Depiction of women in film affixes the ubiquitous mindset of the masses about the female species. Every image projected on screen accedes to the audience’s percipience to freely redirect and validate them into cultural norms and beliefs. The efficacy of cinema creates a ripple effect on societal practices. Hence, the contretemp rests on whether the filmmaker takes the onus with paramount responsibility or chooses to blend in the commodious umpteen fray of blame.
The art of filmmaking is ostensible for adhering on two consequential precepts: entertain and educate. From Hollywood movies to international cinemas, acclaimed works lean heavily toward its educational mandate, allocating the same sine qua non of exceptional screenplay and core concepts.
Given the merit it upholds, the writer bears a critical role in filmmaking being the forerunner of ideas, imagination, and vision through virtuosity of dialogue. Thus, the crew is expected to conform to the script. Lamentably, this does not always supervene in show business. Too often, stakeholders supersede the writer’s motive, avowing with insolence that sexual overtones should be ‘sprinkled’ in order to grab headlines and make profit.
With laws to abide by, notorious filmmakers still shamelessly reuse and reinforce spiteful characters: prostitute, paramour, clueless wife, nitwit worker, loud-mouthed mother, uneducated neighbour, and many other asinine representations. Meanwhile, empowering real stories about brave, smart, decent, and feisty women who stand their ground for what is ethically, socially, and lawfully right are relegated to antiquity, historicity, and oblivion. These film conglomerates blatantly regard upright storytelling as a truss to vindicate their forfeiture.
The parallelistic exhortation about misogyny and feminism portrayed in thousands of films comes with a searing reality: misogyny rakes in more money than feminism. The more the film mocks, abuses, and belittles women, the more audience they gain. The moral of the story is deflected especially if it causes global speculation and scorn. In short, misogyny is a harbinger of a favourable outcome for producers burgeoning in systemic exploitation.
Julia Roberts portrayed the lead roles in both films, “Erin Brockovich” and “Pretty Woman”. Based in real life, the former was about a fierce woman who legally fought and won for Hinckley victims against PG &E; while the latter was a love story between a sex hooker and rich businessman. Sensuality obviously abound in “Pretty Woman”; yet even in “Erin Brockovich”, the film resorted to ‘seductive’ undertones. According to the late film critic Roger Ebert: …”whether she was or wasn’t, the costume design sinks this movie. Roberts is a sensational-looking woman, and dressed so provocatively in every single scene, she upstages the material. If the medium is the message, the message in this movie is sex”.
Meryl Streep, the most celebrated actress of all time, had her own share of contrasting roles: a labour union activist who investigated for the health of workers in “Silkwood”; and a stylish villainous editor-in-chief in “The Devil wears Prada”. The former was a feminist-leaning film that highlighted an unflinching woman who fought systemic injustice alone; while the latter was screaming with misogyny objectifying women while highlighting toxicity, scandalous tawdriness, and devious manipulation under the imprudent vagary of fashion politics.
In the Philippines, multi-awarded actress Vilma Santos had trodden the same path via “Burlesk Queen” and “Sister Stella L.” Burlesque dancing was definitely misogynistic bordering on its gyrating scenes; whereas playing the role of an activist nun whose social conscience supported the vulnerable was indeed feministic. “Burlesk Queen”, with all its controversial scenes, won major awards, prompting the late Director Lino Brocka to walk out. Meanwhile, “Sister Stella L”, a Mike de Leon film, faced theatre bans and censorship before moviegoers gained access.
Another Filipina actress, Anne Curtis, ranked as the most influential woman in Asia, took the role of a daring and courageous anti- narcotic special forces officer in “Buybust”, and a married woman having an intense, illicit interlude with a younger man in “Just a Stranger”. Feminism thrived in the former, while misogyny flourished in the latter. Some netizens called out Curtis for her ‘sexually provocative’ posters for “Just a Stranger”, but it still worked at the box-office.
Does portraying misogynistic roles contradict feminism? Is it immoral to produce sexist characters? Where does truth start and fiction end in a film? To state that filmmaking is reciprocal may vindicate filmmakers from the burden; but a choice between positive and negative messaging bodes change. To pass the blame to the audience when the film has no educational and entertainment value is arrogance. Audiences are passive recipients inside the cinema who absurdly pay for the film’s wretchedness and end up deprived of enjoying genuine entertainment.
Comedic scenes from funny situations can elicit humour; however, when sexual content is utilized as a laughingstock, it is no longer divertissement. Sexual innuendos, insults, and sexual assaults are not rib-tickling subjects to jeer and sneer. Films must be devoid of hijacking women’s vulnerability in order to usher utmost respect, finesse, and decency in its content.
With small strides that feminism has achieved in decades, misogyny lurks to destroy these gains. In schools, workplaces, government offices, public spaces, social media, neighbourhood, and especially on the streets, misogyny is prevalent, unmistakably embedded in every culture across the globe.
Film alone cannot eradicate misogyny; but collective humanity can. Filmmakers’ possibility for optimistic change is manifold. For every moving picture whose message ceases to perpetuate prejudice against women, it purposefully lessens the load for feminism. For every follower or fan whose positive takeaway comes from an enlightening and sensible film, it builds up the momentum towards a societal collective to get rid of misogyny. It is the power of every filmmaker’s will and commitment that will make or break this purpose.
Over the years, feminism has been deliberately stifled by misogyny in ways unimaginable. Feminism alone is formidable within a misogynistic society. While the road to obliterating misogyny may seem dreary at this point, one thing is certain: feminism will persist until misogyny becomes extinct. ####
