effective horror movie about someone getting possessed without any blood, distorted fingers or disjointed heads. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But even stepping outside of the genre for a moment, I liked that the film provoked an emotional response from the audience without any violence, sex, special effects, major actors, or money. Again, not that there's anything wrong with any of those things, it was just interesting to see the power of filmmaking and timing.

Another reason this movie worked for me was the characters. I bought their relationship. Their banter and bickering seemed natural, and Micah had an unafraid-but-really-afraid attitude that felt realistic for a young guy in a new house. Katie's role was a little bit harder to play, as a character who thinks she's followed by ghosts is less believable. However, I again bought that, and I liked both characters.

Finally, Paranormal Activity was a lot of fun to see. Because (at first) it only showed at limited theaters and only at midnight, the theater was inevitably packed. So, every time the audience gasped all at once, everyone laughed right after. In that way, Paranormal Activity felt more like a ride, or the Haunted House at Universal Studios than a movie. I also got the inappropriately vocal guy behind me who'd mutter, "Ohhhhhh, shit!" every time the main characters turned the lights out at night. Paranormal Activity probably would have been scarier on DVD at home. This is probably one few movies that has less impact in the theater. But then again, I don't know if that's good or bad...boo!