To continue my streak of actually posting:
So I watched the prievews for The Dollhouse last night (Joss Whedon’s new project). In my mind Joss has a very mixed and spotty record, particularly with regards to feminism. He gave us Zoe, but simultaneously gave us Buffy. In general on his shows women can be powerful (+), but only if they are simultaneously beautiful (-) and available to men (-). Also possibly self-sacrificing (-), or killed off in depowering clichés (-). I would care less if his shows were not so often held up as feminist pieces, but right now this description is simply to establish that I don’t feel like he has a lot of feminist cred to bank on.
“A Doll’s House”, the play by Henrik Ibsen, has often been called “the first feminist play”, though I would amend that to “the first modern feminist play”. For those who have not read the play, it was a pointed critique of marriage norms and ended with a wife leaving her husband and his conditional love. The title of the show may or may not be a reference to the play. Even if it is, the play was revolutionary, controversial and feminist in 1889. The reference provides only a small boost to the slack I’m willing to cut Joss.
After watching the previews, I have little hope for it. I can imagine only one way for the show to redeem itself: something that shames the audience for watching the show. Which I don’t see happening, since they probably want to have a second season. Even if the people possessing and programming these women are portrayed as “evil”, defeated and destroyed, the two minute trailer has already invited the audience to do exactly the same thing the people in the show are doing: objectify scantily-clad women and project onto them their fantasy. Without a striking condemnation of the audience, there is no way back from that, no feminist rhetoric that can emerge from women-as-fantasy-objects, even if the narrative is that those fantasy objects object to being fantasy objects. Think: “You’re so pretty when you’re angry”.
(Someday I should write about the conformist themes of Toy Story.)
Anyway, this led me to think about my favorite show recently, Deadwood, and why the character of Calamity Jane is so incredibly revolutionary: she is not defined in terms of men.
Neither the character nor the writer (nor the costume designer, the makeup artist or the director) cares one whit about how men see her. She is not defined by being unattractive to men, either, the way other non-sexualized women often are. There is simply nothing about her character’s appearance that even hints at “look at me”. Her relationships are personal or intellectual rather than superficial. Furthermore, she is not portrayed as a semi-man, and is set apart from the hyper-masculinity that permeates other character’s worlds. She simply exists as a woman without being a sexual object (good or bad).
I can think of no other instance of this. Even older women (like Maggie Smith) are defined by how men view them. At best they are defined by how men used to view them (like the old woman in Titanic). This character was created with an (assumingly purposeful) disregard for the male gaze.
It makes me insanely happy, since that’s an option I’d like to have. Men have the option of putting on a kilt and tight shirt, but then they can take them off, put on a suit and become invisible (think Magritte’s paintings). I love that this character simply appropriates that privilege, and does so successfully. I’ve seen it make men squirm (which amuses me), but I’ve also seen men identify with the character in ways that they don’t usually identify with female characters. This gives me hope for feminism in the future.
The Dollhouse appears to be predicated on the idea that this escape from the male gaze is an impossible desire, and unless it explicitly makes this point (and early on before I stop watching) I’m not sure I will be able to forgive it.
“A Doll’s House”, the play by Henrik Ibsen, has often been called “the first feminist play”, though I would amend that to “the first modern feminist play”. For those who have not read the play, it was a pointed critique of marriage norms and ended with a wife leaving her husband and his conditional love. The title of the show may or may not be a reference to the play. Even if it is, the play was revolutionary, controversial and feminist in 1889. The reference provides only a small boost to the slack I’m willing to cut Joss.
After watching the previews, I have little hope for it. I can imagine only one way for the show to redeem itself: something that shames the audience for watching the show. Which I don’t see happening, since they probably want to have a second season. Even if the people possessing and programming these women are portrayed as “evil”, defeated and destroyed, the two minute trailer has already invited the audience to do exactly the same thing the people in the show are doing: objectify scantily-clad women and project onto them their fantasy. Without a striking condemnation of the audience, there is no way back from that, no feminist rhetoric that can emerge from women-as-fantasy-objects, even if the narrative is that those fantasy objects object to being fantasy objects. Think: “You’re so pretty when you’re angry”.
(Someday I should write about the conformist themes of Toy Story.)
Anyway, this led me to think about my favorite show recently, Deadwood, and why the character of Calamity Jane is so incredibly revolutionary: she is not defined in terms of men.
Neither the character nor the writer (nor the costume designer, the makeup artist or the director) cares one whit about how men see her. She is not defined by being unattractive to men, either, the way other non-sexualized women often are. There is simply nothing about her character’s appearance that even hints at “look at me”. Her relationships are personal or intellectual rather than superficial. Furthermore, she is not portrayed as a semi-man, and is set apart from the hyper-masculinity that permeates other character’s worlds. She simply exists as a woman without being a sexual object (good or bad).
I can think of no other instance of this. Even older women (like Maggie Smith) are defined by how men view them. At best they are defined by how men used to view them (like the old woman in Titanic). This character was created with an (assumingly purposeful) disregard for the male gaze.
It makes me insanely happy, since that’s an option I’d like to have. Men have the option of putting on a kilt and tight shirt, but then they can take them off, put on a suit and become invisible (think Magritte’s paintings). I love that this character simply appropriates that privilege, and does so successfully. I’ve seen it make men squirm (which amuses me), but I’ve also seen men identify with the character in ways that they don’t usually identify with female characters. This gives me hope for feminism in the future.
The Dollhouse appears to be predicated on the idea that this escape from the male gaze is an impossible desire, and unless it explicitly makes this point (and early on before I stop watching) I’m not sure I will be able to forgive it.