Gauntlett’s chapter 3, ‘Representations of Gender in the Past’ definitely provoked intriguing thought and little bit of nostalgia. Gauntlett thoroughly details various representations of both men in women in media and the assumed roles they undertook. No matter the genre, the male role was usually some kind of superior physical and/or intellectual specimen. The female opposite was usually the damsel in distress or his comedic counterpart. These clichéd portrayals did not do a very good job of evolving over time. Throughout the decades of evolving technology, media and social definition, the characters on the silver screen retained very gender specific classifications. As an example I’d like to briefly examine the movie Casablanca.
This movie is a classic, loved by generations, and is one of my personal favorites. Three women have lines in this movie. Just three. Gauntlett also talks about the number of female roles in contrast to the number of male characters. These three women can be perfectly summed up in the words: helpless, emotional, dependent etc. Set to take place during WW II, Ingrid Bergman plays the female lead who is torn between two terribly successful, charming men: a) Humphrey Bogart, the alluring expatriate who runs a nightclub and b) her husband, who runs an underground political resistance. She is faced with two options. Staying with Bogart in Casablanca while he runs his bar, or following her husband, living as his support system while he continues in his work. Either option she is catering to the whims of each male lead. In the end she has to be coaxed like a child into getting on the plane with her husband.
Just once I would like to watch Casablanca and see Ingrid Bergmen say, “To hell with both of you.” These characters are all very cut and dry. If she’s not with one guy then she must be with the other. The feminist movement made pretty gigantic strides throughout the mid to late 1900’s. Why did the evolution of women in media not take a significant part in this progress?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am NOT disagreeing with your description of the female characters in Casablanca. They're classic examples of traditional constructions of femininity in nearly every (if not every) respect.
ReplyDeleteBut I do think that the men of Casablanca defy the masculine norms in some pretty striking ways. Of course, Hollywood definitely created (at least) two major lead male types: the woman's lead and the man's lead. I get the sense that women were imagined to be the audience for Casablanca, and so the two male leads strike me as the woman's type male lead. Even though Bogart covers it up with a surly, emotionless facade, we find that he is actually quite sensitive (to the point of playing the victim role in the flashback romance narrative) and resistant to expectations of boorish male behavior. And Laszlo, too, is refined, mild-mannered, and gracious, for all his heroism.
They're not revolutionary--don't get me wrong (and the way they toss Ilsa around like a prize to be accepted or refused is bad, very bad). But neither are they the bestial, macho, robots of 80s action movies, starring Stallone or Schwartzenegger or however you spell it.