Theresa Basile

How I Met Your Heteronormativity

Posted on November 22, 2011 by Theresa Basile

Once upon a time, there was a character named Robin Scherbatsky on a sitcom called How I Met Your Mother. Robin was different from a lot of female characters people saw on television. She didn’t want to get married or have children. She considered her career as a journalist of paramount importance. She valued her independence and friendships above romance. While she did want a romantic relationship, she didn’t want the same kind of relationship that her friends Marshall and Lily had.

Above all, Robin wanted her life to be an adventure.

Now, in 2011, Robin is on the way to having her dream job, in a serious researcher position at a news organization she always wanted to work for. But we’d never know it, because the only time we ever see her at work is when she’s stewing in jealousy about Barney’s relationship with Nora. And even though she has a great job and finally seems to be on the career path she’s always wanted for herself, she describes herself as a “complete mess.” She’s so insecure, in fact, that she’s willing to stay in a relationship with a guy that she doesn’t love, rather than the guy she wanted so badly that she pathetically pined for him under her desk at work, simply because she wants to BE loved.

And last night, she dropped the bomb onto Barney’s head: she’s pregnant.

Can I count the number of reasons why that storyline bothers the crap out of me? Let me try:

1) It would appear that condoms are approximately 50% less effective on television shows than they are in real life.

2) I imagine that the show is setting up a minor “who’s the father?” mystery. Is it Barney, the other contracted character on the show who has been set up multiple times as Robin’s ideal partner? Or is it Kevin, the new character played by the guest star who’s likely contracted to just a handful of episodes? GEE, I WONDER.

3) If Kevin is the father, then the storyline is at a dead end. It will either be a false alarm or end in a miscarriage. I don’t see the point of making Robin have a miscarriage, and a false alarm has no story potential.

4) Robin, as written so far, would definitely have an abortion if she got pregnant. There’s no way the show is going down that route. Of course, I also think Robin as written would be more careful with contraceptives in the first place, but I guess that’s a moot point now.

5) I think I can see where this storyline is going. I think I finally understand why Robin has been so insecure and irrational lately. See, she finally has the career that she’s always wanted, but there’s something still missing from her life. She’s finally realized that having a career and good friends and adventure isn’t enough. She wants something better, something more. And this unexpected pregnancy will turn out to be a wonderful blessing that will lead to her marrying Barney and finally discovering what truly matters in life and whoooooooops I just barfed all over my keyboard.

Clearly, all that stuff Robin once said about Marshall being a “love snob,” and proclaiming that there are many different ways of being in love, was all just an insecure girl fronting because she didn’t have what Marshall and Lily have. Clearly, the relationship between Marshall and Lily (and Ted and Your Mother) is truly the only way to be in love after all: marriage and babies ahoy! And people who proclaim that they’re not interested in marriage and children really just aren’t ready for it.

Thanks, How I Met Your Mother writers. Thanks for degrading an independent female character to a hot mess of insecurities who doesn’t know what she wants anymore. I thought we were – heavens forbid! – finally have a female character on a network sitcom stick to her decision not to have children, but now I don’t have to worry anymore. Yay.

(Though, I suppose it isn’t quite fair of me to call this post How I Met Your Heteronormativity, as we also see Barney’s brother James in a committed, married relationship with kids. Even though you seem to think that the “marriage n kids” formula is the only way to have a meaningful romantic relationship, you at least allow same-sex couples that same rigidity.)

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged how i met your mother, i want to like it but..., tv reviews | 16 Comments

Battle of the Evil Queens

Posted on November 21, 2011 by Theresa Basile

Sometimes, two movies starring women will be released at about the same time, or at least a few months apart from each other. Often, these two movies will be lumped together or compared to each other even if they have very little in common. (I’m thinking here of the critics that loved to compare What’s Your Number? to Bridesmaids even though the only common thread was a female protagonist who was a bridesmaid at a wedding.) And I roll my eyes and lament the fact that critics and audiences always want to pit women against each other.

But, er, sometimes two movies that are released at around the same time really are just that similar with extremely SAME premises and comparisons are just inevitable.

Apparently, movie producers decided that 2012 was a year that needed not one, but two retellings of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

In June, the world will be introduced to Snow White and the Huntsman, starring Rita the MRF from Arrested Development, the guy named Hemsworth who’s not in The Hunger Games, and the actress who probably wants to distance herself from Bella Swan and Twilight as soon as possible, thank you very much:

BUT. If you don’t want to wait that long to see an adaptation, you can also check out Mirror, Mirror, starring an actress with whom I am vaguely familiar…I think she was in Hook as Tinker Bell…

Based on these trailers, these two films are vastly different in terms of tone. But in terms of premise, we can see that both movies:

1) Downplay the role of the seven dwarfs by either eliminating them entirely or making them secondary to the queen.

2) Downplay even more the role of the prince. In Snow White and the Hunstman he doesn’t appear to be in the story at all, and in Mirror, Mirror, he’s the queen’s prisoner.

3) Re-imagine Snow White as a warrior princess, one seeming to defend herself and the other seeming to rescue a brainwashed prince.

4) Choose to showcase the Evil Queen far more prominently in the trailers than they showcase Snow White. This is even true in Snow White and the Huntsman, where the title character doesn’t even speak during the trailer.

As a feminist, I’m probably supposed to cheer on these new adaptations of an old story, because look! They gave Snow White a less passive role! She’s a warrior now and can kick some serious ass! The one in Mirror, Mirror even made a point about saving the prince instead of following the old story!

And yet, despite that, both trailers have me rooting for the Evil Queen. Charlize Theron and Julia Roberts look like they’re having such fun playing evil characters that I find myself agreeing with them. “You go, girl! Smack down that snotty little upstart and hold onto your throne!”

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged movies | 7 Comments

The Appeal of Edward Cullen

Posted on November 18, 2011 by Theresa Basile

So. I hear there’s a new Twilight movie coming out today. It’s called Breaking Dawn, Part 1, because it doesn’t matter that the book barely has enough plot for one movie, let alone two – the Twihards are going to buy those tickets and they probably wish there was a Breaking Dawn, Part 3 in the works.

I find the Twilight phenomenon fascinating. More than Harry Potter, it causes polarizing reactions in its readers/viewers, from the people who will camp out for tickets to the ones who will mock it so scathingly that I cringe.

The Twilight backlash has become so strong that hating on Twilight is the new Twilight. There are people who savor the negative movie reviews simply because they’re amused, but there are also the people who take hating Twilight to a new art form, far beyond ironic detachment and into an area of boiling rage that make the biggest Twihards seem comparatively reasonable.

I think I find the phenomenon so amusing because I fall somewhere in between the “Twihard” and “anti-Twihard” category. I read all four books and groaned through every one, telling myself, “This stuff is SO BAD. Just one more chapter before I go to bed.” I didn’t like the writing and I hated all of the characters (save Bella’s dad, and Jacob in the first two books), but there was something extremely compelling and irresistible about them. The characters are unsympathetic, the prose amateurish, and yet, something about the series manages to capture the essence of an intoxicating first love.

Anyway, a feminist blog that talks about Twilight is eventually going to turn to the subject of Edward Cullen, the teenage girl’s latest favorite stalker vampire. (I prefer Stefan Salvatore and Spike as my favorite stalker vampires, but I digress.)

A lot of feminists, with good reasons, have a problem with Edward Cullen. Why?

1) Edward can read everyone’s mind except Bella’s, and this is one thing that makes him attracted to her. So he climbs into her bedroom in the middle of the night and listens to her talk in her sleep. THIS IS STALKER BEHAVIOR.

2) Edward doesn’t trust Bella around Jacob, so he dismantles her car and has his sister Alice hold her hostage so she can’t go see him. THIS IS OVERPROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR.

3) In several of the books, Edward speaks incredibly condescendingly to Bella and doubts everything she says or does. Edward shows a consistent lack of faith in Bella to make decisions for herself about her body, her friendships, her relationship, and her future.

In short: Edward’s the worst.

Someone on YouTube even spliced together a few scenes of Edward Cullen talking to Buffy Summers as part of an effort to expose Edward’s creepiness:

It’s really good…if you ignore the context.

While Buffy Summers is a much better character than Bella Swan, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer is so much better than Twilight, this video would have you believe that Buffy would see right through Edward Cullen’s crap and both rebuff his advances and kill him. That’s very nice in theory, but I’ve watched all seven seasons of the show, and most of the lines Buffy directs to Edward are lines that she directs to people she either has slept with, or will be sleeping with very soon. No, Buffy (at least in high school) would have completely fallen for Edward.

The question is – why? Why do teenage girls and even adult women fall for this overprotective, creepy, condescending stalker douche?

I could talk about Edward in the context of the creepy cultural narratives about romance and love, but I’d rather look at him from a different angle, because despite his overprotective, creepy, condescending, stalkery, douchey behavior, he has one quality that I find very appealing.

Edward never pressures Bella for sex.

Sure, he does it in the most condescending way possible. Sure, he doesn’t trust Bella to be in control of her own emotions, and he’s an extreme puritan about sexual encounters. But Bella’s never going to have to worry that Edward will try to pressure her into sex, or take sex when she says no, or ever put her into a sexual situation that will make her uncomfortable.

We live in a country where 1 out of 6 women are sexually assaulted (and that’s only counting the rapes that are reported), where men and women alike are socialized to think that men do or should want sex all the time (leading to countless misunderstandings), where men are socialized to ignore women’s “nos.”

Edward is never going to ignore Bella’s “no.” Bella doesn’t say “no,” but if she did, he wouldn’t push the issue.

For all of Edward Cullen’s negative qualities – and boy, does he have them – he has a very appealing, irresistible quality to teenage girls who are just discovering their sexual desires and feeling a strange mix of intense curiosity and intense fear about sex. He desires Bella and wants her more than he’s wanted anything, but he’s never, ever going to push a physical connection that she’s not ready to experience.

I can easily imagine why that one quality would go a long way in making Edward Cullen irresistible to a young female gaze.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged buffy the vampire slayer, movies | 23 Comments

On Rape Jokes

Posted on November 16, 2011 by Theresa Basile

[Massive trigger warning for this entire post.]

If you look at my About page, you’ll see the mission statement for this blog: “The Funny Feminist is a way for me to explore my two opposing life philosophies: that everyone should be more sensitive to others, and everyone should lighten up and not take life seriously all of the time.”

Nowhere do these two life philosophies contradict each other more sharply than on the subject of rape jokes. Not that I think people should “lighten up” when it comes to rape jokes, and I would never tell another survivor that s/he was being “too sensitive,” but I wondered if there was a way to joke about it in a sensitive manner.

I didn’t want to write about rape jokes because it’s a very triggering subject and I’m still processing how I feel about the subject, but an article entitled “Female Comedians, Breaking the Taste-Taboo Ceiling” appeared in yesterday’s issue of The New York Times, and
I simply couldn’t keep mum on the subject anymore. I have to write about it even though my opinion is still not fully formed.

The article, written by Jason Zinoman, talks about how female comedians are breaking taboos and joking about things that used to be considered “off-topic” for women. Now, they’re joking about the same subjects that men joke about.

I like that taboo-breaking in theory. In practice, my feelings on the subject are very mixed, especially when you look at the subjects that women are choosing to joke about.

Anyway, this article gives me a perfect opportunity to talk through my feelings about rape jokes. Continue reading →

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged comedians, language, taboo, writing | 40 Comments

“I want to like it, but…”: Parks and Recreation

Posted on November 15, 2011 by Theresa Basile

Parks and Recreation is a brilliant feminist show and everyone should watch it.

This is what I have been told, anyway.

Parks and Recreation is a sitcom with a lead female character who is both a) good at her job and b) a warm, kind person who doesn’t fall into the “impersonal career woman” stereotype. Better yet, she’s a character who is openly feminist – a rarity on television in general, much less sitcoms.

Parks and Recreation is also a sitcom with a core female friendship between Leslie Knope and Ann Perkins, a friendship that doesn’t have the two women competing with each other or sniping at each other every other episode.

Parks and Recreation is also a sitcom that doesn’t rely on people being mean and vicious to each other, only to have a heel face turn in the last five minutes of the show (*cough* Glee *cough*).

For all of those reasons, I should love it. Right?

I’ve tried watching the show. At this point, I’ve seen about seven episodes in total, mostly from seasons two and four. Some of it’s charming. Some of it makes me chuckle. But every time I watch, no matter how much I feel I’m supposed to love it, I just…don’t. I don’t know if the show has ever made me laugh out loud.

I’ve tried to identify why the show just doesn’t do it for me. I may just be tired of the mockumentary format after I spent a fair amount of summer 2010 catching up on six seasons of The Office.

I may find the show too similar to The Office and maybe that style of humor doesn’t appeal to me much anymore.

It may be that I find Tom Haverford really, really annoying, and not funny-annoying, or “ha, let’s all laugh at how superficial and obnoxious he is!” annoying, but straight up annoying, to the point where I cringe and want to stick my fingers in my ears every time he opens his mouth.

It may be that I find April similarly obnoxious, and though I know I’m supposed to find her amusingly deadpan, I just look at her and see a rude brat.

It may be that Rashida Jones irritated the hell out of me on The Office and I like her just fine on Parks and Recreation, but I can’t tell whether that’s a credit to Parks and Rec for writing her a more interesting character, or if it’s a problem that Rashida Jones is only the third-most annoying cast member on a sitcom. (Keep in mind that I’m talking about performances here; I’m not bashing her on a personal level.)

Again, I appreciate that the show doesn’t take pot shots at any character and treats them all like people, but the only ones I have consistently liked are Ron Swanson and Andy – and Donna, but she doesn’t have as much to do. That’s simply not a good cast balance and a far cry from Community, where I love every single member of the study group even on their worst days.

I don’t wish the show ill. I hope it continues to be successful. I have a lot of friends who enjoy it, I want the cast and crew to remain employed, and I really like that this world has a popular sitcom with a likable, openly feminist character.

Now the world just has to come up with a popular sitcom with a likable, openly feminist character that I actually want to watch.

It’s not a bad show. I just can’t get excited about it either way. When I’m supposed to be laughing, I find myself saying a Shirley Bennett-like “That’s nice.” And that’s not something I want from a sitcom.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged i want to like it but... | 16 Comments

Romantic Comedy Repeat Offenders

Posted on November 11, 2011 by Theresa Basile

I’m still putting together my ideas for next year’s “The Rom-Com Project,” and I’ve received many helpful and interesting comments from readers (thanks!) One in particular intrigued me and got me thinking about how I want to structure this project.

From APgeeksout:

“It might be interesting to take together a group with the same leading lady – there’s a handful starring Katherine Hepburn and Meg Ryan and Julia Roberts and Katherine Heigl and probably someone(s) else I’ve overlooked on your list. There are probably enough to make a themed month of “repeat offenders” (or something less judgmental that I’m too bleary to come up with, considering that some of the movies are actually quite good, and all of these actresses are working in a system that’s structured to offer them a fairly narrow set of roles).”

That comment got me thinking, and it occurred to me that, if I wanted to, I could base the entire year around the “repeat offenders.”

You know which actresses I’m talking about – the ones who star in rom-com after rom-com, occasionally taking time off to do a more serious or quirky film for which they receive critical acclaim, only to go back to making formulaic movies. (Then, they get reviled or criticized for not doing more interesting movies more often, as though there are just so many roles outside the formulaic rom-com genre for these women to do and it’s their fault for not trying hard enough.) The ones who make their name for primarily doing romantic comedies.

I’m thinking of Julia Roberts. Meg Ryan. Jennifer Aniston. Sandra Bullock. Kate Hudson. Katherine Heigl. Reese Witherspoon. Jennifer Lopez. Or some of the more “classic” romantic comedy leading women like Katherine Hepburn or Audrey Hepburn.

When you look at the above list, you’ll notice that about half those actresses have Oscar nominations or even wins. Yet despite that fact, I don’t think Julia Roberts is going to go down in film history for her performance in Erin Brockovich, and Reese Witherspoon isn’t going to be largely remembered for Walk the Line. I don’t mean to diminish their accomplishments or deride their performances in said movies. (I haven’t even seen Erin Brockovich, so I can’t comment on that.) I’m only pointing out that the public perception of these actresses is that they’re primarily Romantic Comedy Leading Ladies.

I also thought of adding Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz onto the list but ultimately decided against it – I get the sense (perhaps inaccurately) that they’re known more for being primarily comic actresses who do some romantic comedies.

Then again, the romantic comedy genre also has its share of leading men that are reused over and over again – Matthew McConaughey, Hugh Grant, Patrick Dempsey (as of late, anyway), just to name a few.

I don’t think it would be worth my time to spend a whole year focusing on a different leading lady a month. So many of their movies have very similar plots. But it might be interesting to look at the different character types that these actresses play and do a compare/contrast.

For instance, Julia Roberts has two distinct settings: America’s Sweetheart Julia and Sassy Brassy Julia. Sandra Bullock has Tough Bitch Sandy and Daffy Awkward Sandy (and Miss Congeniality seemed to combine those two character types into one). Meg Ryan has Cute and Trying Way Too Hard to Be Cute.

And what of the older, classic stars? What types do Katherine Hepburn and Audrey Hepburn play? (I’m asking honestly, as I’ve seen very few of their films. My knowledge of the “classics” is limited to the bigger Oscar-bait movies, not the classic rom-coms.) Is there a big difference between the character archetypes from the Hepburn/Marilyn Monroe days and the ones we see today? Is the Manic Pixie Dream Girl archetype fairly new, or has the MPDG existed since the old days, and we just call it by a different name?

(As an aside, it kind of bums me out that the MPDG was coined in a review of Elizabethtown to describe Kirsten Dunst’s character; I feel the MPDG trope is the exception, not the rule, in Kirsten Dunst’s career.)

Anyway, I wonder if I should spend just one month on the different Leading Ladies of Romantic Comedies, or if I should spread them out in different months. Decisions, decisions.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged movies, the rom-com project | 5 Comments

The Rom-Com Project: Paired Movies

Posted on November 9, 2011 by Theresa Basile

Between blog comments and personal emails, I have received about 100 suggestions for romantic comedies to watch for the Rom-Com project. I received an interesting mix of “I want you to see this movie because I loved it!” suggestions, “I want you to see this movie because I hated it!” suggestions, and “I want you to see this movie because I haven’t seen it yet, but I’m curious” suggestions.

I thought about organizing the list of movies in chronological order to do a “Romantic Comedies Over Time” study, but now I have another idea.

Instead of watching and analyzing these movies in isolation, I’d like to do a “paired movies” project, where each week, I’d watch two movies with similar themes and do a compare/contrast.

I thought about doing a compare/contrast analysis about movies with similar themes from different time periods. For example, I think watching Zeffirelli’s The Taming of the Shrew and the updated 10 Things I Hate About You could make for an interesting analysis. Same with an adaptation of Emma vs. Clueless. The two movies don’t even have to be adaptations or updates of each other, just have a similar theme.

I also thought about doing a “mainstream vs. indie” compare/contrast – two movies with a similar theme/plot, one of which was a mainstream hit, the other being a direct-to-DVD movie or a little-seen gem. Think Community‘s comparison between Can’t Buy Me Love and Love Don’t Cost a Thing as one example (you know, with Can’t Buy Me Love being the remake for white audiences, according to Troy).

Leap-frogging off of that idea, I wouldn’t mind pairing movies with similar plots told from different perspectives – a man/woman/man love triangle vs. a woman/man/woman love triangle, with both movies told from the perspective of the person in the middle. (Or a movie with a love triangle of three men, or three women, or a movie with a bisexual character in love with both a man and a woman.)

There are also the “love from the opposite side of the tracks” movies when the main characters come from different backgrounds – the rich girl/poor boy stories and the rich boy/poor girl stories, the white/non-white pairings, the May-December romances where the age difference is an Issue.

Then I thought about expanding the project to include monthly themes. One month for movies about non-heterocentric romances. One month for foreign language romantic comedies. One month for disability in romantic comedies. One month for romantic comedies centering on people who aren’t white. One month for movies about deception, or movies where one of the characters is deliberately deceiving a potential romantic partner where the deception is played for laughter. And so on, and so on.

I want this project to be good, so I need your help once again. I’d love suggestions for paired movies, paired themes, paired monthly themes – any suggestion you have would be much appreciated.You can look at the list of suggestions that I’ve posted below as a reference, or suggest different movies entirely. Thanks. Continue reading →

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged the rom-com project | 20 Comments

An Apology for Every Occasion

Posted on November 7, 2011 by Theresa Basile

Hey, remember when Tracy Morgan made those violent homophobic jokes in one of his stand-up routines? Remember when Jennifer Aniston said that she dressed up for a living “like a retard?” Remember when Mel Gibson made extremely violent, racist, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic comments? Remember when (hee hee) Scott Adams compared rape to cannibalism and said that anyone who criticized him was a bully? Remember when (sob) Johnny Depp said that having his photograph taken was akin to being raped, not long after he defended his buddy Roman Polanski and asserted that Polanski is no longer a danger because he is old and has a wife and kids?

If you follow celebrity gossip, you might have heard of all of these incidents, or you may have heard of none of them. Every time you turn around, a famous person is saying something stupid or harmful. That above paragraph is hardy a comprehensive list of celebrities saying harmful things – I only wrote about the first five that immediately came to mind. Brett Ratner’s recent comment that “rehearsing is for fags” is hardly the worst statement a famous person has made about a marginalized group – it’s only the latest one.

Better yet, when someone pointed out that his comment ~~would be a public relations nightmare~~ was wrong and harmful, he delivered the classic non-apology:

“I apologize for any offense my remarks caused. It was a dumb way of expressing myself. Everyone who knows me knows that I don’t have a prejudiced bone in my body. But as a storyteller I should have been much more thoughtful about the power of language and my choice of words.”

I’d ask all who predicted that yet another celebrity would deliver a non-apology to raise hands, but I think most of you, like me, are too busy burying your heads in your hands.

We’re all tired of celebrities saying awful things, but I think we’re even more tired of the non-apology. The “I’m sorry if people are offended.” The “people who know me know I’m not bad.” The “it was a poor choice of words.”

I believe that there are some famous people (just like there are some non-famous people) who have actual disorders and don’t have full control over the words that come out of their mouths. I believe there are also some famous people (just like there are some non-famous people) who really are perpetually clueless and don’t ever think about the words that come out of their mouths. But I think we know that those two descriptions do not describe most famous people.

Therefore, I am providing all celebrities everywhere with an Apology for Every Occasion – free of charge!

“Some of you may have heard that I said something racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. recently. That’s unfortunate. I really didn’t want any of you to hear that I said that particular thing. It didn’t make me look good.

I’d like to stand here and say that I don’t have a prejudiced bone in my body, but let’s be honest here: I clearly do have at least a few prejudiced bones in my body. That’s because I grew up in the same culture as the rest of you, and all sorts of isms exist in our culture. I did not grow up in a pack of wolves and therefore managed not to internalize a single -ist message from our society.

I could also claim that what I said was due to a poor choice of words and I didn’t think about what was saying, but again, I have to be honest. That’s bullshit. Even though I live in a very privileged bubble and often surround myself with people who are paid to kiss my ass, I didn’t spend my whole life on a cave in Mars with my eyes shut and my fingers in my ears. I am at least vaguely aware that words have power, and I have at least a vague understanding about human beings and how we relate to each other. I knew that saying “retard” in a public sphere would hurt and offend people, but I also knew that there would be people out there who would think it was funny, and I chose to go for humor instead of sensitivity. I’d like to say I’m just being edgy, but I know damn well that it’s not remotely edgy to use slurs that are so old they’re practically fossilized. I wanted to be funny but not put that much effort into thinking of a cleverer joke, so I went for the cheap shot. My bad.

In order to further defend myself, I could also claim that my best friend in the world is gay. I may even be telling the truth. But even if my best friend in the world likes it when I call him a fag in total jest and affection, that doesn’t mean it’s okay for me to use the word “fag” in a public context, because my best friend in the world doesn’t represent all gay people, and I don’t have the same relationship with the entire gay community as I do with my best friend.

Anyway, I’m really sorry. I’m not so sorry that I hurt people – I secretly, deep down, think you whiny hysterics all need to just get the fuck over it already – but I am really sorry that other people now think badly of me. I hate it when people think badly of me. I like to think of myself as a good person. So I’m going to go to rehab now so I can pat myself on the back for being a good person. Have a good day, and please don’t stop seeing my movies, listening to my music, reading my books, or buying products that I endorse. Thank you.”

There you have it. Famous People of the World, feel free to use this standard apology anytime you want. You can adapt it to your particular circumstance based on whatever slur you use that is “taken out of context.” Oh, and you’re welcome.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged famous people say the darndest things, language | 15 Comments

Why Watch Romantic Comedies?

Posted on November 6, 2011 by Theresa Basile

A few weeks ago, I announced my intention to tackle 52 romantic comedies over the course of one year. 2012 is the Year of the Romantic Comedy at my blog, and it shall henceforth be dubbed “The Rom-Com Project.” The Rom-Com Project is a completely serious endeavor, a social experiment, and in no way a cynical ploy to get a book deal by writing about a year of doing something. In my post where I first announced the project, I explained my reasons for focusing on the romantic comedy:

“I also think that looking at romantic comedies is a worthwhile feminist project. I want to look at how men and women are represented in these films. I want to look at the way romantic expectations are presented in our popular culture. I want to look at issues of consent. I want to look at the way the comedy genre affects the romance genre and vice-versa.”

Readers responded well to this post and left me more suggestions than I needed, to the point where I have to decide whether to narrow down the list to 52, or expand the project to “100 Rom-Coms in a Year.”

But why focus on romantic comedies (one might ask)? Why not focus on comedies that happen to feature women?

Well, just for a lark, I looked at the Wikipedia entry on “comedy film” and took note of the different sub-genres listed under the comedy banner, as well as the examples that were mentioned for each genre.

For the fish-out-of-water genre, the entry lists six examples. 0 of 6 of these examples have female protagonists.

For the parody or spoof film genre, the entry lists three examples. 0 of 3 of these examples have female protagonists.

For the anarchic comedy film genre, the entry lists two examples. 0 of 2 of these examples have female protagonists.

For the black comedy film genre, the entry lists fourteen examples. 1 of these 14 examples (Heathers) has a female protagonist without a male co-protagonist, and fewer than half have female co-protagonist.

I think you can all start to see the pattern here, but let me continue just to belabor the point.

Gross-out films. 4 examples, 0 female protagonists.

Action comedy films. 9 examples, 0 female protagonists.

Comedy horror films. 9 examples, 1 female protagonist (in Scary Movie).

Fantasy comedy films. 6 examples, 2 female co-protagonists (The Princess Bride, Being John Malkovitch), 0 female protagonists without male co-protagonists.

Black comedy films. 3 examples, 0 female protagonists.

Sci-fi comedy films. 8 examples, 0 female protagonists.

Military comedy films. 9 examples, 1 female protagonist (Private Benjamin).

Stoner films. 4 examples, 0 female protagonists.

Some might argue with me on particular examples, but it’s obvious that dominant characters in comedy films are overwhelmingly male. (I also understand that Wikipedia is not an entirely accurate source of information, but the examples that are used to represent these different genres explains a lot about our cultural attitudes.)

But what about the romantic comedy?

If you look at the entry on romantic comedies, you see many more films that have female protagonists, or at least female co-protagonists. Especially significant is the list of top-grossing romantic comedies. 22 films are listed. More than half of them have female co-protagonists, some have one female protagonist, and one has (gasp!) more than one female protagonist (Sex and the City).

The romantic comedy genre gets a lot of flak. It’s considered a genre that’s more “shallow” than drama, but not funny enough to be a “real” comedy. Is it any coincidence that the romantic comedy is one of the few film genres, and possibly the only film genre, that regularly features women?

To me, the romantic comedy genre is an example of the struggles women face both as entertainers and as consumers of entertainment.

Love stories are dismissed as “girl stuff” (as though something aimed at women is automatically less than something aimed at men). A male-centric romantic comedy like Knocked Up is something with “mass appeal” when a female-centric romantic comedy like My Best Friend’s Wedding is “girl stuff.” Judd Apatow makes the same type of movie over and over again and gets praised despite the striking similarity in many of his films (down to style, story, and casting), but reviewers of What’s Your Number? can’t resist comparing the movie unfavorably to Bridesmaids, even though “a female protagonist” is almost the only thing those two movies have in common.

It’s a double-edged sword. Romantic comedies are looked upon with scorn, as fluffy and unimportant compared to dramatic films, but also not “edgy” or irreverent enough to be “real” comedies. But if a woman wants to watch a movie that is both a) funny and b) featuring a female main character, she doesn’t have many options available to her.

Sexism is deeply ingrained in our culture. Just look at my last paragraph. I typed the last sentence of that paragraph saying that “if a woman wants to watch a movie…with a female main character…” Then I looked back and realized that I, who tries to make a point of combating stereotypes and gender essentialism, automatically assumed that ONLY women would ever want to watch a movie with a female protagonist. That a man wouldn’t seek out or enjoy a movie with a female protagonist. That a man wouldn’t think a movie with a female protagonist was funny.

I have several problems with the romantic comedy genre. I dislike that women are almost always presented as people who are obsessed with fashion and shopping and shoes. (Not that there’s anything wrong with being obsessed with fashion and shopping and shoes – I would buy Zooey Deschanel’s entire wardrobe if I had the means. I’m only pointing out that we don’t see many female protagonists in rom-coms who are not obsessed with fashion and shopping and shoes, and I would like to see a wider variety of characters.) I dislike that funny women are usually “pretty women in high heels who adorably fall down.” I dislike that women in romantic comedies are almost always teachers and cupcake bakers or art gallery owners or trying to make it in the publishing industry. (Again, not that there’s anything wrong with those careers – I just want more variety.) Or, alternately, these women are high-powered career types whose journeys revolve around letting free-spirited men teach them how to loosen up. (For more of these romantic comedy cliches, read Mindy Kaling’s Flick Chicks, and then pick up Is Everyone Hanging Out Without Me? And Other Concerns. I just finished reading it, and it’s hilarious.)

And yet, despite all of these cliches and stereotypes in romantic comedy films, I still want to spend a year analyzing the genre. I think it’s a worthwhile project because I want to examine our culture’s expectations about men and women and gender and sex and romance, and how romantic comedies play into (or don’t play into) rape culture. I am looking forward to this project.

But I’m not going to a lie. I’m a little annoyed and bitter that, if I wanted to spend a year writing about black comedies starring women, or parodies starring women, or any other comedy genre starring women, I would probably not to be able to come up with a list of 52 movies for any of those genres unless I reviewed a slew of obscure films that most readers wouldn’t recognize.

Final note: Whenever a woman (or a person of color, or disabled person, or gay person, or a person belonging to any marginalized group) writes a piece criticizing the lack of representation in media, it’s only a matter of time before a troll makes a comment along the lines of, “Well, if you think there should be more movies starring [this group], why don’t you write one yourself?” To that, I say, “All in due time. Alllll in due time.” I’m not writing about my super awesome women-centric movie ideas here just yet because I don’t want anyone to steal them. *shifts eyes, holds screenplay closer to chest*

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged movies, the rom-com project | 6 Comments

November Movies I Won’t be Seeing (And Two I Will)

Posted on November 3, 2011 by Theresa Basile

November is here, and in a month centered around the most quintessentially American of all holidays – I speak, of course, of Parent-Teacher Conference Day – I feel it is only best to honor five movies that will be making their way into our theaters.

(Side note: I thought about making this November movie post into two separate posts, but found that I had very little to say about My Week with Marilyn other than “that looks interesting,” and very little to say about A Very Harold & Kumar 3-D Christmas other than “I think John Cho and Kal Penn are charming.”)

Anyway, I’ll start with the movies premiering this week and then proceed chronologically. First up is Tower Heist, starring a group of highly paid Hollywood actors pretending to be average Americans:

Summary: Ben Stiller is an employee of Evil Alan Alda who is definitely not playing a Donald Trump-esque character, no siree. Evil Alan Alda robs his employees of their pensions. Ben Stiller decides that that’s so not raven and springs Eddie Murphy out of jail so Eddie Murphy can help them plan a tower heist, and it’s totally realistic that a downtrodden worker can afford to pay a criminal’s bail money. Anyway, they get a gang of wacky misfits together and plan a robbery.

Predicted ending: Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy bicker and have wacky hijinx because they totally have different styles of robbery. Gabourey Sidibe kicks evil butt as a downtrodden maid.

My verdict: I chuckled once during this trailer – at the very end when Gabourey Sidibe and Eddie Murphy flirted. As for the rest of it, meh. Maybe it’s just me, but I have a hard time watching movies where highly paid A-list actors are supposed to be playing people who are in the 99% of Americans. Yeah, yeah, I know it’s “acting.” It still rubs me the wrong way. Continue reading →

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged movies, movies I won't be seeing | 6 Comments