Senate Misogyny, Entitlement, and Pop Culture

Yes.

 

That film was conceived entirely as a critique of race as portrayed in the media, not a passing depiction of an ignorant, animalistic black person in an otherwise normal film.

 

I don't think it's wrong for a woman to dress "sexy," or for people to find women "sexy" for dressing a certain way. That's beside the point. The truth is, it's a really complicated issue especially in media. Nothing happens in a vacuum and all, and in our society (in a mainstream blockbuster) a shirtless man is going to be different than a scantily clad woman. Whether something is objectifying or empowering or whatever can be a matter of individual opinion, and I think in many cases there can often be a good argument for opposing sides. ...Not so much with slave Leia, however. The effect it had on Carrie Fisher and her opinions on it are quite clear, as is the broad intent to objectify her. It's not as though her bad experiences are limited to RotJ either. Are people also going to defend that bizarre "there are no bras in space!" nipple tape thing in ANH?

 

I see objectification as more than something like a woman wearing a skimpy bikini for part of a movie. I mean, sure it's "sexy" and intended to be that. But "sexy" and "objectified" are two different things; it is more than possible for a person to view someone as a fellow human being and understand that they have an interior life and yet find them sexy. To objectify a person is to elevate the aspect of a person's appearance above anything else about them. And I feel like, whether she's wearing a bikini or not, Leia is a strong character and the script wants her character to be the most important thing about her. I tend to think a movie or music video or whatever is objectifying a person when the most interesting thing about that individual is their body. If their character or their performance or their voice or whatever is more interesting than their body then they're being sexy. Like a Playboy model is being objectified; Alicia Vikander in Ex Machina (totally random example that just popped into my head for some reason) is sexy, but she's not being objectified because her performance in the film and the character the film has crafted for her are of more importance than her body. Now, let's take Alicia Vikander in The Man From U.N.C.L.E.: paper-thin character on the page, no real function in the story, no real performance aside from posing in period outfits (this is also true of Cavill and Hammer, of course; Cavill in particularly, even more than Vikander, I think) . . . so, she's kind of being objectified there, because the most important thing about her is how she looks. So, a movie can have a woman walk around fully naked and be less objectifying than a movie that has her fully clothed at all times. It's all about the point. And Leia has never been a cardboard character that's in the movies to be beautiful or sexy. She's always been a great, powerful character and a great, powerful performance. Now, if you're screencapping pictures of her in the bikini and using them for your desktop . . . then you're objectifying that. But that's not the fault of the filmmakers.

Fisher's reaction to the costume is troubling certainly and if, as she says, a crew member or costumer was creeping on her, then that is disgusting and the guy should have been fired. But it's acting. I mean, you signed on, you're in the movie. You're an actor; you go without a net or you go home. It's never been a safe profession. I typically don't take a role unless it's going to push my comfort zone on some level. I mean, I understand what she's saying and how she felt and this situation is a little different than some others, but I really don't want to hear actors talking about how uncomfortable they are or were in performing the role. To some degree you have to be, to some degree you need to be and to some degree you need to not give a **** whether you are or not. Because when the cameras roll or the curtain comes up, it's not about you anymore. I've been extremely uncomfortable with a lot of stuff I've had to do in shows, sometimes all the way through rehearsals; I've even been into some really serious negative emotions during a preparation/rehearsal period and even on and into the show - but it got a better performance out of me, it got a performance the show needed. And if I think how I personally felt was more important than that final product, well, **** me.

In point of fact, feeling vulnerable and exposed, heck, even humiliated a little bit, in that costume . . . well, that's exactly how the character is supposed to feel. The costume is kind of perfect in that way, for a certain type of person; it essentially hands you the performance on a silver platter, it connects you to how that character feels on a visceral level. It wouldn't take her much work to get into Leia's headspace in that section of the film. And that's how a costume serves the film and the story in more ways than just showing off someone's body. This all probably sounds very high falutin', but people were thinking about these issues while preparing and then making this movie, I guarantee it. These things are dark, but these things happen in art and it's hard to argue with the results sometimes. I mean, do we really want Stanley Kubrick going easy on Shelley Duvall while they're making The Shining? Do we want Dennis Hopper to maintain a steady even keel while making Easy Rider? Do we want Martin Sheen relaxed and at ease while making Apocalypse Now? It's uncomfortable to say no, just like it's uncomfortable to say that an actress has to wear a costume she's uncomfortable with. But if you say yes, what are you really asking for? Art is without a net. You can't do art only until it makes you uncomfortable. You can't elevate your personal feelings above the whole. Those feelings will go away and you'll look back and forget how miserable you were. You'll remember the triumph. And in a hundred years, you'll be dead and, hopefully, people will still be watching your movie or reading your book or whatever. At that moment, if your consciousness is aware enough somewhere in death to understand it, you'd realize the trade of your suffering for that artwork was more than worth it.

 

Yeah, I don't buy it. I don't agree that enforced method acting by directors or circumstance is a desirable approach. In fact, I think it's pretty despicable in most cases."THE ART" doesn't justify a lot to me.

Also, I agree with Stephen King about Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining.

 

Dammit, I just missed the edit. I wasn't planning on really deleting anything anyway, but I did kind of feel on reflection that I was being overly harsh toward Fisher in that post. It's not my intent to minimize her feelings or say that she was wrong to feel them or anything like that. It just happened to land right on one of my hot button issues, which is actors that complain about the things they have to do in their performances. I'm not going to get into it, but this is just one of those things that really gets my hackles up so I went on a rant there that I know wish was less strongly worded and a lot shorter. But I let it stand as my knee jerk reaction. Anyway, it's over the top and I'm just saying here that I kind of want to moderate it a bit.

 

I think the point of the movie was more to create outrage that Jabba and his cohorts were objectifying Leia. When I first saw ROTJ I was 14 and to be honest I didn't react to the slave outfit in a sexual way at all, I was actually put out that one of my favourite characters was being chained up like a pet dog. In ROTJ the objectification is really designed to make Jabba the most repellant character possible - I mean how can you take this kick arse princess who is effectively the leader of the Rebellion and then chain her up like an animal dressed in a way which is clearly intended to humiliate her. Maybe I'm giving Lucas too much credit but I don't think the process was 'man we need to get the teenage boys to pass out over Fisher's cleavage,let's put her in a slave bikini' or anything like that.

 

This recounting of Star Wars is historically untrue. Or at least, it very much strains credulity.

Even already referenced the "nipple tape" episode. That is not deep or thoughtful. It doesn't even make sense. It's certainly not trying to help highlight how character is strong or empowered. Given that Lucas has done things like this in the past, you can't take as your premise that everything he does with regards to the character has some good intention.

That being the case, we have to consider how and why this specific costume evolved. Not the scenario that the character was in, but her costume. She was, as you said, a sex slave. That certainly has dramatic potential. It helps establish the villain and unlikable, and her dire situation. But why does that require such a revealing costume? The giant chain around her neck and some of the subsequent scenes (attempting to lick her), more than made clear what was being implied. Likewise, the mere situation could be pretty emotionally distressing. There've been plenty of films to portray the trauma of sex slavery in fully clothed women, despite spending only a few seoncds or passing shots on them. Why, then, did Carrie Fisher in particular need to be half-naked? What did it contribute to anything?

As others have pointed out, it harkens back to early female roles that were certainly objectifying. Lucas intentionally modeled his costume on those. Likewise, he had a previous history of trying to highlight the sexual attractiveness of his female stars. Finally, we have Fisher's own strong statement, made decades later in retrospect, which strongly implies she does not see it as a useful piece of method acting. She sees it, even now, as something objectifying, and worth avoiding. The weight of direct, first person experience, history, and logic would all suggest that they made up a scene where Carrie Fisher was half-naked primarily because Lucas thought male audiences would like seeing Carrie Fisher's half-naked body. We can like the overall film series without trying to offer apologetics for this.

 

Wocky, I think nakedness=humiliation, particularly when you are on public display. It's a relatively non controversial concept that stripping a person's clothes off is a way of humbling and humiliating them, particularly in public. What better way to humble a person of royal blood, a political leader and former Senator than having her flesh exposed for all to see? Look you may well be right about Lucas, but I don't think its necessarily the case that the costume was used just to titillate the audience.

 

I never said that everything he did with his characters had good intentions (I've seen the prequels ). And I'm not necessarily defending the costume as it is. It's definitely over the top and I think it could be made significantly less revealing without any real loss as to the disgusting nature of Jabba and her strength in overcoming her degradation. I'm not saying the outfit is perfect; I would have made it less revealing if I'd been designing it. But I'm saying that the fact that it was so revealing does not, for me, make it completely objectifying. Is it intended to be sexy? Of course it is. It would be folly to say that it isn't. I'm not saying that it isn't supposed to be sexy. I'm saying that it doesn't cross that line into objectification in my opinion because her character is still first and foremost the important thing. Yes, Lucas and co want "to highlight the sexual attractiveness of his female stars." And that is, in my opinion, a fine thing to do. The question is when does that highlighting of someone's sexual attractiveness overwhelm things like character and performance and thus cross the line into pandering and exploitation and objectification? For me, not in this instance. In the context of the film, I should say. As I said earlier, if some creepy dude is just checking out screencaps online, then that's objectification that has nothing to do with the character, the story, the movie, whatever. But in the context of the film, it is not pure objectification.

As to hearkening back to earlier roles, well, whatever. It does. There's a place for referencing earlier artworks, even troubling ones. And a reference and an homage are not the same thing, though a lot of critics seem to think they are. And we're talking about the past. There are many troubling elements to art of the past. Though I would quibble with your placing Frazetta on the same level as Amos & Andy. Amos & Andy was based on ridicule and cheap, insulting humor; Frazetta, however troubling some elements of his work are, had genuine artistic talent and a wonderful artistic vision and it was not first and foremost in his mind to ridicule or to insult an entire group of people. And of course he did a lot of other things aside from nude pictures of women. I don't think Amos & Andy ever really tried to branch out beyond the blackface. Yes, Frazetta is troubling in the same way a lot of comic artists over the years have been, but, as you say, we can appreciate the finer elements without having to defend the more troubling aspects, but the comparison to Amos & Andy seems pretty extreme.

 

So then, to ask the question in alternative fashion, what performances do qualify as objectifying their participants, in your opinion?

 

This is untrue and a rather disingenuous to say. Leia has been merchandised in other outfits, most notably her white dress and buns.

So, shut up men and let the women speak. Huh, flip that around and you're a sexist. This is an issue about censorship and bending over backwards to pacify a radical movement that is offended about almost everything.

What's next, TFN going to ban all Slave Leia discussion, images and avatars?

 

When I think of Leia, I think of the white dress and the hairbuns, not the slave girl outfit. And I think she looked best in ROTJ in the Ewok village outfit, to be honest. But I like heroines to be dressed pretty wholesomely anyway, and heroes too. Not too much into the whole Red Sonja/Conan look. I like the goody-goody types (not that Leia is much like that, she's more the brash and bold type).

 

I think you are indeed being too kind to Lucas.



Leia's outfit is clearly a throwback to Rice Burrough's Deja Thoris, who in the sixties was often depicted in very similar garb (I believe in the original novel she was actually nude). But I still consider it a harmless act - at least, as harmless as having Neimoidians speak with an Asian accent. It's Lucas.

Interestingly, Disney made the movie "John Carter" and dressed up Deja Thoris much more.

 

Sorry. Accidental post.

 

Oh joy, this fascinating discussion again.

 

Exactly.... it's strange to come in here and find a bunch of men discussing what is acceptable for women to wear, and what isn't, and how people should feel about it.

I'm not really offended by the slave outfit, but it would be nice to see some Leia figures with some alternate outfits, like her Hoth outfit, or her rebel outfit... her Endor outfit would be cool, too--her slave outfit doesn't really showcase who she is as a character. Fanboys like boobs in metal bras, though, so yeah.

 

I see a lot of Leia cosplay in the white gown, and figures of her in other costumes are readily available. Fangirls also like boobs in metal bras, it's worth pointing out.

 

Did my post seriously make you feel threatened enough to get defensive? Get a grip.

 

Who's threatened? I'm contributing to the discussion. In this very thread you've Liked my posts multiple times. Now you're telling me to get a grip because I made an observation that is not 100% in line with your way of thinking? Jesus Christ.

 

harpua: it would be nice to see some Leia figures with some alternate outfits

Me: I see a lot of Leia cosplay in the white gown and figures of her in other costumes are readily available

harpua: Get a grip.

Me: