Film/Text/Culture Autoblog -Summer 07

In contemplating yesterday’s class discussion on gender roles in film, and in our culture, I thought about the many ways in which the media uses gender roles to cause a certain type of reaction from their audience. While I still believe that women aggressors in film are often portrayed as “pathetic,” I found that film, and television in particular uses gender reversal as a sort of comic effect.
Think of most of the popular television sitcoms from the last decade. Many of them use the role of the “strong woman” as a punch line. “Everybody Loves Raymond” is one of my all time favorites but much of the comic effect comes from the central female character (Deborah) calling her husband an “idiot,” or “moron.” This is not a new phenomenon either. As we saw in “The Glass Key,” Veronica Lake’s character punches Alan Ladd in the […]

Original post by ellie

In Valentino’s films if a woman looks with interest at a man first, she is a vamp.  The traditional gender roles the women are the ones who should be pursued, while the men are the ones who will do the pursuing.  Is this still the dominant way of thinking even in today’s movies?  In a Romantic Comedy (aka: A Chick Flick), boy meets girl and they fall in love.  Most of today’s romantic comedies display the traditional gender roles, typically the boy sees the girl first and then the pursuit begins.  An example of this is seen in “10 Things I Hate About You” when Cameron sees Bianca first and the pursuit begins.  Bianca continuously blows Cameron off, until she finally realizes that Cameron is worth dating (but that’s not till the end of the movie)… so throughout the movie you see Cameron trying his best to impress her.

The switched […]

Original post by Amanda

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 […]

Original post by crain2mn

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 […]

Original post by crain2mn

I must say, this FTC Day rocked. Very hard. Totally enjoyed it, especially the themes of gender equality, especially especially the Rudolph Valentino angle. Always thought he was incredibly interesting–well, more the polarizing effect he had on the early filmgoing population before his early death.
However, my chosen subject of blog tonight (this evening?) relates to our discussion of book versus film, and how the strengths and weaknesses of each affect their overall storytelling capabilities. In particular, how the ability of a book to manipulate description, both in terms of how long it lasts in the overall narrative, and how it contributes to the reader’s mental image of the story progressing, compares to a film’s technique of using a single visual shot that takes a split second and leaves nothing to the imagination. Now, from here proceeds a complicated Annie train of thought. Try to follow along…
From that beginning, I […]

Original post by anniek

I know that it was probably blasphemous (especially in a film class) to speak negatively of Katharine Hepburn. I have been watching old movies since I can remember, and I think the first movie I saw her in was one of her movies with Spencer Tracy. From a young age I can remember something about her was off-putting to me. I’m sorry to say it is so (and I make no judgments on her acting ability) I just have a hard time with her mannerisms, that’s all. Okay, I will stop talking about Katharine Hepburn (I’m sure I’ve angered enough people already) and move on.
Ah, Little Women. Before this class I had already seen both the 1933 and 1949 movie versions of this wonderful book. However, when I watched these movies I had not just finished the book and did not watch them back […]

Original post by kcannon

After our last class discussion I went home and did a little research on Ms. Katharine Hepburn…or Kate as she preferred to be called. I knew that she was considered one of the greatest actresses to ever grace the silver screen, but I wanted to find out a little more about Katharine Hepburn, the person. To be honest, I was a little surprised at how many people in the class were not impressed by her performance in “Little Women.” After rewatching it, I found it to be quite an honest portrayal of the character Jo March. I will admit that Hepburn could be loud, and maybe a little over the top at times throughout the film; however, when I read Little Women, that’s exactly how I imagined Jo to be…loud, and boisterous; not caring what anyone thought of her…that, to me was Jo March. In […]

Original post by ellie

 
The 1949 version of “Little Women” has to be my least favorite of all the “Little Women” movies.  June Allyson (Jo) is irritating, annoying… there were points during the movie that I just wanted to scream at her… of course, that would be pointless, considering it’s a movie and they can’t exactly hear me.  The fact that Beth was placed as the youngest and Amy the second youngest bothers me as well, I don’t care what excuse the producers would come up with if I asked them why… I felt like killing off the youngest daughter seems so much more horrible than killing off the second to youngest daughter.  Why? It’s always sad when a child dies in a movie, it’s not nearly as sad when an adult (or even some one in their adolescence) dies in a movie.

Original post by Amanda

Apparently Little Women was reimagined as a pulp fiction novel, I’m guessing in the 50’s when smut got big.  I’ll do some research, but for now I just really enjoy this cover.

Original post by cdame2of