Today in cinema, films are being produced with the aim of pleasing female audiences, yet very few actually have a dynamic cast of women. In 1991, Thelma and Louise put women in cinema on the map. It delivered a "truth" about women that was rarely, if ever, seen on the big screen, and joined in a momentum of powerful women in television, film, politics, etc. In today's films, women look, act, and deal with life differently than they did in 1991 and the camera captures that.
In 2011, a journalist by the name of Raina Lipsitz, wrote a piece for the Atlantic, on this incredible forward motion for women between 1991-1992 and how after twenty years, the film still resonated for the empowerment of the female race after time lapsed. But what Lipsitz mentions about films today, raises some problems in my book. Lipsitz brings up the Bechdel test for measuring a film's treatment of women, and how there are three things that are required in order for a film to pass the test. They are: (1) there must be two women in it, (2) they must talk to each other, (3) and their conversation must consist of something other than a man or men. According to Lipsitz and Bechdel, films following Thelma and Louise have yet to accomplish this; however, if we examine and dissect Thelma and Louise by these standards, the two characters fail to pass the Bechdel test.
Women in film today may not be defined by the greatness that Thelma and Louise both possessed in 1991, and maybe the characters present in today's film don't redefine or construct a new female gaze for audiences the way Thelma and Louise do, but there is a change. What Thelma and Louise did for female audience members in the early-90s, characters such as Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids, Jessica Chastain and Octavia Spencer in the Help, Greta Gerwig and Mickey Sumner in Frances Ha, and many other female duos in cinema today are doing for a new generation of viewers. The Girls-aesthetic, or Millenial perspective, is the main driving force behind much of the dominant sources of media today and with that the depiction of female friendship will change as well. As times change and so do women's rights, the "truth" about women will also change. Problems with men the way that they were for Thelma and Louise do not equate to the problems women face today, and the need to escape from their lives and criminal activity is not the top of the list in today's film. Today strength in women against men or life's troubles, are established through the hardship rather than running from the hardship. The significance of the female friendship, much like that of Thelma and Louise, prevails over the complications men create. That's where the films of today and Thelma and Louise come together. There is no denying the similarities in friendship through these films and how there is often the strong, stable, comforting friend who is whole-heartedly there for the messed up, damaged, subordinate friend through thick and thin. The dimensions of these friendships come from the restrictions that the societal man may place on them, or even just society in its own.
But where Thelma and Louise stray again, comes from how male driven the pressure was. A cast that primarily consisted of men were the opposing forces that ultimately push the pedal, full throttle, and drive the two women off the cliff in the final scene. Today there is so much more than the man driving the forces of women that often never even make it to the metaphorical cliff.
Although Thelma and Louise had its problems in feminism, the stereotyping of women, and its place in the world of cinema in the early-90s, it did provide the opportunity to begin exploring female friendship in a new light. Over the last twenty years or so, the changing in women, their friendships, and their relationships to men are reflected in their changed appearances on camera.
I agree with your dissatisfaction on Lipsitz analysis of Thelma and Louise against that of current female-driven films. One simple way to negate her conclusion is due to, as you said, the male dominated cast in it. To say that the conversation did not surround that of men would be ludicrous. Whether it was the discussion of Jimmy or Daryl, of the rapist, or the fact that their entire motive in running away was because they were being chased by "the man," the dialect and plot was completed centered around men. This is not to say that the film was not progressive, only that Lipsitz is unfairly judging today's cinema. Your inclusion of Bridesmaids I believe was a great one. Here was a film with an almost entire female cast, and it was found hilarious by both female and male audiences. That seems like a pretty great example of empowering women crossing fields, or in this case genres, into which hey had not before been successful.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy the fact you bring up the Bechdel test and how it has flaws and limitations. Its something get thrown around a lot with not a lot of explanation. Also points for adding what the test is with its three rules. I also enjoy that this film goes into the future that Thelma and Louise set as groundwork. It would have been a good idea to set presidents for a film like this epically because you brought up Ridley Scott in class and how a film like Alien can work into this.
ReplyDeleteAnother good thing about the post is the fact you brought up the idea of the male gaze and the time frame that most new film viewers are in. I enjoy the fact you aren't dumbing anything down and explaining things, its better this way.
Good review! I think it's very important that this film doesn't even pass the Bechdel Test. The test was written as a joke that standards for proper representation of women are SO LOW and yet the majority of films don't even pass it.
ReplyDeleteI choose to read your article because you mentioned Bridesmaids in your title. Anyway I liked your blog. This film does display a lot of gender stereotyping. But, the film does a great job showing the friendship and love between these two women. Isn't that fact, in itself, feminist?
ReplyDelete