Queer Representation: How Can We Get The Gays to Watch Our Movie?

The Vito Russo Test is the queer equivalent to the Bechdel Test (which tests the representation of women in films). It was created by GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) and is used to test the representation of LGBTQ+ people in film. The way a film passes the test is if there is an “identifiably lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender” character who isn’t defined by their sexuality and/or gender identity, and who is significant to the plot. Despite the fact this test is quite easy to pass, most films do not. Out of the 109 films released by major studios in 2017 only 14 had LGBTQ+ characters in them (that’s 12.8%). Gay men are the most represented out of those 14 films (64% or 9 out of the 14 films feature a gay man that pass the test) while trans people are the least represented in 2017 (zero out of the 14 films featured transgender characters). These numbers are insanely low, and shows that there is a clear problem with the representation of LGBTQ+ people in films.

But, even in the movies that feature LGBTQ+ characters, how well are they being represented, really? Films like Call Me By Your Name (2017), Carol (2015), Blue Is The Warmest Color (2013), and Brokeback Mountain (2005) have all been praised as iconic queer movies with great representation, but how great is this representation? Right off the bat you can see that all of these characters are white. Not a huge surprise when it comes to Hollywood, considering how bad they are at representing people of color, but, still, not all queer people are white, obviously—Marsha P. Johnson, anybody? How about happy endings? Shouldn’t queer people be allowed to see a relationship like their own end happily? Well, it seems not. In Call Me By Your Name, they break up; in Blue Is The Warmest Color, they break up; in Brokeback Mountain, they break up and one of them dies (the good-olde “bury your gays” trope https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/30/queerbaiting-bury-your-gays-tv_a_23005000/ )! Carol seems to be the only one that has a semi-happy ending. Although, Therese (Rooney Mara) and Carol (Cate Blanchett) do breakup at one point, at the end of the film it is implied that they get back together. An implication is a we can get apparently. Oversexualization is also an issue. All of these movies have semi-graphic sex scenes in them, with Blue Is The Warmest Color’s sex scenes are borderline pornography—and definitely from the male gaze. Now, sex isn’t the problem here, if a director wants to show two characters getting it on, they very well should be allowed to do so! The problem is that the only kind of movies that are popular and feature queer people at the forefront are romantic dramas (usually tragic) that are very heavy on the sexual discovery. This would be fine if there were just as many goofy LGBTQ+ romantic comedies or action movies with queer leads as there are LGBTQ+ romantic tragedies.

Now, that’s not to say things aren’t getting better! With the release and success of Love, Simon in 2018, a romantic comedy about a teenage boy coming out as gay, things are, hopefully, starting to look up. However, there has recently been a new disturbing trend when it come to LGBTQ+ representation in films. A film will announce that there is an “openly gay” character in their movie before the film is released. Thus, attracting a large queer audience that is sorely disappointed when they realize “openly gay” actually means “not openly gay at all.” Take Beauty and the Beast (2017) for example. Before the release of Beauty and the Beast, Dir. Bill Condon announced that there was going to be an “exclusively gay moment” (WHAT DOES THIS EVEN MEAN?) in the film involving LeFou (Josh Gad), Gaston’s groveling sidekick. Fans were obviously excited! But, when the movie came out, what we got was very a stereotypical depiction of a gay man (who is supposed to be crushing on Gaston?), and one moment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sadujj45Y90 blink and you’ll miss it) where LeFou accidentally starts dancing with another man and… that’s it—wow, how groundbreaking.

While there is at least a small moment in Beauty and the Beast, other films that use this tactic to get a more diverse audience don’t even bother following through. Before the release of the much anticipated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018), screenwriter Jonathan Kasdan announced that Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover) is pansexual. This revelation prompted fans to go crazy, but when the movie came out there was nothing, besides some semi-flirty lines and an “implied” romantic relationship with a droid (okay…), explicit in the film that showed Lando’s pansexuality. Some people (https://lwlies.com/articles/queerbaiting-solo-lando-calrissian/ ) are calling this trend, a new from of queerbaiting, and going by the definition (“the practice of hinting at, but then not actually depicting, a same-sex romantic relationship between characters in a work of fiction, mainly in film or television” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queerbaiting ) I’m have to agree. Except, this kind of queerbaiting is almost worse because the “hinting” starts before the film comes out. Therefore filmmakers are literally using a the possibility of a potentially queer character as bait to get more LGBTQ+ moviegoers into their theaters.

There are other, less nefarious, examples of this kind of queerbaiting. Tessa Thompson, who plays Valkyrie in Thor Ragnarok (2017), made a post on twitter before the film came out about how her character is bisexual and how she wanted that to come through on the big screen. However, she was quick to add that Valkyrie’s sexuality is never explicitly shown in Thor Ragnarok (https://www.avclub.com/thor-ragnarok-ultimately-cut-the-one-scene-that-confir-1820047758 check out this article). It’s clear that Thompson wan’t trying to get more LGBTQ+ people to see Thor Ragnarok, she was just trying to spread the word about her character’s sexuality—Valkyrie is canonically bisexual in the comic books.The character of Albus Dumbledore, the grandfatherly headmaster of Hogwarts from the Harry Potter film and book series, could also be another example of this kind of queerbaiting. However, unlike all of the other examples, Dumbledore’s sexuality was revealed by author JK Rowling after the release of the last Harry Potter book in 2007 (https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=3755544&page=1 check out this article from that year talking about it). Dumbledore’s sexuality was never explicit in the Harry Potter books or movies, but recently Rowling has started another film series that takes place in the Potter universe (but during the 1920s) called Fantastic Beasts. Before the release of the second installment, it was announced that Jude Law would be playing a young Dumbledore in that next film (Fantastic Beasts and the Crimes of Grindelwald), and people began to ask if Dumbledore’s sexuality is going to be addressed in these films. Not much was said by Rowling, but before the movie was released Dir. David Yates said Dumbledore’s sexuality is not “explicitly” shown in the film. Fans were obviously upset be this—myself included. However, after seeing the movie, I feel like it’s safe to say only a person in serious denial would claim that Dumbledore is straight after watching The Crimes of Grindelwald. There isn’t anything “explicit” in the movie (Dumbledore doesn’t say “I’m gay” or kisses a man) but the relationship between Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald, the antagonist of the series and Dumbledore’s ex-lover, is shown or alluded to in in more ways than one—not explicitly telling the audience about his sexuality is in character for Dumbledore, who has always been secretive. As a fan of Harry Potter and the Fantastic Beasts films, I hope in future installments Dumbledore’s sexuality will be more explored—and it should, especially since the main antagonist is his ex-boyfriend!

Queer representation is important. The constant censoring of LGBTQ+ people and relationships in media needs to end. It’s often said that this kind of censorship is to protects kids from exposure to “inappropriate” content. News flash, there are kids out there who are queer! (Because queer people have always been queer.) I remember when I was a kid how big of an impact seeing queer characters and couples in film and TV were for me. Seeing characters like Tara (Amber Benson) and Willow (Alyson Hannigan) from Buffy the Vampire Slayer made me feel like I wasn’t alone and that there wasn’t anything wrong with me. Even though queer representation in film is still lacking it’s getting better, and it’s getting even better on TV shows! The Legend of Korra, and Steven Universe are two kids shows that feature LGBTQ+ couples. Sense 8, Orange is the New Black, Queer Eye and Black Mirror (specifically season 3’s episode San Junipero) are all Netflix original series that have great LGBTQ+ representation and/or are LGBTQ+ centric—trans characters played by actual trans actors? YES! Things are looking up and I have high hopes for the future when it comes to queer representation.

.

.

.

Check out these cool sources!

https://lwlies.com/articles/queerbaiting-solo-lando-calrissian/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/01/disney-launches-first-exclusively-gay-moment-beauty-beast/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2018/05/17/lando-calrissian-pansexual-solo-star-wars-reaction/620566002/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/movies/jude-law-dumbledore-gay.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/glaad-report-hollywood-is-failing-lgbt-characters-in-its-movies

https://books.google.com/books?id=AoQrDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT143&dq=the+vito+russo+test&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj25Yj_oaDfAhXwx1kKHZODBU0Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=the%20vito%20russo%20test&f=false

https://www.glaad.org/sri/2018/vitorusso

https://www.glaad.org/sri/2018/overview

How about this cooler bibliography!

https://books.google.com/books?id=UWtECwAAQBAJ&pg=PT203&dq=queerbaiting&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ6M3zzprfAhWu11kKHT6ZAcwQuwUIMTAB#v=onepage&q=queerbaiting&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=f6YwSZlsyJMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=lgbt+film&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjprcyuz5rfAhXSq1kKHbkGAzgQuwUILTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=jI_IHFUidlwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=lgbt+film&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjprcyuz5rfAhXSq1kKHbkGAzgQuwUIUTAH#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=ROhSbOQIzmYC&pg=PA31&dq=the+hays+code&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6tc3zzJrfAhXIqFkKHaOoAUQQuwUITDAG#v=onepage&q=the%20hays%20code&f=false

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/we-need-to-talk-about-lgbt-representation-apparently_us_5a3d4dede4b06cd2bd03da68

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0HsPIquRmc

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/05/22/lgbt-representation-in-hollywood-has-somehow-got-even-worse/

Photo credits go to Netflix.

Whitewashing: The Representation of People of Color in Hollywood

Oh, whitewashing… at this point you are just as American as apple pie. Practically from the birth of film, Hollywood has done a terrible job at representing people of color. The first “talkie” (a movie with audible talking), The Jazz Singer (1927), is about a Jewish man putting on black face so that he can have a career as, well, a jazz singer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIaj7FNHnjQ). It was the 1920s, so what can you expect, but things should’ve gotten better since then. Unfortunately, they have not. Thanks to the Hays Code (a set of “moral” rules that filmmakers had to follow through the 1930s to the 60s), and racism, most actors and actresses of color were unable to get cast in roles that weren’t stereotypical.

For example, actress Hattie McDaniel, the first black woman to be nominated for an Academy Award for her role in Gone With the Wind (1939) as the maid Mammy, only got the parts of a maid, a “mammy”, or a slave when she was cast in films—all stereotypes about black women. Even so, McDaniel took these roles, famously remarking: “I’d rather play a maid and make $700 a week than be one $7.” However, she, and many other black actresses, were criticized by groups, like the NAACP, for perpetuating racial stereotype in the roles they were given—in my opinion, unfairly criticized, considering the limited job opportunities for people of color, especially women of color, had at the time. Black actors and actresses weren’t the only ones suffering from Hollywood prejudice. Anna May Wong, a Chinese-American actress, was given only “exotic” roles in films (Such as Tiger Lily in Peter Pan [1924]), despite the fact she was born and raised in the United States. In addition to this, those “exotic” roles were often taken by white actresses because of the Hays Code rule that banned interracial romance—what’s a leading lady without a love interest? Wong eventually left the States to pursue an acting career in Europe—something a lot of actors of color did because they received better roles overseas.

So, because of this (and, well, racism) whitewashing, yellowface, and blackface became a thing. It happened in Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) with Mickey Rooney playing Mr. Yunioshi, a very racist version of a Japanese man, it happened in Othello (1965) with Laurence Olivier playing the character Othello while wearing blackface, Natalie Wood, who is white, playing Maria, who is Puerto Rican, in West Side Story (1961), and Katharine Hepburn wore yellowface to play Jade Tan in Dragon Seed (1944) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ac39xjdGx8 actually most of the Asian parts in this movie were played by white actors). These examples of whitewashing, yellowface, and blackface aren’t mutually exclusive to the films of the past. In 1982, Linda Hunt won an Oscar for her yellowface role as Billy Kwan in The Year of Living Dangerously (1982), and, more recently, several white actors donned yellowface to play Korean characters in the 2012 film Cloud Atlas (an adaptation of the book, Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell). While these instances of yellowface and blackface are much rarer today (blackface is especially rare, due to the well earned backlash a film would receive for using blackface), the concept of whitewashing (taking an originally non-white characters and casting white actors to play them) has not left Hollywood.

There has been a string of movies in recent years that take part in whitewashing. The 2017 film (based off of the Japanese anime of the same name), Ghost in the Shell starred Scarlett Johansson as Motoko Kusanagi—even though Johansson claimed that “[Motoko] is essentially identity-less… I would never attempt to play a person of a different race, obviously” it’s clear the role of Motoko should’ve gone to a Japanese actress. Despite the fact the 2016 movie Gods of Egypt takes place in Africa, the three male leads of this film are all white: Gerard Butler is Scottish, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau is Danish, and Brenton Thwaites is Australian. Aloha (2015) tried to pass Emma Stone off as half Chinese and Hawaiian, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010) tries to convince us that Jake Gyllenhaal is from Iran, and, possibly the worst of the worst, the film adaptation of Nickelodeon's animated The Last Airbender series, Avatar: The Last Airbender (2010), takes an originally all Asian cast and hires white people to play them—oh, except the villains, who are all people of color.

Many of the excuses that Hollywood filmmakers use when they cast white actors as non-white characters circle around the fact that there aren’t enough famous non-white actors to take the role, and they can’t cast a nobody to be in their blockbuster film because they won’t make enough money. Dir. Ridley Scott made this kind of comment to justify why he cast white actors to play Moses and Ramses in his movie Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014). But despite these excuses, a recent study made by the CAA (Creative Arts Agency) in 2017 showed that more diverse films outperform less-diverse films in the box office, and more diverse films will get a more diverse audience—what a shocker! These statistics can easily be seen! Films like Black Panther (2018), Crazy Rich Asians (2018), To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before (2018) (a Netflix Original), Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015), and Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017) all feature actors of color in lead roles and all made bank in the box office (or got a lot of viewers watching it on Netflix). All the while, films like Ghost in the Shell (2017) and Avatar: The Last Airbender (2010) all flopped in the box office. Hopefully these numbers will show filmmakers that putting people of color in their films will actually help with ticket sales, since the outcry of moviegoers who have been asking for more diverse films for years haven’t gotten their attention.

.

.

.

Check out these cool sources!

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/hollywood-has-whitewashed-asian-stories-decades-year-they-couldn-t-n830241

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/diverse-casting-results-box-office-success-says-new-study-n775136?icid=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB0lrSebyng

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/aug/29/the-idea-that-its-good-business-is-a-myth-why-hollywood-whitewashing-has-become-toxic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XebG4TO_xss

https://books.google.com/books?id=ROhSbOQIzmYC&pg=PA31&dq=the+hays+code&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6tc3zzJrfAhXIqFkKHaOoAUQQuwUITDAG#v=onepage&q=the%20hays%20code&f=false

How about this cooler bibliography!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1035270959&feature=iv&index=11&list=PLJ8cMiYb3G5eJquaiw6Xlyt3Qhe-3e7Xh&src_vid=zB0lrSebyng&v=jlPwTMMhGGI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XebG4TO_xss

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/mar/31/ghost-in-the-shells-whitewashing-does-hollywood-have-an-asian-problem

https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a25191/scarlett-johansson-march-2017-cover/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/03/26/hollywood-cant-move-toward-equality-until-it-confronts-its-ugly-racial-history/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4bc1178cb584

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/40-years-after-star-wars-new-hope-screen-diversity-n764661

https://io9.gizmodo.com/annihilations-director-says-he-didnt-know-about-his-fil-1821263060

Photo credits go to Summit Entertainment.

The Problematic Love Interest: No Means Yes?

What do TV and film teach us about love? Well, they teach us that romantic love is very important, that the grand gestures are everything, that true love’s kiss will always break the spell, and, oh yeah, when someone says “no” they really mean “yes.” The lack of consent in movies and TV shows, in scenes that are supposed to be romantic, is shocking. Time and time again I will come across a show or film that looks promising, it usually is, and I am enjoying the film or show. That is before I am shown a scene that is so obviously sexual assault, yet, it is shown as seductive, or romantic, or even funny.

Last summer I watched the movie Blade Runner (1982) for the first time. As an avid fan of Star Wars, I spent most of my pre-teen years drooling over Han Solo (Harrison Ford)—as well as the swashbuckling archaeologist, Dr. Indiana Jones (also Ford). So after re-watching the Star Wars films I was suffering from a Harrison Ford withdrawal, so I decided it was time to check out, supposedly, the next best “Ford Sci-fi Flick”: Blade Runner. Now, in my own personal and unimportant opinion, I don’t think Blade Runner is a very good movie. However, I think it would’ve been much better in my eyes if it weren’t for the rape scene that happens about halfway through the film. In the scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjO8wsjPqbg), the lead character, Rick Deckard, just told his “love interest”, Rachael (Sean Young), that she is an android (the beings the Deckard is supposed to be hunting and killing) and that her human memories are fake. In her moment of distress Deckard makes a move on her. However, she doesn’t respond. She moves away when he tries to kiss her again and quickly gets up to leave his apartment. Deckard becomes angry. He storms in front of her, blocking the path between her and the door, before he grabbing her by the shoulders and shoving her up against the window on the opposite end of the room. He proceeds to force a kiss on her and then tells her to to say to him “Kiss me” and then, after she complies, he tells her to say “I want you” to him. In doing this, Deckard forces her to give him “consent”, thus making the whole assault her fault. Its a disgusting scene that made me wonder: “Why I am supposed to be rooting for this main character?” But honestly the worst part about it is that it’s filmed as a seduction. The music swells as Deckard kisses Rachael, telling the audience that this is a romantic and sensual moment. What it really does, however, is perpetuate the falsehood that when a woman says “no” (either with her words or her body language) she really means “yes.”

These kinds of scenes are very prevalent in older films. The John Hughes classic Sixteen Candles (1984) is chalk full of dubious consent. In one scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmf_sT_IcMc&t=125s), the love interest, Jake (Michael Schoeffling), of the main character, Samantha (Molly Ringwald)—who’s supposed to be a sensitive jock; he just wants a nice girl to love him—hands his current girlfriend, a very drunk Caroline (Haviland Morris), off to Farmer Ted (Anthony Michael Hall) in exchange for a pair of Sam’s underwear. In the kitchen when the two boys are talking about this plan, Jake delivers the infamous line: “I can get a piece of ass anytime I want. Shit, I’ve got Caroline in my bedroom now passed out cold. I could violate her ten different ways if I wanted to.” This line is the precursor to Jake saying how he wants a nice girl who doesn’t party. Honestly, how is he the romantic male lead in this movie and not the predatory creep! Later in the film it is implied that Caroline and Farmer Ted have sex, to which Caroline is very okay with, despite the fact she was totally drunk throughout the whole ordeal (thus, unable to consent), and was also tricked by her boyfriend into thinking that Farmer Ted was her boyfriend, Jake. This perpetuates that same stereotype seen in Blade Runner: “no” means “yes.”

An argument can be made that “These movies are from the eighties! They’re just a product of the times!” And, while Sixteen Candles especially is a product of it’s time, that doesn’t mean this kind of portrayal of “romance” is gone from TV and cinema today. In fact, it’s unfortunately alive and well.

Take the relationship between Daenerys Targaryen (Emilia Clarke) and Khal Drogo (Jason Momoa) from the HBO show Game of Thrones. Daenerys is basically sold into marriage to Drogo by her brother, and proceeds to get raped by her husband multiple times during the beginning of their relationship. However, by the time Khal Drogo makes his exit from the show (SPOILER ALERT! He dies) the two are in love. All is forgiven, and Daenerys is heartbroken by the loss of her husband. This kind of forgiveness of sexual predators in a TV show is quite common. The character Chuck Bass (Ed Westwick), from the classic 2000s show Gossip Girl, forces himself on two different characters during the first season, but all is forgotten barely a few episodes later, and he just becomes an annoying antagonist—and by the end of the series, he’s a dashing love interest!

I hate to say it, but Buffy the Vampire Slayer (one of my favorite TV shows of all time) is another example of this kind of forgetfulness when it comes to sexual assault in TV shows. In the episode “Seeing Red” from season six, there is a scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGWhEgjdLeM ) where the vampire, Spike (James Marsters), attempts to rape Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar). These are two characters have been in an “on again, off again” sexual relationship for most of the season. However, Spike has fallen in love with Buffy, and she has not fallen for him. In an attempt to get her to love him back, Spike decides to force himself on her. After a bit of a struggle—where Spike tries to pull off her robe and tackles her to the ground—Buffy kicks him off of her before anything happens, but the damage is done. The problem is Spike still stays a fan favorite on the show and he is very easily redeemed (he gets a soul so all is well!). He is also not only redeemed in the eyes of the viewer, but also in the eyes of Buffy, the victim of his abuse—who, in the next season, actually falls in love with him. These are all classic examples of the actions of a male character, who is a sexual abuser/assaulter, getting forgotten or easily forgiven as the show progresses.

Modern movies still have problems with consent, too. A recent Netflix release titled Sierra Burgess is a Loser (2018) is an example of dubious consent passed off as a sweet romance. The basic plot of this teen romance movie is: a teenage girl, named Sierra (Shannon Purser), cat-fishes this teenage boy, Jamey (Noah Centineo), because she is too insecure to tell him who she really is. Sierra does this with the help of the popular girl from her high school, Veronica (Kristine Froseth), who is the person Jamey thinks he is texting/talking on the phone with. This movie has a LOT of problems, but what I thought the most disturbing part was a scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMdjN-sIxw4) where Veronica goes on a date with Jamey as Sierra. Sierra follows the two around on their “date” and texts Veronica instructions on how to act so Jamey doesn’t think something’s up. Towards the end of the evening, Jamey and Veronica are leaning on the hood of his car—Sierra is hiding underneath the car, spying on the two of them—and Jamey leans in for a kiss. Veronica stops him and tells him to close his eyes first before she gestures for Sierra to come out and kiss Jamey herself, and she does. It’s super weird and uncomfortable to watch because this teenage boy is being kissed by someone he’s never met, and without his consent. But, all the while, the music swells, telling the audience that this is a romantic moment. A lot of people were complaining about this movie—like I said, it had many issues (making fun of deaf people, and some off comments about the LGBT community)—but I wish more people were talking about this scene. If the roles were reversed and Jamey was a girl being kissed by this boy who was cat-fishing her, people would be up in arms (because that literally sounds like it was taken out of Sixteen Candles!). But, because Jamey is a boy, people aren’t as upset about this scene.

The movie Wedding Crashers (2005) is a comedy about two guys who have a hobby of (you guessed it) crashing weddings. It’s a very funny movie that I have thoroughly enjoyed. However, this movie makes many jokes about men who have been sexually assaulted—thus, perpetuating the stereotype that men can’t be sexually assaulted because they always want to have sex. There are several scenes that depict sexual coercion and even a scene that could be considered rape! In this scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_r1zDwdmSg&has_verified=1), Jeremy (Vince Vaughn) wakes up tied to his bed with a naked Gloria (Isla Fisher), the woman that he’s been sleeping with, sitting on top of him. He begins to ask her what is going on, and she tells him she thinks what’s wrong with their relationship is that they aren’t being adventurous enough. Jeremy tries to protest, but Gloria quickly “shushes” him before shoving a sock into his mouth and covering it with duct tape before the camera cuts away. This scene is depicted as funny, as are all of the other sexual assault scenes in this movie. In the next scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6fLskrvsRA also depicted as funny), Jeremy tells his friend, John (Owen Wilson), about what happened to him. Unfortunately, Jeremy is semi-ignored by his friend, who brushes off his complaints and proceeds to go on about the woman he has feelings for. When Jeremy says he wants to leave the house they are staying at and go home, John guilt-trips him into staying (no bro left behind). Later in the film Gloria and Jeremy actually end up getting married! Throughout the film, these scenes are played off as funny, because it’s a man getting sexually assaulted and not a woman. Once again I ask you to switch the roles and pretend that Jeremy is a woman and Gloria is a man. Would people still be laughing if that was the case?

Sexual assault and consent is a serious issue. With the “Time’s Up” and #Metoo movement taking the internet by storm, and so many actresses and actors (and people in general!) coming forward about the sexual assault and mistreatment they experienced in their industry, there is a lot to consider. But the fact that films and TV are still allowing sexual coercion, assault, harassment, and rape to be shot as funny, romantic, sensual, or easily forgiven is sending people the message that sexual assault isn’t a big deal—thus, adding to the problem. This notion is not only wrong, but also dangerous. It is teaching people (especially young people) that consent isn’t important. Future writers, directors, producers, and anyone else involved in making films and TV need to step up to the plate and use their platform to enforce the importance of consent, instead of disregarding it.

.

.

.

Check out these cool sources!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoP8VpbpYI

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/when-pop-culture-sells-dangerous-myths-about-romance/549749/

http://shrcc.org/get-the-facts/what-is-consent/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/

How about this cooler bibliography!

https://vimeo.com/194215274

https://books.google.com/books?id=Kq4-DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=consent+in+films&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNvOrYl5nfAhVws1kKHaiCDBUQuwUIOzAD#v=onepage&q=consent%20in%20films&f=false

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/12/05/why-the-last-tango-in-paris-rape-scene-is-generating-such-an-outcry-now/?utm_term=.5b8a35fad57e

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-469646/I-felt-raped-Brando.html

The Male Gaze: Seen But Not Heard

The “male gaze” is a concept created by feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey in her 1975 essay titled “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” The male gaze is a way of filming that sexualizes women by making them the passive objects to heterosexual masculine desire—usually personified as the male lead. Thus, making the audience view the female characters as that lead would; as something to be looked at—Mulvey, taking from Freud, describes it as scopophiia: “in which looking itself is a source of pleasure.” By objectifying women in this way, it subdues, and often submerges, any kind of personality or desire that she might have, and reduces her to nothing more than a body for the hero to look at and lust after. Though this isn’t always the case, and some films actually do a decent job at portraying women. However, because most of Hollywood makes films with the heterosexual male viewer in mind, the male gaze has become the norm.  

A perfect example of the male gaze is a scene in the 2013 movie Star Trek Into Darkness (a reboot of the classic TV show). About half-way through the movie there is a scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6zGX2qpxzU) where two characters, Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and Dr. Carol Marcus (Alice Eve), are discussing where to go to take apart a torpedo that they have on the ship. As they are talking, they walk into a shuttle craft and Carol asks Kirk to turn around. He does, but not before asking “why?”; to which she replies “Just turn around.” She continues talking for a few seconds while the camera stays on Kirk, but soon he turns around (for no apparent reason) to see a tantalizing shot Carol in her bra and underwear—meant for the target audience, I’m sure. Now, this scene might’ve been able to be passed off as an awkward encounter, but only if Kirk had turned away quickly, and Carol had been filmed in a less objectifying way. However, what we get instead is a full body shot of Carol Marcus in a push-up bra and tiny panties, and another shot of Captain Kirk staring at her with his mouth open. I would love to ask the creators of Star Trek Into Darkness why this scene needed. Because, to me, it is completely unnecessary! In the original series, Carol and Kirk do have a romance (and actually have a son together). However, in Star Trek Into Darkness that romance isn’t there past Kirk flirting a little bit with Carol—to no avail, I might add. And even if there was a romance, that scene still wouldn’t have added much to the plot besides reducing Dr. Marcus to a sex object.  

A classic example of the male gaze is Mikaela Banes (Megan Fox) in Transformers (2007). A scene in Transformers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6L3Ef1JCC8) depicts Mikaela checking out the engine of Sam Witwicky’s (Shia LaBeouf) car. She’s pointing out what’s wrong with it, and talking about how her dad taught her about ow to take care of cars when she was a little girl. Sounds nice right? And it would be, if it weren’t for the fact that Fox is being shot as if she was in a porn. The camera drags up her bare stomach and focuses on her breasts as she leans over the car with her butt sticking out. The scene is obviously shot from the POV (point of view) of the male lead, Sam, and you can tell he is getting off on her leaning over the engine due to his comical facial expressions. It’s absolutely ridiculous, and even more disappointing when you realize that, while all this ogling is happening, Mikaela is talking about something she is very passionate about (something her love interest, Sam, should be interested in). But it is completely glossed over to get a tantalizing shot of her pornographically leaning over a car.

The resident pop culture symbol of feminism, Wonder Woman, is also being seen through the male gaze—though it isn’t uncommon for female superheroes to be hyper sexualized (check out The Hawkeye Initiative, http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/, for some funny gender-role reversals of superhero characters). Surprisingly, Wonder Woman (2017) did a really good job at avoiding the male gaze (thank you, Dir. Patty Jenkins!), especially considering the fact Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) wore a bustier throughout most of the film. However, in regards to Justice League (2017) the same cannot be said. In Diana’s opening scene in Justice League, the viewer can see a clear difference between how Jenkins shot her and how Dir. Zack Snyder shot her. Look at these two scenes where Diana is in battle, from the respective movies, side by side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlwHKphUU_Y&t=151s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QJ2mqXdr5I

In the Justice League scene, there are numerous shots of Diana’s butt and a view, or two, up her skirt while she is fighting that are completely unnecessary and uncomfortable. It’s very disappointing to see her sexualized like this, and especially after the success of Wonder Woman (2017)—makes one wish Patty Jenkins could direct all movies that feature Wonder Woman. However, in the Wonder Woman scene, there are no up the skirt shots or closeups on her butt. Instead Diana is a total badass, and her power and strength are being highlighted instead of just her body. While it’s obvious Gal Gadot is beautiful, Diana’s beauty this isn't the focus of her character. Wonder Woman (2017) is about Diana’s growth not about how appealing she looks. Wonder Woman isn’t perfect—the bustier and wedge heels donned by Diana are an issue (who would want to fight in that!) and the film suffers from the “token female character” trope (as do many superhero movies)—but, in regards to cinematography, there is minimal objectification.

Wonder Woman (2017) isn’t the only movie that avoids the male gaze, there have recently been numerous movies that get it right. Pitch Perfect (2012) does a really good job at taking a scene, that would be shot as tantalizing in any other film, and making it funny while also pushing along the plot and showing relationship development between two of the lead characters! The scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg18gcypaJI) shows Beca (Anna Kendrick) is singing in the communal showers at her college before she is interrupted by Chloe (Brittany Snow) who tells her that her voice is so good and she needs to join the campus all female a Capella group, the Barden Bellas. Even though both girls are naked it’s not objectifying or tantalizing at all—it was shot from the shoulders up, as if “Beca” and “Chloe” were “Ben” and “Charlie.” It’s awkward and funny and shows the bonding between two characters who later become friends. Like all movies, Pitch Perfect is not without its issues (oh, hello there, racial stereotypes!), but it does a wonderful job at showcasing a group of semi-diverse, well developed female characters in a non-objectifying way.

The problem with the male gaze (not only in film but also in advertising, porn, TV, and social media) is that it makes women into objects, often sexualized objects (AKA sexual objectification). It takes away their humanity, and can lead to self-image issues, mental illness, and becoming victims of sexual violence and/or harassment. However, things are looking up. Even though the male gaze is still alive and well today, there are more movies that are being directed by women and/or have a large female cast and crew who are trying to take the male gaze out of Hollywood. Films like Ghostbusters (2016), and Black Panther (2018) are good examples of what a male gaze-less future might look like, and, considering the fact that more of these kinds of movies are on their way (Captain Marvel [2019] Check out the trailer! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BCujX3pw8), the future's looking bright! 

.

.

.

Check out these cool sources!

http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-the-male-gaze-mean-and-what-about-a-female-gaze-52486

https://www.filminquiry.com/film-theory-basics-laura-mulvey-male-gaze-theory/

http://www.composingdigitalmedia.org/f15_mca/mca_reads/mulvey.pdf

https://ginacalnan.pbworks.com/f/themalegaze.pdf

How about this cooler bibliography!

https://www.tes.com/teaching-resource/the-male-gaze-in-film-6412329#

https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/how-justice-league-panders-to-male-gaze-with-overt-sexualisation-of-wonder-woman-4220451.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrdih26Dv_g

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/05/152837/summer-movies-2017-female-male-gaze

praxis