Ruin your favourite books/films with a spot of feminist analysis

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Got thinking about this on another thread where I was wittering talking cleverly about the problems I have with Bridget Jones's Diary (the book, the problem with the film is that stuffy faced plonker Firth).

One of her boyfriends is a total cheating dickhead, obviously. But the "nice" one, Mark Darcy, is incredibly patronising towards her, repeatedly "rescuing" her because he wants to fuck her. Which is all well and good, but whereas in Pride and Prejudice (the origin of BJD) Darcy has a lot of respect for the female protagonist, which she earns by being smart, witty, standing up for herself etc, BJD removes that whole side of her. When she stands up for herself it is something she later apologises for.

Anyway - anyone else want to join me?

Sex and the City - mentioned above. But it deserves another mention - it does me in because it is positioned in a Spice Girl Girl Power type of crappy feminist empowerment.

When actually it was about shopping for ridiculous shoes and clothes forgetting about the politics of that, and chasing boys.

Positioning Samantha as a women in charge of her sexuality and unembarrassed about being promiscuous, imo, just played right into the hands of misogyny. It was no coincidence that she also dressed as the fantasy porno women.

am another studio ghibli fan (no wonder DS can watch totoro over and over), even where there are strong male characters the girls pull them through (spirited away, howl's moving castle, princess mononoke), and yes brilliant that the baddies are usually female too, no gender stereotyping there!

on thelma and louise - they did try to make it more uplifting (apparently) because it was going to be fade to black but by making it fade to white it creates a more ambiguous ending and potential for hope (film studies part of degree)...shame though about the mexican coctails

Shrek - Fiona changes herself, even when offered the opportunity TWICE to be the princess she wants to be (though could be argued at least she's not conforming to male visions of the perfect woman) she still changes who she is to be like him

At least in Shrek he (and donkey :) )is also prepared to change to be how he think she wants him to be too.

on the subject of films that DO withstand feminist analysis - Legally Blonde anyone? I went to see this with the kids I used to babysit thinking it was going to be painful. But it was good! At the beginning she is sitting around dreaming about getting engaged, then her boyfriend dumps her and she decides to go off to lawschool herself (can't remember whether it's to get back at him, or keep on eye on him, or for herself). Anyway off she goes and does really well and eventually rejects the arrogant arse, fights back against sexual assault/harrassment and wins her case. :o

Fiona is offered the opportunity to be a storybook princess and decides against it, twice. She stays true to who she is rather than to an idea of what a princess should be in fact her decision is to not change who she is at heart, rather than change who she really is in pursuit of some abstract idea of what she should be. She has a dual nature from the start bear in mind that she's always spent half of her life as an ogre -- and chooses one side of that nature. She doesn't change who she is to be like Shrek.

In Shrek 2 Shrek does very specifically change how he is in order to conform to what he thinks Fiona wants but she rejects that offer not just because she knows it will make him unhappy but also because it isn't the life she chooses, either. In Shrek 3 she goes further chooses not to be Queen at all because it isn't what she wants.

yeah but she wasn't born an ogre, the curse was put upon her so a handsome prince could come and save her

but i get the dual argument...

I went to see Legally Blonde the musical in the west end this weekend (hilarious!) and she even proposed to her boyfriend at the end!

(Not the twat who dumped her at the start)

Anyone who wants to read a good feminist-friendly book/detective story, can I point you in the direction of The Law and the Lady (full text online) by Wilkie Collins? It was published in 1875 and is about a woman who discovers that her husband has a secret past, whilst on her honeymoon. He (already a bit pathetic) scarpers and she goes on the trail, alone, all over the country to try and find out the truth about his past.

I agree about the Barbie films NO TOO BAD, even Thumbelina...

Say Anything (Cameron Crowe) is a fantastic film with a real feminist message.
And, of course, the wonderful Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Re: Grease - I don't think it's right to say that Kenickie is all carefree when Rizzo's singing that song - at that point he doesn't know the baby is his - when he hears she's pregnant she says it wasn't him it was some other guy - I think that Kenickie is burying himself in his car because he was hurt by Rizzo - who was probably worried that Kenickie would let her down so got in first, if you like. She and Kenickie are far better characters than Sandy and Danny - why would she want to be with Danny??? He's awful.

Wow, I've never though so seriously about Grease in my life.

E&M - I didn't know about that book. I like The Woman in White but didn't really know he'd written anything else (and didn't check). Will definitely look at that one.

Love, love, love Buffy... I'm 45 but have the entire series on DVD. I even had them on video before. I used to eagerly await their issue and would then have a Buffy weekend where I would just watch the whole latest series. If anyone wanted to see me, they had to watch Buffy too. This was, of course, pre-child

My first "date" (at 13!!) was to see Grease at the cinema. The boy's mum took us both to see it I've thought a lot about Grease over the years and I still love the film but, really, it's crap, isn't it?

Ahem, slight correction, I did know that Wilkie Collins also wrote The Moonstone.

Legally Blonde - yes, yes! I was going to mention that it passes the Bechdel test - named women talking about law.

Also - was very suprised to read Sister Carrie, written in 1900: you think it is going to be a drearily moralistic tale where the woman who slides into Living In Sin under economic pressure will eventually die of consumption or some STD aquired while on the game or something. But no! She makes it big time in the theatre, and the man who took her honour ends up in the gutter.

Had a big fight with fuckwit exboyfriend about Pretty Woman - he said I was a dishonest snob for pretending not to like a charming, popular mainstream film on principle, and I said there was no pretence whatever involved in a visceral reaction against a film glorifying prostitution and implying that everything will turn out for the best as long as someone marries you. He refused to see what sort of a twisted person could sincerely not like the film. I do not see him any more.

The Smallclanger, I think there is a good feminist bit in the book of Trainspotting, when someone plays a sexist joke on a woman in front of a whole pub and Mark realises it isn't friendly laughter - it is lynch mob laughter. I think that whole bit is really well written for showing that kind of humiliation for what it is.

I watched Criminal Justice (first series) and I felt that was in some way quite worrying because while I am very fond of the main actor - Ben Whishaw (very good at playing male roles in a feminine way), the whole story is about the distress caused to a man who is falsely accused of murder and rape. There is also a strange kind of reinforcement of male derision of female roles as he is treated badly partially as a consequence of behaving in quite a feminine way. Perhaps I am overthinking it though.

Hmmmmm, Buffy. Love, love, love Buffy; but am a little disturbed that she seems to be punished for her strength by not being able to have a successful relationship. It seems that powerful women can't have love. Anyone who wants to tell me I've got this all wrong will get a very willing hearing.

With you on BVTS harpsichord. I read a great summary of Things That Teenage Girls Learn from Twilight recently, full of gems such as: Threatening to kill yourself so your girlfriend will return is acceptable; if your normal friends disapprove of your boyfriend you should ditch them; creeping into a girl's bedroom to watch them sleep is really romantic.
What stood out is the fact that although BVTS has an almost identical setup it dodged every one of those pitfalls. Buffy an Angel do some crap teenaged things (lying to friends and family for example) but someone always calls them on it.

I would defend SATC from that latest kicking, although it's fundamentally a fluffy show about dating it covers much more than sex and shoes over the years: money, family, kids, health all get a look in, and although three of them make conventional romantic choices in the end (as most of us do or would like to), they retain their individuality. I would exclude the films in this, which I think says something about the distinction between films and TV, I think that most films have only got room for one and a half stories and if you're trying to get every woman in the world to watch your movie then there's an obvious choice of what one of those stories should be - not right necessarily, but obvious.

No one in Buffy really manages a long-term successful relationship, though (Willow and Tara probably come closest until the whole dying thing gets in the way).

BDSM - sorry now I'm on a Wilkie Collins roll. Did you know that he had two households with two mistresses and illegitimate children? He actually campaigned for laws to protect women from being exploited for their property (prior to married women's property act), and for the rights of illegitimate children (especially daughters).

Another good book (although a bit melodramatic towards the end, but this was Victorian literature after all) of his is "The Dead Secret", which has another woman "detecting" something to do with her own family (shameful in Victorian context), again travelling around the country, interviewing people, looking for clues etc whilst heavily pregnant.

Interestingly the men in quite a lot of WC's books are quite obviously "weakened" in some way. Whether this is a device to "allow" the women to take the lead, or whether he wanted to show that the man is not always the Head of the Household I don't know. In TLALD the husband is a bit pathetic (wimpy and then runs off rather than tell the truth), in TDS the husband is blind and his wife has to lead him around etc. In The Woman in White as well, Marion is the really strong character, Walter is a bit of a wet Wally really.

I mean - what she is detecting has shameful connotations. Although, the fact that she is roaming around detecting could have been considered shameful for all I know.

The reason why Buffy doesn't get together with Angel or Spike is because they are being punished for their sins and don't deserve her, not because she's too strong to be desirable.
Yes perhaps she could have lived happily ever after with Riley but a) the audience would have died of boredom b) she was only 20 ish at the time, so is not compelled to find The One and c) Riley ended up marrying a completely kickass special forces operative, so there's not a hint that he left Buffy because she was too strong.

I think point A is correct there MrsVP - Riley was just sooooooooo dull.

Actually didn't he go off and have a weirdo blood-sucking affair thing?

SATC: I was in my late 20s when that was on tv. My abiding memory is of 4 women who - yes - were good friends, but spent their time obsessing over men, and otherwise focusing almost exclusively on wealth, consumer goods, clothes, appearance, social status.

I watched a couple of series with an American friend and we had a few laughs but it was so, so empty of any relevance to, well, anything. I felt quite strongly that the message was: you are empty. But these Manolos are fabulous. Oh, and that man you fancy but who's a lying, manipulative shit? Keep trying.

Shallow, yes, consumerist yes, but sexist? Not necessarily unless you equate feminism with socialism (I'm a feminist lefty but I don't equate the two).

MrsVincentPrice - Riley has hangups about Buffy because she can kick his arse. He leaves because he never believes she really loves him, which she doesn't.

"Not deserved" by Angel and Spike - not sure about this. By that logic any unnatural being who is as strong as she is will never deserve her, which is very close to the idea that women always lower themselves when they have sexual relationships and they taint themselves by pursuing their appetites. No one is good enough - either too weak or too close to evil.

Or - the show is aimed at a teenage audience who live and breathe unrequited love and are always in the lonely delicious throes of some crush or other, so it enhances their ability to identify with her.