about me


recent thought / activity


     

     



     

    See the full list at LibraryThing
     


    audio



     
     

     

    representations of men

    Someone I know recently posted a statistic (from a PhD study by an unnamed researcher at the University of Western Sydney) that claimed that "[m]en were predominately reported or portrayed in mass media as villains, aggressors, perverts and philanderers, with more than 75 per cent of all mass media representations of men and male identities showing men in one of these four ways."

    I counter-claimed that this could be empirically disproven by a casual glance at a newspaper, but it did get me wondering about the numbers. So I took a look at the front page of the New York Times website this morning. Here are links taken from that page that contain explicit reference to specific, individual men:


    • [Thomas] Friedman: Moderates Exist

    • [Ross] Douthat: Could defeat in court help Obama win? (2 men)

    • [Mark] Bittman: Ads Aim at Kids

    • Room for Debate: Is Paul Ryan Budget Viable?

    • Guide: Challenges to Obama’s Health Care Law

    • 2 Israeli Leaders [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak] Make the Iran Issue Their Own (2 men)

    • Tibetan Exiles Rally Around Delhi Self-Immolator [Jamphel Yeshi]

    • Strength and Weakness in Campaign of Ron Paul

    • Diner’s Journal: Don Draper and the Delicate Art of Restaurant Renovation

    • Tebow, a Careful Evangelical

    • JetBlue to Review Procedures After Pilot Meltdown: CEO [Dave Barger]

    • US. Sen. [Scott] Brown Gets New National Guard Assignment

    • [Mark] Zuckerberg in China, Let The Rumors Begin

    • Assad Accepts Cease-Fire; Opponents Are Skeptical

    • Passengers Restrain Captain [Clayton Osbon] After Crisis on JetBlue Flight

    • Hilton Kramer, Art Critic and Champion of Tradition in Culture Wars, Dies at 84

    • Gingrich Is Cutting Staff to Shift Focus to Convention

    • Group Led by Magic Johnson Wins Auction to Buy Dodgers for $2.15 Billion

    • Climate Prophet [Mohamed Nasheed] in Hot Water

    • Eric Lowen, Half of a Singing-Writing Duo, Dies at 60

    • Bert Sugar, Boxing Writer and Commentator, Is Dead at 75

    • ArtsBeat: Ask the 'Hunger Games' Director [Gary Ross] Your Questions

    • Books of The Times: The Tracks of an Author’s, and a Reader’s, Tears [Reader= Dwight Garner]

    • Books of The Times: Gentleman Who Finds Terrorism Amusing [Lionel Shriver]

    • THE FIFTH DOWN: Scouting the Draft: Mississippi State's Fletcher Cox

    • INDIA INK: India's Minister for Sanitation [Jairam Ramesh] Promises End to Open Defecation in a Decade

    • Obama vs. [John] Boehner: Who Killed the Debt Deal?

    • The Ethicist [Randy Cohen]: Calling All Carnivores

    • LATITUDE: Jesus for Jews

    • Theater Review: Volleys of Words From a Writer of No Brevity [David Foster Wallace]


    Eliminating the duplicate Obamas, I count 31 men here: politicians, writers, athletes, businessmen, filmmakers, religious leaders. Two are notable "philanderers" (Don Draper, Newt Gingrich) although neither of these articles "report[s] or portray[s]" these men as a philanderer. I'll act in a spirit of generosity and count Draper, but not Gingrich.

    Similarly, a few of these people could be considered "aggressors" depending on your outlook (Gingrich? Ron Paul? Emud Barak?) but, again, none of the articles focus explicitly on their "aggressor" nature, so my count there is zero.

    The JetBlue pilot behaved "erratically," not necessarily "aggressively," but again, in the spirit of fairness, I'll count him as a "villain."

    Whoever covers the "pervert" beat at the NYT must have had the day off, cause I don't see any here.

    Total count: 2, or 6.4% of 31.

    For contrast, by the way, here are links taken from that page that contain explicit reference to specific, individual women:


    • Joan Nathan's Matzo Balls

    • Killing of Iraqi Woman [Shaima Alawadi] Shakes Community

    • Books of The Times: The Tracks of an Author’s, and a Reader’s, Tears [Author=Cheryl Strayed]

    • T Magazine: Look of The Moment | January Jones


    Four women! One cook, one actress (noted here for her "look"), one victim of violence, and—thank God—one author, who shares space in her headline with a (male) reader. So, if you're going to talk to me about disparities in gender representation, let's start the conversation here.

    I will conclude by noting that there are a few big articles about the Supreme Court, which if I counted them as being articles about three women and six men would up the count of women in today's NYT to seven, up the count of men to thirty-seven, and reduce the percentile of men portrayed as "'villains, aggressors, perverts [or] philanderers" to 5.4%.

    Labels: ,

     

    Wednesday, March 28, 2012
    8:47 AM
    0 comments

     


    film club: the maltese falcon

    Note: the following post contains some discussion of the resolution and closing scenes of the film.

    So last week, when Film Club looked at It Happened One Night, I presented a pair of screenshots and did a quick little analysis of the power dynamic reflected between the man and the woman depicted therein. This week, we watched The Maltese Falcon (1941), and if you wanted to play the same game, you could... try doing a read on this image:


    It doesn't take a degree in semiotics to figure out which one appears to be in charge here. And yet the gender politics of Falcon are more complicated than this image might initially suggest.

    The woman who Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) is haranguing here is Brigid O'Shaughnessy (Mary Astor), and she's a prime example of that quintessential noir figure, the femme fatale. The question of whether the noir fatales are progressive is a thorny one, but one thing that can be said in the affirmative is that O'Shaughnessy certainly possesses a certain autonomy, with goals that are, for lack of a better word, self-directed. (Specifically, she's one of a number of people in search of a priceless figurine, the falcon of the title.)

    Now, to be sure, there's a certain degree of self-directedness in last week's female lead, Ellie Andrews—the plot of It Happened One Night is set into motion by her active resistance of her father's wishes for her—but a lot of the "comedy" of that film actually involves the breaking-down of her will in a variety of humiliating and debasing ways. The Maltese Falcon also ultimately punishes O'Shaughnessy—she's shipped off to prison for her role in one of the film's murders—but it's hard to know, exactly, how to read that fact. If I were to read the film from a feminist perspective, I would argue that the film is built around the notion of masculine authority, and the presence of a sufficiently headstrong woman unsettles that authority—it is only once that "uncontrollable feminine" is safely contained that the film's equilibrium is restored, and the narrative can draw to a close.


    It's a tempting read, and yet there's a way in which the film's ending seems more bittersweet, or even downright bleak, rather than triumphant. Part of this is complicated by the (improbable) romance that erupts between Spade and O'Shaughnessy:


    ...and part of it is complicated by the fact that the film and Spade both always seem to maintain a respect for this headstrong woman, even when she's at her most manipulative and dishonest. In fact, you could make the argument that the film respects her because she's manipulative and dishonest. (On more than one occasion, Spade catches her in some sort of lie, and he replies (ungrudgingly) "You're good.")

    In order to really buy this as a read, however, one has to understand that, in the moral universe of The Maltese Falcon, the people with the greatest claim to authority are the people who are the most proficient in their ability to control and manipulate the truth. O'Shaughnessy lies, hedges, and omits key information throughout the entire film, but Spade himself does the same, and at least as frequently. Viewed through this lens, the film's narrative can be understood as being "about" various characters attempting to establish their version of the film's narrative as dominant. Half the fun as an audience member is attempting to keep on top of the ever-shifting narrative, which means managing an incessant flow of reversals, revisions, and reveals.

    Spade and O'Shaughnessy, of course, are both experts here, as is Spade's "girl Friday," Effie Perine (Lee Patrick), another tough-headed female character held in high regard by the film. The process of watching them managing and responding to this flow of information is a delight—and we're listening as well as watching, given that so much of the information is deployed verbally, through dense, nearly impenetrably rapid patter. (This is a continuation, most likely, of the sound-enabled motion picture industry of this era being "drunk on speech"—and yet these characters also feel utterly contemporary in their way: they are, essentially, prototypes for the knowledge-workers and data-managers of our own current 21st century.)

    Returning to the gender issue, however, it does have to be said that in the end Spade emerges as the one highest in this hierarchy—both Effie and Bridget, ultimately, are subordinated to his mastery (Effie is in Spade's employ, and Bridget's eventually loses control of the narrative and goes down in flames). Part of the reason that Spade maintains his enduring appeal as a character, of course, is because of his ability to think so effectively on his feet: to fast-talk his way through even the most dire circumstances until he works his way back into control. (Full disclosure: as a male viewer, it's hard for me not to want to be Spade, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only man who has had this experience.)

    And yet our director, John Huston, makes this process of identification a little more complicated than it might be in the hands of a less-ambitious director. Specifically, the film is full of little hints that Spade is kind of a creepy guy. At one point he grabs Effie's wrist and squeezes it, unconsciously, until she has to protest "Sam—you're hurting me."


    And the film's closing moments don't exactly show Sam as the most noble fellow, either. This is compounded by the fact that he delivers much of his final monologue with a glassy, faraway look in his eye that makes him look sinister, almost sociopathic:


    In a way, what Huston is doing in this film is sort of the reverse of what Hitchcock does in Psycho (Film Club XXXIX). In Psycho, we're introduced to a person who is obviously creepy and later forced into unsettling identification with him; here in The Maltese Falcon we're introduced to a character who's easy to identify with and only as the film proceeds are we made to question just exactly what we've gotten ourselves into by doing so. Genius stuff.

    For next week, we'll stick with Bogart, noir, and unstable narratives: we'll be looking at 1946's The Big Sleep, directed by Howard Hawks from a William Faulkner screenplay.

    Labels: , , , ,

     

    Saturday, November 29, 2008
    9:46 PM
    0 comments

     


    film club: it happened one night

    This week, Film Club decided to continue our whirlwind tour through Early American Comedy, turning to the first of the "screwball" comedies, 1934's It Happened One Night.

    Part of the enduring appeal of the screwball comedies derives from the fact that they essentially lay the groundwork for what will eventually become the contemporary romantic comedy. Anyone who has seen more than a couple romantic comedies will recognize the basic tropes on display here: a man and a woman who initially seem to dislike one another are thrown together by chance circumstances, have a series of escapades, and come to realize that through the course of their misadventures they have fallen in love with one another.

    Devising a romance that works this way—one in which your two main characters intially don't like one another very much is a time-honored narrative device: it allows for the introduction of conflict every time your characters are on screen together. However, even as this device solves one problem—keeping the happy conclusion from feeling forgone too early—it does so only at the cost of creating another problem. Specifically, the more you emphasize the characters' opposition to one another, the more territory they need to traverse before the love that the genre demands can emerge. (A secondary double-bind: if your characters are likeable at the outset of the film, going through the process of learning or growing or whatever else they might need to do runs the risk of watering down or eliminating what we liked about them in the first place. On the other hand, if they aren't likeable at the outset of the film... well, the problems there are obvious.)

    There are a number of fine romantic comedies out there that manage to satisfyingly resolve these problems, setting up situations in which all the elements are in balance. In the Platonic ideal of this type of romantic comedy, two likeable (yet flawed) people come together and clash, but then each of them grows a little, straightens out their flaws while preserving key elements of their individual selves, and learns something key about the other person, whereupon both of them can then meet in the middle, in a conclusion that's essentially egalitarian in spirit. It Happened One Night, however, is not that film.

    The power dynamic in this film can probably best be indicated by a pair of screenshots. First this one:


    These are our principal characters, Peter Warne (Clark Gable) and Ellie Andrews (Claudette Colbert), meeting up by chance one night the back of a bus. You can see that Ellie's a little reluctant to get too close. By morning, however, it's a different story:


    The movie's telegraphing to us the idea that they might be able to get along after all (at least when one of them is unconscious). It's notable, however, the way the gender dynamic is set up here: that the only character who really has to change her tune is Ellie. There is no meeting in the middle: she's the one who has to "come around" to liking Peter, not vice versa.

    Now, the plot of the film is arranged around her attempt to travel clandestinely (she's trying to avoid her powerful father's interference in her marriage to a celebrity aviator). Peter's a down-on-his-luck newspaperman, and the film suggests that he's sticking with her so that he can land a big scoop. So one could concievably argue that he has to overcome his own aversion to her. You could, for instance, point to the way he spends a good deal of the film's run-time insulting and correcting her, including on the finer points of donut-dunking:


    However, he's also the one who repeatedly orchestrates the situation so that they can remain together, and his aversion never quite seems as pronounced as hers. He actually seems quite content to remain in her company—provided he can constantly belittle and control her. Over and over again, the movie is about bringing her down a peg. (She's high class to Warne's working-stiff, so this might have something to do with pandering to a nasty side of Depression-era class fantasy.) Regardless, by about a third of the way through the film, my Film Club companion Skunkcabbage was making comments about Foucault ("constant surveillance and correction") and I was starting to read their relationship as an early cinematic example of a BDSM relationship... this is less When Harry Met Sally and more, er, Secretary. I was so involved in this read that I wasn't actually surprised when Gable starts literally spanking her:


    So, uh, yeah, unless she's got a submissive streak, it's not quite clear what Ellie is getting out of all this. At times there's a palpable disconnect between what she seems to want and what she's actually getting in Peter: at one point in the film, she lets her guard down and reveals that she's always felt trapped and stifled by her domineering father. One begins to wonder, at this juncture, whether the film is even aware that what Ellie appears to be doing is swapping out one domineering man for another. (The scene seems intended to be heartwarming, but it actually just struck me as tragic.)

    The film's not without its strengths: it has a handful of charming moments, and the storyline is by far the strongest of the last four films we've watched (its three-act structure could be described as "classical"). But the dated gender attitudes really hobble the film. The tide, in some ways, is about to turn: the later, more engaging screwball comedies are not without their feminist qualities, and we're also on the cusp of the noir cycle, whose fatales represent some of the most strong-headed and autonomous female characters from this era. (Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that the films from the noir cycle are all that progressive: certainly many of them also manifest a great interest in controlling the feminine. This'll be the lens we'll use to kick off our look at next week's pick, The Maltese Falcon (1941).)

    Labels: , , ,

     

    Tuesday, November 18, 2008
    9:10 AM
    1 comments

     


     
         

     
         

    2011 archive >>

    2010 >>

    2009 >>

    2008 >>

    2007 >>

    2006 >>

    2005 >>

    2004 >>

    2003 >>

    2002 >>

    rss (xml)