jcr@mitre-bedford (07/24/85)
From: jcr@Mitre-Bedford Peter Reiher (ucla-cs!reiher@topaz.arpa) writes: > > Anyone else out there > think that Steven Spielberg is a sexist? > > ... > > Only in "Poltergeist" did Spielberg give us > important female characters. The female parts in "Raiders" and > "Close Encounters" weren't too bad, but they were definitely > supporting roles. > Y'know, Peter, you're right. And even in "Poltergeist," the major female roles were quite traditional -- one, a housewife & mother, the other, basically a witch. However, there was one other female role, not so traditional -- one of the psychic researchers was a woman (in fact, she seemed to be the leader of the group). But, as I recall, the sexuality of her role was hardly one of its dominant features. Look at the female roles in "Close Encounters" -- both mothers. True, one is apparently single, but yet it is she for whom the 'mothering' aspect is more strongly emphasized; throughout the film she is driven by her maternal impulses. 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? So if Spielberg is trying to emulate these traditional pictures, then even Karen Allen's role in "Raiders" fits right into the pattern. The spunky, tomboyish, yet beautiful-when-she-finally- puts-a-dress-on girl has a long history in pulp fiction. What do you think? Regards, Jeff Rogers jcr@Mitre-Bedford.ARPA