jump to navigation

backtracking a bit… April 6, 2007

Posted by kelly in wild things.
add a comment

I just saw a program on VH1 that had to do with Hollywood sex scenes. It included a brief clip where Kevin Bacon said that his frontal nudity in Wild Things wasn’t intentional. It just so happened that the best shot included the frontal shot, and they called him while they were editing to O.K. the inclusion of it. I just thought this was interesting considering we spoke at such length about it and why it was included in a film with so many shots of naked females.

Women & the Law March 14, 2007

Posted by kelly in 9 to 5, Thelma and Louise, wild things.
add a comment

Thinking about a lot of the films we’ve watched recently, it seems that many of the women who feel failed by the law decide to take it into their own hands. As someone pointed out in class, Louise shot a man not out of self defense, but out of rage and frustration with his actions and words. She knew that he would never be prosecuted for his treatment of women, and so she decided to carry out her own “brand of justice.” After realizing that the law will never protect them, Thelma and Louise embark on a mini-spree of other crimes including blowing up a fuel truck after its driver makes distasteful comments to them. While these actions are extreme, we cheer the women on because we believe these men deserve it. But do we truly believe that these women should be allowed to live above the law?

In “9-5,” the three main characters are not necessarily failed by the law, but the system. Dolly Parton has to endure the sexual harassment of her boss, who can be compared to Harlan of “Thelma and Louise,” while Violet is constantly overlooked because of her sex. Once again, although it happens (more…)

the male gaze in Wild Things February 18, 2007

Posted by Wasik in "the gaze", wild things.
add a comment

On Thursday, we discussed how Wild Things is a ‘gazefest’, and very consciously plays with Mulvey’s idea that film, and specifically the actual camera, reinforces patriarchal societal structures by placing the viewer in the male gaze. Mulvey says that the viewer watches the movie both for scopophilia (the pleasure of looking at another person as a sexual object), and because he or she identifies in some way with the protagonist(s). Wild Things intentionally addresses Mulvey’s explanation from the very beginning by guiding the viewer to identify first with Lombardo, and then Kevin Bacon’s character. At the end, however, this traditional identification with the male characters (and objectification of women, mainly Denise Richards) is turned completely on its head when we find out that Neve Campbell is the mastermind behind the murder.

In class, someone mentioned that although the intent of the ending was to subvert this traditional idea that the camera reflected the male gaze, it ultimately failed because the film’s structure did not effectively manage to reflect this subversion. However, I disagree and would like to argue that the attempt was successful. It is true that the camera is never directly equivalent to Neve Campbell (as it is in the beginning with Lombardo, or in the lesbian pool scene with Kevin Bacon). But I consider the last image of Neve, controlling the sailboat and sailing to victory in her one-piece, as a viable display of female power. We can wish that she were not dressed in a bathing suit at all, but something less sexy– but such conservatism would only be pandering to the idea that every time a woman wears skimpy clothing she becomes a sexual object (which I guess is up for debate…) The moment of power reversal in the film is meant to be abrupt, and the explanation is an afterthought given in between end credits on purpose, because the Neve’s power is meant to shock the viewer, leave him/her in disbelief, and rethink the plot. I think the ending succeeds because its suddenness forces us to think about point of view within film; asking it to do more, and change structurally to reflect or better explain its message, is overly demanding. I think the ending is meant to raise an issue, and not really do much about it– which is fine. I guess pointedly making an entire film situating the viewer in the female gaze would be the next step…