In their discussion of post-feminism, both Banet-Weiser and McRobbie bring up the idea of the irony that arises in the conversation about representation and objectification of women in the media. “Much of contemporary advertising and popular culture uses a particular kind of irony when representing women, as if to suggest that the "problem" of objectification of women's bodies is one of history; women "get it" about objectification, and became of this understanding it is acceptable-indeed, even ironically empowering-to objectify women's bodies in the most blatantly demeaning way” (Banet-Weiser 211). Essentially, because women are aware of their own objectification, they are either not surprised when it happens and accept it for what it is, or they use their awareness of their objectification to take control of their image (essentially choosing objectify themselves), thereby restoring their agency.
McRobbie gives the example of Claudia Schiffer who in 1998 modeled for an advertisement where she “took off her clothes as she descended a flight of stairs in a luxury mansion on her way out of the door towards her new Citreon car” (McRobbie 260). She goes on to say that this advertisement, while initially criticized for being sexist, actually shows no exploitation because Claudia appears nude in the commercial as a choice for her own enjoyment. “There is nothing remotely naïve about this striptease” (McRobbie 259).
This really got me thinking about two films in particular: Bombshell and Blonde. Both were regarded by many audiences as well-made films, but both also received backlash for the way women were objectified, especially when portrayed through a male gaze. For those who haven’t seen it, Bombshell is based on the true story of the women who worked for Fox News and other stations who stood up against the network executive Roger Ailes who was sexually harassing them. Blonde is a almost entirely fictional story about Marilyn Monroe. (I put “almost entirely fictional” in bold because many people who watch the film don’t do their research to realize that it’s based on a fictional book in which author Joyce Carol Oates gives an extremely fictionalized take on what Marilyn Monroe’s life may have been like.). Both films about female lead characters, both films directed by men, and both films with many shots that objectify the female characters, whether it’s the classic tilt up from a woman’s feet to her head (while she is wearing only underwear and a see-through shirt) or shots from between someone’s legs, practically looking up her skirt.
And as I watched both films, I couldn’t help but think why did we need that? What is that adding to the story, how is that helping us understand the characters? You could argue that it’s trying to diminish the women and show their character’s vulnerability during scenes that were incredibly uncomfortable and vulnerable. But as a filmmaker, I feel there are many other ways to achieve that without objectifying the women. Why did the male directors have to film it like this?
Furthermore, I think back to McRobbie’s article and her idea of ironic empowerment. When the actresses who signed onto these rolls were first brought onboard, did they know this was how they would be filmed? Did they choose this? I read somewhere that Ana de Armas was very proud of the work she did in Blonde as Marilyn Monroe. So perhaps this was her choice and maybe there is no exploitation at all. But as a viewer it certainly does not feel that way. It’s uncomfortable and gross (exactly as the filmmaker intended it) but in a way that feels violating. And unlike Claudia Schiffer who on screen chose to remove her clothes and powerfully walked down the stairs to the car, the Marilyn Monroe character in Blonde is never portrayed as being strong or powerful, and she certainly never seemed to have a choice in what she did. If the actor was proud to do it, but the character portrayed was embarrassed and ashamed, what does that make this?
It's clearly not as simple as we may think it is. And while I have about a million more questions I could propose, I will instead leave it at this. I wonder if what it really comes down to is story. Maybe we are more willing to accept and move towards this form of ironic empowerment through objectification when it's actually for the benefit of telling a female-empowering story.
No comments:
Post a Comment