Celluloid dreaming
September 27th 2010 00:56
Did you enjoy watching Gemma Arterton in Prince of Persia: Sands of Time? I hope so, because after her next movie, you will probably not be seeing her so much any more. She had the temerity to criticize Hollywood in an interview; and despite how loudly so many of the town’s leading lights railed against the Bush administration’s alleged chilling of free speech, they take very poorly to any suggestion they are anything less than perfect.
In fact, they take especially poorly to suggestions like Arterton’s, which have the unfortunate distinction of being true. Her comments on the industry’s reliance on gratuitous sexualization and retrogressive archetypes of women's roles in society can be confirmed easily. And while it's true that there are other TV shows and movies right now that have women in non-traditional employment and social situations, there are few TV shows and movies that portray those characters in a neutral and equal manner. That is, most of the scripts draw undue, often negative, attention to the gender of the character, and make use of damaging stereotypes about professional women. Think of any of the episodes of Bones where they are out on a case, someone they’re interviewing is carrying a baby, and Brennan starts talking about her biological clock.
Wait a minute. Isn’t society as a whole still trying to deal with these kinds of issues, meaning that the makers are just caught in the same circles as everyone else, or at most trying to appeal to what people expect? This may explain some of my and Arterton’s observations, but there are far too many instances for it to be the entire story. Besides, when exactly have TV and film writers and producers ever been shy about putting their own opinions in their products? For example, the Prince of Persia: Sands of Time movie has allegorical elements which contain barely-veiled attacks on the war in Iraq and the Bush administration in general.
We tend to expect that because the entertainment industry generally leans to the left on political issues, that most or all of its members must also be relatively liberal on social issues. There is actually not really any reason to think so; for one thing, political liberalism and social conservatism is a combination that clearly exists in other parts of society, as Rep. Bart Stupak demonstrated earlier this year. The fact is, Hollywood’s values do not match those of many Americans – just not the ones who historically complained about Hollywood’s values.
In fact, they take especially poorly to suggestions like Arterton’s, which have the unfortunate distinction of being true. Her comments on the industry’s reliance on gratuitous sexualization and retrogressive archetypes of women's roles in society can be confirmed easily. And while it's true that there are other TV shows and movies right now that have women in non-traditional employment and social situations, there are few TV shows and movies that portray those characters in a neutral and equal manner. That is, most of the scripts draw undue, often negative, attention to the gender of the character, and make use of damaging stereotypes about professional women. Think of any of the episodes of Bones where they are out on a case, someone they’re interviewing is carrying a baby, and Brennan starts talking about her biological clock.
Wait a minute. Isn’t society as a whole still trying to deal with these kinds of issues, meaning that the makers are just caught in the same circles as everyone else, or at most trying to appeal to what people expect? This may explain some of my and Arterton’s observations, but there are far too many instances for it to be the entire story. Besides, when exactly have TV and film writers and producers ever been shy about putting their own opinions in their products? For example, the Prince of Persia: Sands of Time movie has allegorical elements which contain barely-veiled attacks on the war in Iraq and the Bush administration in general.
We tend to expect that because the entertainment industry generally leans to the left on political issues, that most or all of its members must also be relatively liberal on social issues. There is actually not really any reason to think so; for one thing, political liberalism and social conservatism is a combination that clearly exists in other parts of society, as Rep. Bart Stupak demonstrated earlier this year. The fact is, Hollywood’s values do not match those of many Americans – just not the ones who historically complained about Hollywood’s values.
| 66 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
