Today’s discussion on Hansen’s work, specifically in regards to female spectatorship, got me thinking.
I don’t think anyone doubts that the vast majority of films today feature women as their “primary object of spectacle.” What I do have questions about is the extent to which making films that “entail the full range of transformations as proposed by Freud” would really be something which the average female moviegoer would be particularly interested in.
(Alright, I just spent forty-five minutes trying to type my thoughts on the matter in an objective manner, but I’m not getting anywhere. So I’m just going to come out and write it. My apologies to all in advance…)
Let’s face it: the only thing that pisses off a woman more than being hit on is *not* being hit on. There. I’ve said it. And you ladies reading it know its true. Women, as a group, tend to derive great satisfaction from feeling sought-after, as Sarah’s comments in class today demonstrated. Instead of welcoming the role-reversal of a woman approaching a man, she was pissed that the guys “lacked the balls” to approach her.
Which brings me to another point: women like balls. They like guys who are self-confident and assertive. In my experience, confidence is far more important to them than sensitivity. Not that they don’t want sensitivity in a man. Rather, it’s just that in relationships, they’re more likely to put up with a guy who is overly-confident and lacks sensitivity than a guy who is overly-sensitive and lacks confidence.
So how does this relate to the way women view film? Well it goes a long way towards explaining why the standard Hero-Pursuing-Babe model of filmmaking still prevails to this day. I can’t say for certain, but I imagine that instead of feeling objectified and oppressed in relating to the Babe in the film, on some level women genuinely like the idea of some confident Hero going to extraordinary measures on thier behalf.
On what evidence do I base such an assertion?
Three words: The Princess Bride.
I rest my case.