Lets Transform Transformers!! (Media Example)

As a kid one of my favorite things to do each weekend was to huddle up with my siblings, and watch Transformers cartoon series. The show reached out to our childish imagination, with its robots transforming into cool, and colorful cars, jets, and sometimes even crazier things like a Star Wars battle ships. The cartoon series was born in Japan, and the first run took place from 1980 to 1993. The premise of the show was very simple, yet exciting; two different groups of robots transform into cool things and battle it out – the funny thing is that no side ever really won, so the show continued, and as we got older our focus shifted more towards different cartoon series as transformers started airing less in US, and finally stopped (this is before internet was available to many households, so online viewing was not possible).  In this essay I will be looking at Male Gaze, and Oppositional Gaze, and the evidence of how it is present in Hollywood, and the 2007 Block Buster – Transformers.

Now fast forward to 2000. Cartoon network decided that that they would pick up the series and remake it, giving it a new story, and a fresh start. By this time, I was in my late teens, a junior in high school, but I would still make time to enjoy the series. The first thing I noticed is that the series had lost its simple yet effective charm of good guys vs bad guys, each episode would focus on a human element that was missing from the Japanese original and added some sort of drama. I did not like the cartoon network version very much, so I stopped watching the series, and watched more of family guy/ south park. Sometime passed and while watching a movie in a theater with friends, we saw preview of what came to be the most illogical, stereotypical movie of 2007. This was off coarse Transformers the movie directed by Michael Bay.

While the idea was great and fun, the execution, and the direction the movie took was extremely poor, it almost seemed like it was written by a 13-year-old, and it was almost amazing to see that the movie was OK’d by the cast. Now to be fair it is not the worst movie I have seen, that honor would go to “The Room” but it was still extremely bad. To start with the movie has lots of explosions, so if you are a fan of fireworks or feel like you missed the 4^th of July fireworks in your city just watch the first transformers movie, and your urge for watching fireworks will be satisfied for the next few years. Now let’s talk about more serious things in the movie – the Characters, especially the female cast of the movie. In my humble opinion I can’t seem to find out what motived them to sign up for this movie, after they read the script.

Alongside Sam we have two important (but not important, you will see why) female characters in the movie. The first is Mikaela (Megan Fox), and second is Sam’s mom (Julie white, a traffic actor who is not given much to work with). While Megan Fox has potential for good acting, the big issue in this movie is that the director reduces her role to be eye candy for other characters in the movie, and the audience. Transformers uses Mikaela as an object of Male Gaze (Laura Mulvey – Visual Pleasure, and Narrative Cinema). If we examine Mikaela’s introduction scene, we notice that the we don’t really go into depth to build her character up e.g. what is she going to school for? What are her future plans after high school? What does she want to do in her life? Why is she not given any intellectual character development? None of those questions are ever brought up, but instead our focus becomes how well she knows cars, and how well she knows sexual relationships. In her introduction scene the camera pans over her sweating body, starting from stomach, panning over her legs, and finally her breast, and face – I kid you not, but this scene is uncomfortably long, maybe a 2-3 minutes. This theme continues in the movie, because Sam’s whole family comments on Mikaela and her looks, but even the robots in the movie are commenting, which seems a bit odd since they don’t have any concept of attraction or gender attraction, but yes, the movie goes there, because for some reason it thinks it needs to (Robotic Gaze? I am not sure, as we also see a little robot trying to hump Mikaela’s leg for no apparent reason). We notice that after Sam graduate’s college, he is going to a 4-year university while his girl-friend has no goals afterwards, none that she mentions, or the movie ever brings up. Mikaela is just there to be saved by Sam, first by her weird boy-friend, second by the hordes of transformers that are invading the earth.  When in trouble Mikaela screams from scene to scene and is not able to take decisions on her own unless Sam or the autoboots (good transformers) are there to make the choice for her. Sam’s mon the only other important female character and is also given zero depth to her character, her main purpose in the movie is to make jokes, that aren’t very funny, she is very one dimensional, and shown how a cool mom figure should behave, but nothing she does is cool – e.g. commenting on Sam’s girlfriend, laughing at her dogs having sex, getting high and making wise cracking jokes. The things are funny, but again they make the character look very stupid, because besides these things she is helpful to the movie in any other way. Male gaze is extremely evident in this movie, misogynistic themes are present all over the place.

Another thing that a critical viewer will notice is the lack of black female characters. The movie has no black female characters at (Bell Hooks – Oppositional Gaze) – since there is a lack of female representation oppositional gaze can still be applied to women in this film. The issue is that how can female audiences of color connect themselves to this movie? Well they can’t – at all, due to the lack of representation – they are not represented and missing. Most people of color in this movie serve as comic relief characters, but that’s a topic large enough to be discussed by itself. We see that (Mulvey) that the male protagonist is manipulating the plot while the female alongside is just along for the ride and accommodate his needs.

Overall the lack of strong female characters, and their representation in this transformers movie has led to be more critical of the series, and as new transformers movies have been released in the past few years, which I have also seen due to requests from friends, and family members the issues from the first movie are exacerbated, and criticized by the audience, and reviewers. Even though the Transformers movie premise is a fun and exciting one, I think the director should take a different approach. If the movie wants to focus on drama, it should give its male, and female characters stronger, more intellectual character development. The main protagonist could be a strong, independent female/ female of color. (like the one from the fallout game series, or like the one from the newest tomb raider game). I also think that the film deserves a new director, as Michael Bay has made the issues worse in the later iterations of the movie. Nothing against Mr. Bay, but sometimes it is helpful to apply new ideas instead of rehashing old ones. Come on Hollywood “Just Do it” – and yes I am not quoting Nike, its Shia LaBeouf.

 

Material used:

Laura Mulvey – Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (Male Gaze)

Bell Hooks – The Oppositional Gaze, Black Female Spectators

Call Me By Your Name…& Tell Me What You Really Think of this Film!

 

Call Me By Your Name is an excellent example of the failings of New Queer Cinema as outlined by Leung. Ostensibly dealing with the gay relationship between a 17 year old (Elio) and a 24 year old (Oliver) , the film is far from a realistic representation of gay youth and relationships, without even addressing the age gap. The book, on which the film was based, was written by a straight man. Therefore, it seems impossible even from the start that the book and film could capture an authentic gay experience. The film itself is clearly more concerned with aesthetic and visual appeal of the story than characterization, and prefers long, lush silences to real character building. Leung highlights the commodification of New Queer Cinema, which is a concept clearly present in CMBYN: “The apparent increase in tolerance for and visibility of queer communities merely reflects a ‘virtual equality’ that masks the absence of genuine and fundamental systemic changes. It is precisely under this climate of ‘virtual equality’ that New Queer Cinema’s once outlawed and marginalized representations of sexuality become transformed into palatable, even marketable, commodities” (Leung 2).

 

The film’s callous portrayal of a 17 year old and 24 year old not only plays into stereotypes of the predatory gay man, but also presents a titillating gay story through the age gap and general “uniqueness” of the queer storyline. Rather than developing strong gay characters with a realistic relationship, this film seeks to draw people in with the main gay relationship but then does it absolutely no justice. The movie focuses far more on the story itself than on either of the 2 main characters. The viewer gets no insight into what would seem to be the most critical aspect of the movie: Elio and Oliver’s relationship with their own homosexuality. Without any examination of their relationship towards and level of acceptance of their own sexuality, the film lacks any kind of moving, realistic portrayal of queerness.

 

The gay relationship present in the film is an exact representation of the commodifying that Leung writes about; the storyline is packaged in beautiful scenery, a lack of character building between the two gay characters, and a tragic ending all show this presentation of homosexuality as a unique film trope, making the 2 main characters and their sexuality actually more of a forethought than the main aspect of the film.

^^That’s how I felt watching the movie…!

T.E. Lawrence; War Hero or White Savior Culture Vulture? The White Savior Complex in Lawrence of Arabia

Awarded 7 Oscars, including Best Picture, the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture, (IMDB) and boasting a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Lawrence of Arabia is regarded as one of the greatest and most important films in cinematic history. Released in 1962, Lawrence of Arabia has since endured ever-changing social and political landscapes, which inevitably impact the ways in which the film is interpreted. More recently, the film has been dubbed an “Anti-imperialist, Orientalist Epic,” (Caton) recognizing it’s temporally progressive critique on colonialism while also indulging in Orientalist ways of knowing. The protagonist, a WWI era British officer T.E. Lawrence is chosen to oversee the Arabs’ revolt against the Ottoman Empire, as he is well educated in the region and the Arabic language. The zealous T.E Lawrence soon becomes consumed by Arab culture, abandoning parts of his English identity while retaining his sense of western, white superiority over his Arab peers.

The white savior complex in film is the narrative of a white person rescuing people of color (POC) from their experienced oppression. This narrative is commonly coupled with the stereotyping and flattening of POC characters, suggesting that the white character gives breadth and totality to the POC characters. These themes are alluded to in the articles written by Gignac and McMahon about The Revenant, as they comment on the POC presence in the film being defined by “tired tropes,” (McMahon) and how the “indigeneity seems ultimately subservient to the white protagonist.” (Gignac) The similar use of stereotypes and tropes is explicit in Lawrence of Arabia’s portrayal of Arabs. The film reduces their characters by situating them in a subordinate, auxiliary role within Lawrence’s life and the movie. It is understood that without Lawrence’s aryan leadership, the Arabs wouldn’t stand a chance against the Turks. Lawrence becomes responsible for the critical thinking and leadership necessary to lead an army, as the Arabs could not handle this themselves.

Like a buffet, Lawrence chooses the things he wants from Arab culture, while still retaining his sense of superiority and preeminence over the “cruel and barbarous” Arabs. There is internal dissonance in the fact that Lawrence so desperately wants to belong to a culture he feels is below him in many ways. In the end, Lawrence realizes the fault in his role-playing, feels shameful in his empty acculturation, adding a dimension that is not always seen in the white savior narrative. Although he comes to some sort of revelation, the white savior narrative is still prevalent and important in understanding the impact of this international epic.

The othering of POC, especially those from the Eastern and Middle Eastern parts of the world is a systemic process of knowledge and power that has been embedded in global society for decades. Although it is more critical of imperialism and colonialism than other media of its time, it still contains orientalist coding through the portrayal of Arab and other middle eastern people’s as uncivilized and backward through their depicted inadequate strategic thinking and problem-solving. Because of its high stature and characterization as one of the first International Films (in regards to international production, filming, actors, etc), it should be scrutinized for is impact on international implications of knowledge and power. Greg Smith discusses the deliberate intention behind film production and states, “all cultural products carry cultural meaning.” (Smith, 132) Lawrence of Arabia was purposefully created and edited this way and therefore gives license to its critics. It is important to revisit Lawrence of Arabia and similar movies with each decade to further understand its role in the early and modern postcolonial world

 

Works Cited

Caton, Steven. “Lawrence of Arabia.” Oxford Index, 1999, doi:10.1525/california/9780520210820.001.0001.

Gignac, Julien. “The Revenant’s White-Saviour Complex.” The Globe and Mail, The Globe and Mail, 16 May 2018, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/the-revenants-white-saviour-complex/article28320619/.

“Lawrence of Arabia.” IMDb, IMDb.com, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056172/plotsummary?ref_=tt_stry_pl.

McMahon, Ryan. “Indigenous People’s Stories Need More than Just Leonardo DiCaprio’s Speech.” Vice, Vice, 11 Jan. 2016, http://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kwx53z/indigenous-peoples-stories-need-more-than-just-leonardo-dicaprios-speech.

Smith, Greg M. “‘It’s Just a Movie’: A Teaching Essay for Introductory Media Classes.” Cinema Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, 2001, pp. 127–134., doi:10.1353/cj.2001.0025.

The Male Gaze in Transformers (2007)

In Laura Mulvey’s Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, she explains the theory of the male gaze in cinema. This theory revolves around the idea that women “connote a to-be-looked-at-ness” while men (specifically heterosexual men) are the bearers of that look (Mulvey, 33). Most popular movies are filmed in ways that present women in a way such that it would satisfy the masculine scopophilia.

A prominent example of the male gaze in film can be seen in the 2007 film Transformers. Although the male gaze is present throughout most of the movie, I am going to be talking about one specific scene.

You can watch it here.

The scene starts off with a shot of the backside of Mikaela (played by Megan fox) walking. She is wearing a short skirt and a fitted cut off shift, and has long hair that bounces as she walks. This image was clearly made to satisfy the desires of the male audience members. Moments later, we see Sam (played by Shia LaBeouf) intensely gazing upon Mikaela’s body.

As she walks away with a heavy sway in hips, Sam approaches her and invites her into his car. While in the car, Sam spends almost no time looking away from Mikaela. His eyes are flickering between her lips coated in a shiny gloss and her chest. I am unsure as to how he managed to not crash his car, given the amount of time his eyes were actually on the road. After his car conveniently breaks down, Mikaela gets out to take a look. The camera narrowly focuses on her body and pans upwards, another clear indication that this scene was meant to satisfy the male audience members. We as audience members are being shown what Sam is seeing when he looks at Mikaela.

There is the slightest hint of character development when Mikaela reveals that she knows so much about cars because of her dad. However, this character development likely only serves to distract from the fact that she is only present to satisfy the masculine scopophilic desires of Sam and the audience.

 

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Issues in Feminist Film Criticism, 1990, pp. 33.

Phantom Thread and the Pleasure of Looking

The idea of scopophilia has been explored deeply throughout the history of film but what I feel is an interesting recent example can be seen in the framing of Paul Thomas Anderson’s Phantom Thread. The film involves the growing relationship between the successful dressmaker Reynolds Woodcock and a waitress named Alma Elson. While the film does show both sides of the relationship, it is framed most often, in the beginning, from Reynolds perspective, utilizing a scopophilic framing of the cinematography.

Mulvey states that “In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female”, meaning that there is often pleasure in film from having the, typically assumed male, audience look at women. This is made explicit in the camera framing the male character’s perspective of him viewing his female object of desire, with Alma typically in beautiful dresses to emphasize her pleasurable beauty. Often when the camera is viewing Alma, the camera is off center or aimed below her from Reynolds’ perspective to cause the audience to view the character of Alma from our male character Reynolds’ perspective and experience the same pleasure he does.

This has the intention of having us understand Reynolds’ fascination with Alma. However, this relationship is complicated in the film by having Alma be more active in this relationship, often throughout the film when Reynolds is looking at Alma, she is looking right back at him.

This creates a more interesting dynamic than we usually see in romance films where the woman is, as Mulvey states, a passive woman to look upon and causes a refreshing change in a very stale concept.

Source:

Laura Mulvey “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” Pg. 33

“The One with the Football” dropped the ball

In Season 3, Episode 9 of Friends, called “The One with the Football,” Ross, Joey, Chandler, Monica, Phoebe, and Rachel are celebrating Thanksgiving.  Within seconds of the episode starting, the friends are divided by stereotypical gender roles; the men, occupying the majority of the shot, are seen watching the Thanksgiving football game, while the women are shown in the background preparing dinner:

When Joey introduces the idea of the six friends playing football, it is immediately assumed that Phoebe and Rachel won’t be any good.  This sexist assumption is perpetuated by Rachel’s “humorous” inability to catch the ball.

When the friendly football game becomes men versus women, Phoebe asks, “but they’re boys! How are we going to beat a bunch of boys?”.  Further preserving this idea that men are inherently better at sports, the women resort to tactics such as flashing and embarrassing Joey and Chandler in front of an attractive woman in order to win the game.

Despite being competent football players and strategic people, Phoebe and Rachel are portrayed as being sexualized, incompetant bimbos, while Monica is constantly mocked and singled out for her competitiveness.  Meanwhile, Ross acts just as competitive and immature as Monica, and Joey and Chandler fight over an attractive woman throughout the entire episode, yet the men never experience any consequences or taunts for their competitiveness or immature behavior.  This misrepresentation and these double standards inflicted on the characters is a prime example of the male gaze, a term often used by both Laura Mulvey and bell hooks, defining “women as an image and man as a bearer of the look”  (Mulvey 33). Shows and movies are often written with male pleasure in mind; men are given the power to look and be entertained, while women are forced to be the enjoyable object being viewed.  The male gaze is obvious in this episode; the men are constantly looking at women as objects as they compete over the woman in the park, and the women constantly use their bodies as their only tactic to get ahead in football.  By degrading these women and their skills to solely what they look like and how they use their bodies, it completely takes away their agency, giving the men the power and pleasure of looking.

 

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Feminisms, 1975, pp. 29–40.

 

Taki Taki. Wait…What??

 

 

“Taki Taki” is a new song by Ozuna and DJ Snake featuring Cardi B and Selena Gomez. Although most of the song is in Spanish, it has become known in the United States. I guess Ozuna and DJ Snake can thank Cardi B and Selena Gomez for that. In the Hispanic culture Ozuna is a very well known Reggeaton singer. Reggeaton is a music genre that mostly (if not always) revolves around sex, and the sexualization of women. The music video for Taki Taki shows just that.

Music video 

It’s not a secret that in our society sex sales. In the music video all of the women portrayed (including the female singers, Cardi B and Selena) are wearing revealing clothing. At one point of the video Ozuna seems to be in what looks like a pit surrounded by women wearing little to no clothing. One can only assume that that’s every mans “dream”, to be surrounded by women practically naked and at their dispose.

In my opinion, Taki Taki music video is a great example of male gaze according to Mulvey. In her article ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, Mulvey says “The determining male gaze projects its fantasy onto the female figure, which is styled accordingly. In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact.” (pg.33) Every woman that is feature in the music video is shown/represented as a sex symbol. They use close ups to show specific parts of the women’s body that would be attractive to the male audience.

The music video isn’t the only thing about this song that sexualizes women. The lyrics aren’t any better. For one of Cardi B’s parts she sings, “No traje pantisito pa’que el nene no trabaje”- meaning she isn’t wearing any underwear, so he won’t have to “work” for it. As if our whole purpose is to make everything easier for men. Selena Gomez also sings an interesting lyric, “What my taki wants, my taki taki gets”- implying that by using her body she can get what she wants.

The word Taki Taki doesn’t have an actual meaning in Spanish. This song allows its audience to interpret the lyrics however they want. But with Selena’s part, one can only wonder if Ozuna was referring to the women’s privates. Although the lyrics are a bit controversial, they are very catchy, and the beat is amazing (thanks to DJ Snake).

 

 

 

Source: Laura Mulvey; Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Screen, Volume 16, Issue 3, 1 October 1975.

Oppositional Gaze applied to Season 1, Episode 4 of That ‘70s Show, “Battle of the Sexists”

In episode 4 of season 1 of That ‘70s Show, “Battle of the Sexists”, Donna beats her boyfriend, Eric, at a game of basketball. This doesn’t seem to phase Eric at all, however it creates an uproar in their sexist hippy Wisconsin community of friends. Hyde, Fez, and Kelso, Eric’s friends, go on to make fun of Eric and tell him that he has been emasculated by his girlfriend and that he is now less of a man. Donna’s friend, Jackie, tells her that she is going to turn Eric off by beating him at sports because sports are “masculine” and that it is a woman’s responsibility to make her man happy and to make sure he looks big and strong in all scenarios. Donna is shook by all of her friend’s reactions, so she goes to her mom for more advice, however she gets an even more troubling response. As seen above, Donna’s mother states that it’s a woman’s job as a girlfriend or wife to be meek and helpless. Donna uses the oppositional gaze back at her mother and tells her about the equal rights movement and how it is trying to do all of these twisted misconceptions that seem to be wrapped up in everyone’s head. However, her mother shrugs off her forward thinking and pretty much just calls her a crazy cat lady.

Donna is just one example of a female character seen in TV that is put down by being less “feminine” by showing “masculine” properties such as being strong and winning. Since when is winning and strength just a male possession? As Hooks writes, “Even in the worst circumstances of domination, the ability to manipulate one’s gaze in the face of structures of domination that would contain it, opens up the possibility of agency”.1 Donna uses the oppositional gaze to show her friends and mother agency by standing up for her right to win at sports be strong. Eric pretty much just stays out of this entire situation, even when Donna asks for his help in supporting her. This media example furthers the troubling societal notion that it can be acceptable for men to be intimidated by strong women and that women should just pretend to be less competent in a relationship.

 

References:

Hooks, B. (2015). Black looks: Race and representation. New York: Routledge.

Aesthetic Aesthetic Aesthetic

Now I am no stranger to stylizing my personal appearance to play a character for a day. However, the casual way the idea of “aesthetic” is thrown around has real political implications and we must be wary of how we discuss our personal “aesthetic” so as not to erase or co-opt identities.

In the essay, “New Queer Cinema and Third Cinema,” Helen Hok-Sze Leung speaks about the lessons these two radical cinemas can learn from each other. Leung’s writings are written in response to declarations that Third Cinema is dead or irrelevant and the mainstreaming of New Queer Cinema. On the concept of co-opting, Leung brings up, “the seemingly inexhaustible capacity of late capitalism to remake any outlawed aesthetic into its own image…” (2). Late capitalism’s consumption of marginalized identities can manifest as what is colloquially referred to as “aesthetic”.

An easy example: dream catchers.

Cutely racist

Indigenous people have been killed and raped and, for a long time, practicing their culture was illegal. Today however, late capitalism has remade an outlawed cultural symbol as something devoid of true meaning, a vaguely spiritual cute home decoration.

A larger and more common theme of “aesthetic”s that demonstrates this principle is the “bohemian” aesthetic. Ironically much of what is understood to be bohemianism is rooted in a proto-”aesthetic” lifestyle where artists and journalists would choose to life in voluntary poverty and non-normative social practices in French ghettos. However, the term, “bohemian” comes from a misnaming of the Romani (commonly referred to as Gypsies) people, a marginalized ethnic minority primarily in France. The Romani were misidentified as coming from Bohemia but the name stuck and became associated with poor living and corrupt social behavior. Since then, the term has been used to describe an “aesthetic” and lifestyle that is at an intersection of spiritual, artistic, relaxed,and devoid of the consequences or awareness of socioeconomic structures.

A long way from the French ghettos

The linked youtube home makeover video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKiHqei4-™) references the “glam boho” aesthetic, an oxymoronic take on what is originally a slur. The “aestheticizing” of poverty ignores the real class and ethnic conflicts associated with what it is representing. This practice  goes to show how much capitalism can twist a marginalized aesthetic into food for itself, which is, in this case, an “aesthetic”–a lifestyle choice founded on participating in capitalist structures.

Long Duk Dong is the Tip of the Iceberg Oppositional Gaze Post

The film Sixteen Candles (1984), directed by John Hughes, was meant to be an American coming-of-age comedy film that stars Molly Ringwald, Michael Schoeffling, and Anthony Michael Hall. Molly Ringwald plays Samantha who is turning 16 who is infatuated with the character Jake. Jake is played by Michael Schoeffling and he is a sports star with good looks and clothes, and he is dating the prom queen Caroline. Anthony Michael Hall plays Ted who is known as the geek at their highschool and has a crush on Samantha, however he ends up befriending Jake to get some physical action with Caroline. There is also an exchange student named Long Duk Dong, who is played by Gedde Wantanabe, which literally translates into penis. Long Duk Dong serves practically no purpose other than to poke fun at the expense of another race. There are so many racist and sexist things within this film when you look at it through the oppositional gaze. Looking at the film in particular from a 19 year-old straight white female perspective, the sexism and predatory nature of the film seeps out from the “comedy” that it was once seen as. Sixteen Candles reinforces the idea of rape culture where men run the world and have the ability to run over women in whatever ways they please.

When I first watched this film, I saw it for no more than a light-hearted comedy. I laughed at the boys looking at the girls underwear. It was silly how someone did not recall how they ended up in someone else’s car the morning after when they were waking up. But now, 9 years later watching this film a second time, I am astonished at the deep levels of pressing sexist issues that this film underlines and the rape culture that it can instil in young men and women all around. As Hooks writes, “Even in the worst circumstances of domination, the ability to manipulate one’s gaze in the face of structures of domination that would contain it, opens up the possibility of agency”.1 This resonates with my viewing of this film as I look with an oppositional gaze against the objectifications against the women, men succeeding in their conquests at the woman’s expense, and sexual predatory nature and gestures taken towards the women with no consequences whatsoever for their actions.

Thijssen writes, “Sixteen Candles contains some worrying messages with regards to gender roles, female agency, and consent”.3 Tying all of these underlying messages together creates the morality and system of rape culture instilled within these characters that were supposedly telling a simplistic teenage coming-of-age comedy. Rape culture can be defined as, “an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture”.2 More than anything else highlighted via my oppositional gaze through watching this film is the rape culture perpetuated through the use of misogynistic language, objectification of women’s bodies, and the glamorization of sexual assualt.

The entire film is about a young woman, Samantha, infatuated with a young man, Jake. Yet somehow, Samantha ends up kissing Jake in the end of the film over a candlelit cake right after meeting him for the first time… Samantha has never met Jake before this incident. All she knows is that he is pretty and has nice clothes and is good at sports. Jake is a jerk in real life, yet he still ends up getting the girl in the end. This example shows that a good looking guy can get whoever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants, wherever he wants. Another example of this is when Jake is talking to Ted about Caroline at a party while Caroline is passed out. Jake says, “I could violate her in 10 different ways if I wanted to”. Ted goes on to ask him why he hasn’t already, and then Jake proceeds to offer Caroline on up to Ted. Ted takes Jake up on the offer and goes off with a passed out Caroline in his car. This is an example of complete masculine predation of both Ted and Jake against Caroline. Jake offers up his own girlfriends practically lifeless body up to Ted, and for Ted to take advantage of the offer is abuse of the situation. Caroline is passed out. She cannot provide consent, nor can she physically handle herself in this situation. In this moment, she is relying on her boyfriend, Jake, to take care of her. However, Jake literally hands her off to Ted to later on be raped.

This film portrays the message that rape is okay and that consent is not necessary no matter what states people are in. Consent is not only about sex or sexual acts. As stated above, Ted literally rapes Caroline while she is drunk and passed out in the backseat of his car. He not only rapes her, he also goes to his friend’s house to show them of this great act of having a girl in his car and proceeds to take photos for proof. This goes to show that consent can be applied to things such as marriage and photographs as well. For another example, Samantha’s sister gets married while intoxicated on pain killers due to period pains. It’s supposed to be humorous because aren’t all menstruation jokes funny? Samantha’s sister should not have been allowed to give legal consent to get married while under complete intoxication, however everyone in her family pushes her along to the altar practically against her will.

As practically any other 80’s movie about teenage love, there is a school dance. At the dance Ted continously asks Samantha to dance. Samantha clearly doesn’t want to particapte with him and is getting uncomfortable, but he keeps pressing her to. Ted doesn’t seem to get the message and it pushes Samantha to the edge of breaking down where she runs off into the hallway crying. This example shows that it is okay for men to act like predators against women no matter if they say no. Ted proves this true in another example with Samantha in which he pressures her to give him her underwear. He then uses Samantha’s underwear to show off to his friends and demonstrate his ability to “get women”. This demonstrates the nature of the teenage men in this film to so easily objectify women and their bodies. Ted seems to disregard how Samantha will feel when everyone in school will go around calling her a “skank” and “slut” for having her underwear being shown to the school. Ted not only breaks Samantha’s trust, but he dehumanizes her by sacrificing her self-respect for his own self-pride.

To conclude, the film Sixteen Candles reinforces and instills the system of rape culture which can be identified when viewing this film through the oppositional gaze. Rape culture is not only dangerous, but it is important to recognize and address early on because once it is created it can be dismissed and regarded as everyday nature and be normalized.

 

References:

1. Hooks, B. (2015). Black looks: Race and representation. New York: Routledge.
2. Marshall University. (2018). Rape Culture. Retrieved October, 2018, from https://www.marshall.edu/wcenter/sexual-assault/rape-culture/  
3. Thijssen, K. (2016). Hooked on Hughes: A feminist consideration of Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club and Pretty In Pink. Radboud University, (Nov.)