reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (08/03/85)
From: Peter Reiher <reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU> Jeff Rogers writes: >But I have to wonder: is Spielberg being consciously sexist here, or >is what we are interpreting as sexism merely a side effect of his >habit of making very traditional movies? After all, isn't he trying >to bring to the screens of the eighties the sorts of adventure >stories he loved to see and read when he was a child? (Which was -- >fifties? forties?) And a LOT of fiction and film produced back then, >especially juvenile & light adventure stuff, and Disney, was filled >with very cultural-norm-affirming backgrounds, right? I don't think that Spielberg is a pernicious sexist with any conscious desire to downgrade women or "keep them in their place". He is emulating old Hollywood traditions in many of his films, it's true, and the Hollywood adventure films of the thirties, forties, and fifties had some fairly strict traditions about female roles. Olivia de Havilland had to be rescued by Errol Flynn, she couldn't escape herself or, heaven forbid, pick up a rapier and start dueling Basil Rathbone. The major difference was that, in the old Hollywood days, there were counterbalancing influences, other films which offered at least some actresses strong, independent roles. For instance, most of the films of Marlene Dietrich and Greta Garbo and Katherine Hepburn. Oddly enough, there were probably better female role models in cinema back in those days than there are today. Relatively few women are really big stars today, performers who can get a picture made pretty much because they will appear in it. No longer do we regularly see films which are vehicles for actresses. Instead, the actresses usually play supporting roles to actors. There are, of course, exceptions, but not enough of them. As I said, Spielberg probably isn't intentionally keeping women out of his films, but his more or less benign neglect is more harmful to the cause of sexual equality than several platoons of sexist construction workers who whistle at all passing women and brag about keeping the little woman in the kitchen. Spielberg's films annually gross more than the GNP of some nations, which means a lot of people see them. Since they are well-made, their large audiences are likely to be influenced by them. If his films carry the implied message that interesting things never happen to women, that they are just sideline spectators to all the real fun, we cannot be too surprised if some of that message rubs off on the younger, more impressionable members of the audience. Since Spielberg's films are so influential, I feel he should be scrupulously careful in the messages he conveys. He seems to be feeling some pressures (of conscience, perhaps, or maybe just external), because his next film, "The Color Purple", has a female protagonist who is also black, as is almost all the cast. (The discussion seems to be digressing from sf related topics. If anyone wants to continue it, perhaps Usenet users should post to net.movies (or net.women) instead, and Arpanet users should settle for private mail.) Peter Reiher reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher