Akilzer

I was not a big fan of watermelon growing up.  When my brother-in-law introduced watermelon juice to me years ago, I was reluctant to try but ended up being surprised by how delicious it was.

Growing up, watermelon was the most common fruit during the summer time in Japan.  We usually spent the summer in my grandparents’ home in Osaka.  They have a big backyard and I remember having watermelon seeds spitting contents with my brother to see who can spit farther.

I also remember eating watermelon with my late grandpa on the porch after helping him tend the garden.  When my family went camping, we would put the watermelon in the river to cool and played a traditional Japanese game called suikawari (スイカ割り).

Suikawari is a game where everyone takes turn to smash watermelon with a stick while blindfolded.  The rule is similar to piñata except you play with a watermelon.  Each person is blindfolded, spun around three times, and handed a wooden stick to strike with.  The first to crack the watermelon open wins, and everyone enjoys the chunks of watermelon afterwards.

Hope you try playing Suikawari and making watermelon juice this summer!

In a wonderfully provocative article titled “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” (full text), writer and poet Adrienne Rich argues, among other things, that the assumption of heterosexuality in the context of patriarchy alternatively erases and stigmatizes woman-to-woman bonds.

Though the title specifies lesbianism, she means intense and meaningful relationships between women more generally.  In other words, an overbearing heterosexuality orients women towards men not just as sexual and romantic partners, but as the arbiters of all that is good and right. Accordingly, women don’t turn to other women to validate their ideas, their value, their beauty, or anything else about them.  This post, analyzing the reality show Battle of the Bods, is a stark example.

If only men can validate women’s worth, then other women exist only as competition for their approval.  This is good for patriarchy; it divides and conquers women, keeping them constantly looking to please the men around them and making them feel invisible and worthless if they can’t get attention from or endorsement from men.

There are various strategies for getting men’s stamp of approval: being the busy and useful mother of a man’s children is one way, while being a childless so-called “trophy wife” is another.  You can imagine, right away, that these two kinds of women might see themselves as in competition.  One may be more harried, with less time to tend to her physical fitness and keep her hair shiny and her make-up and clothes just right.  The other may have plenty of time to keep herself fit and beautiful, but knows that her connection to her husband may feel less permanent without children to tie her to him.  Moreover, the childless wife is often a second wife.  So all sexy, single, childless women are, theoretically, a threat to the wife and mother.  And all husband/dads are, theoretically, a target for wanna-be second wives.

Pop culture constantly re-affirms these narratives.  It frequently naturalizes the idea that women should turn to men, and not women, to reinforce their value. Portraying women as in competition is part of that.  The “trophy wife” vs. the “busy mom” is one of those match-ups. Enter this Volvo ad, sent in by Dolores R.:

The ad encourages us to think mean-spirited thoughts about the married but (presumably) childless woman with the puckered lips.  She clearly sees herself as in competition with the redhead, looking over to check that she is, in fact, more beautiful, and looking satisfied that she is.  The redhead, though, has (supposedly) more important things to do than check herself out in the mirror.  She’s got kids.  How shallow the blond, we’re told to think, how fake.  ”Designed for real people,” the narrator explains, “designed around you.”

These battles — between childless women and mothers, one kind of mother and another, old women and young, thin women and fat, ugly women and beautiful, popular and less popular, mother-in-laws and daughter-in-laws, between strangers and between best friends — this is patriarchy in action.  It weakens women as as group and makes it more difficult to fight oppression.

As my good friend Caroline Heldman says, when we see women that excel in some way — whether they be accomplished in their career, impressive fashionistas, incredible parents, truly loved partners, inspired artists, or what-have-you —  we are taught to find something about them to dismiss because they make us feel insecure. Instead, we should think “How fabulous is she! I want to tell her how great she is and be her friend!”

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College.  She elaborates on these themes in her talk, A Feminist Defense of Friendship. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

Well, sort of.

In my and Gwen Sharp’s advice for new college grads, we advise against trying to find a job that you love.  ”This sets young people up to fail,” we wrote. Instead:

…it’s ok to set your sights just a tad below occupational ecstasy.  Just find a job that you like.  Use that job to help you have a full life with lots of good things and pleasure and helping others and stuff.  A great life is pretty good, even if it’s not perfect.

This has gotten us quite a bit of feedback, both positive and negative, and helped spark a Huffington Post Live segment exploring the topic, featuring two young entrepreneurs, a career development counselor, and “the requisite” economist (his words!).

I try (largely unsuccessfully) to keep the conversation grounded in a class analysis, reminding the group that using ourselves as examples was sampling on the dependent variable.  And I suggest that, instead of telling young college graduates to “find the thing they were meant to do,” we should help them see that they are likely looking at 100 different satisfying futures. All they need to do is find one of them.

The full segment is longish, but the best part is the first minute, a compilation of wildly successful people giving commencement speeches about how everyone should just find their passion and follow their dreams.

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

Robb S. sent along a great set of images from Vulture.  Using case studies of individual leading men in Hollywood, they show that the love interests cast in their films don’t age alongside them over the course of their careers.  Not convinced?  Here’s nine examples and one exception.  For fun, try to guess which leading man bucks the trend?  I’ll embed it last.

And the exception is!

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

We’re celebrating the end of the year with our most popular posts from 2013, plus a few of our favorites tossed in.  Enjoy!

Like many people, I’ve been following news about the crash landing in San Francisco. It’s a frightening reminder of the risks that come with air travel, but an uplifting one thanks to the small number of casualties.  The Mayor of San Francisco was quoted saying: “We’re lucky we have this many survivors.”  And the Chief of the San Francisco Fire Department said that it was “nothing short of a miracle…”  At CNN, after mentioning the two confirmed fatalities, the reporter writes, “Somehow, 305 others survived.” Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, wrote that it was a “serious moment to give thanks.”  But to whom?

There’s a kind of person who is trained to maximize survival in the case of a plane crash: the flight attendant.  Airlines don’t advertise the intense training their flight attendants receive because it reminds potential passengers that air travel is risky.  As a result, most people seriously underestimate the skills flight attendants bring on board and the dedication they have to the safety of their passengers.

Flight attendants have to learn hundreds of regulations and know the safety features of all of the aircraft in their airline’s fleet. They must know how to evacuate the plane on land or sea within 90 seconds; fight fires 35,000 feet in the air; keep a heart attack or stroke victim alive; calm an anxious, aggressive, or mentally ill passenger; respond to hijackings and terrorist attacks; and ensure group survival in the jungle, sea, desert, or arctic.

It isn’t just book learning; they train in “live fire pits” and “ditching pools.”As one flight attendant once said:

I don’t think of myself as a sex symbol or a servant. I think of myself as somebody who knows how to open the door of a 747 in the dark, upside down and in the water (source).

This is why I’m surprised to see almost no discussion of the flight attendants’ role in this “miracle.” Consider the top five news stories on Google at the time I’m writing: CNN, Fox, CBS, the Chicago Tribune, and USA Today.  These articles use passive language to describe the evacuation: ”slides had deployed”; all passengers “managed to get off.”  When the cabin crew are mentioned, they appear alongside and equivalent to the passengers: the crash forced “dozens of frightened passengers and crew to scamper from the heavily damaged aircraft”; ”passengers and crew were being treated” at local hospitals.

Only one of these five stories, at Fox, acknowledges that the 16 cabin crew members worked through the crash and its aftermath.  The story mentions that, while passengers who could were fleeing the plane, crew remained behind to help people who were trapped, slashing seat belts with knives supplied by police officers on the ground.  The plane was going up in flames; they risked their lives to save others.

I don’t know what the flight attendants on this plane did or didn’t do to minimize injuries or save lives, but I would like to know.  Instead, they are invisible in these news stories as workers, allowing readers and future passengers to remain ignorant of the skills and dedication they bring to their work.

Cross-posted at Jezebel, PolicyMic, Huffington Post, and BlogHer.

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

Johnny Depp is playing the character of “Tonto” in the movie re-make of The Lone Ranger.  Critics of the original series have observed that Tonto, the American Indian sidekick of the White hero, was a negative racial stereotype.  He was subservient to the Ranger, spoke poor English, and seemed generally dumb (his name translates into “stupid” in Spanish).  Depp has insisted that he wants to play a different kind of Tonto and reinvent the characters’ relationship.

So far so bad, as least according to recently released publicity photos revealing Depp’s costume and make up (coverage suggests that Depp himself is designing the character’s appearance).  Thanks to YetAnotherGirl and Dolores R. for sending in the tip.

Depp’s look was inspired by the art of a man named Kirby Sattler.  That’s Depp on the left; Sattler’s painting is on the right.

Sattler is famous for painting images of Native Americans, but has been criticized for stereotypical representations.  “Indian art” is a contentious issue: many non-Indian artists have made careers painting the “noble savage” and the “young girl with wolf.”  According to Native Appropriations, Sattler “…relies heavily on stereotypes of Native people as mystical-connected-to-nature-ancient-spiritual-creatures, with little regard for any type of historical accuracy.”  Sattler himself has written that his paintings come out of his own imagination or, as Native Appropriations puts it, “he makes these subjects up based on the (heavily stereotyped) images in his own head.”  Here’s a Google image search for the artist’s name:

This, unfortunately, is playing out an all-too-common story.  It goes like this:

1. There are very few roles for non-White characters in Hollywood.
2. When we have a non-White character, a White actor is cast into the role (e.g., The Last Airbender and Iron Eyes Cody, the crying Indian).
3. That actor shows a lack of understanding of the real issues at hand. Depp, for example, has claimed a right to play the role because he has a little bit of Indian in him.  ”Cherokee or maybe Creek,” he says, because he doesn’t actually know.
4. So, the portrayal is consistent with harmful stereotypes.  In this case, when deciding on a costume, Depp doesn’t choose to represent a tribe as they really were (“are” is out of the question), but instead draws on the work of an artist who admits that he makes up an idea of “the Indian” that appeals to him, a White man with no interest in true-to-life portrayals.

So, there you have it.  Again.

This post originally appeared in May 2012.  For more, see Representations of the “Primitive” Indian and Anachronism and American Indians.

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

The fashion industry is not inclusive of racial and ethnic minorities. Many of the industry’s most celebrated and acclaimed fashion houses rarely cast models of color for their runway shows. Fall 2013 was one of the worst seasons in diversity for casting. Almost 83% of the models on the runway were white (source):

The result is an incredibly homogeneous look on the runway.  This image is from the Fall 2013 Gucci show (source):

And this one is from the Fall 2013 Calvin Klein show (source):

Faintly aware of this critique, some designers put a minority model on the runway every odd season. But while look-alike white models are hired en masse, designers often limit just how much color they’re willing to include.  Chanel Iman, an extremely successful multiracial model, told The Times: “Designers have told me, ‘We already found one black girl. We don’t need you anymore.’”

Leila Ananna, a casting director for Burberry, Gucci, Emilio Pucci, Saint Laurent, and more, thinks that this is okay.  Commenting on the lack of runway diversity, she said: “We think we need to keep in mind that these are shows. A show needs to make you dream, and it doesn’t necessarily need to represent reality.”

Ananna’s words pose many concerns. The idea that fashion shows are supposed to make you dream suggests that everyone is white in this idealized world. In contrast, I find the idealization of the homogeneous aesthetic to be a reflection of racism; this is a nightmare, not a dream.

Rebs (Wooyoung) Lim is currently a student attending Occidental College. She is interested in minoring in Sociology and majoring in Urban and Environmental Policy. She does not have a twitter account, sadly.

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

Laura Bates started the Everyday Sexism Project last year as a forum to allow women to speak about the sadly quotidian experience of sexism. Her hope was to give a few hundred women — if she was lucky — a safe space to share their experiences, free from marginalization or any social pressure to remain silent. A year later, the project has attracted 25,000 entries, garnered significant media attention, and spread to 15 countries; it's also received some particularly distressing hate mail. This is a testament both to the necessity of movements like the Everyday Sexism Project and to how much feminists have yet to achieve.

In a piece published today in The Guardian, Bates recounts some of the more haunting stories she's shared in the past year:

A girl in Pakistan described hiding sexual abuse for the sake of "family honour". A woman in Brazil was harassed by three men who tried to drag her into their car when she ignored them. In Germany, a woman had her crotch and bottom groped so frequently she described it as "the norm". In Mexico, a university student was told by her professor: "Calladita te ves mas bonita" (you look prettier when you shut up). In Israel, a teacher with a master's degree who speaks six languages was told she "wasn't a good enough homemaker for my future husband". In France, a man exposed himself to 12- and 16-year-old sisters as they tried to picnic in a public park. On a bus in India, a woman was too afraid to report the man pressing his erect penis into her back.

As soul-crushing as all of these accounts are, the growth of the Everyday Sexism Project is inspiring — the project has grown so successful because of the support and dedication of women from all over the world who recognize the importance of empowering others to share their experiences. According to Bates, "every time the project was featured in the foreign press, I would receive emails from women in those countries asking if they could start a version of the project there because it was desperately needed." As a result, it has spread to the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Russia, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Brazil, Spain, Argentina, Germany, Austria, and France, and each branch has local volunteers who moderate their own content.

However, as in accordance with (probably) one of the rules of the internet, nothing nice is allowed to exist without attracting a pack of anonymous maniacs hell-bent on destruction. As the project became more well known, Bates began to receive an influx of threats and vitriolic messages. One of the first read, "You experience sexism because women are inferior in every single way to men. The only reason you have been put on this planet is so we can fuck you... Please die." From there, the threats worsened. Some included graphic descriptions of torture, rape, and murder. The Everyday Sexism project doesn't have a radical political agenda, nor does it ever condemn men in general. It's simply a collection of true accounts written by women who have been harassed, abused, violated, or made to feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and unworthy by male-dominated society. In what fucked-up world does someone sharing an experience in which she felt victimized constitute an affront to anyone?

The everyday experience of sexism is just that: an everyday experience. Granting women a space to share their fears, frustrations, and traumas that result from misogynistic aggressions and micro-aggressions is immensely important because it helps to prevent them from internalizing sexism as part of their daily experience. The results of the project so far vindicate this line of thinking completely. In Bates' words:

Anyone who describes feminism as an in-fighting, back-biting movement has clearly never been as lucky as I was, at those lowest moments, to discover in it the strength and kindness, advice and support of so many other women and men.

Women and men alike gained the confidence to fight back from reading others' stories as well. Bates recounts the stories of a runner who, sick of catcalls, made her own "honk if you love feminism" shirt, of a football fan who wrote to the chairman of his club demanding a stop to misogynistic chants, and of countless women who found the strength to report harassment, stalking, and sexual assault to the police.

"The Everyday Sexism Project: a year of shouting back" [The Guardian]

“You just have to be cheerful about it and not get upset when you get insulted,” said rocket scientist Yvonne Brill.

She must be chuckling in heaven, because her obituary at the New York Times made the common mistake of making her femaleness and femininity a central part of their retrospective.  After objections, NYT corrected the obit.  Here are the tracked changes, courtesy of NewsDiffs:

At Feministe, Caperton offers a nice discussion of this phenomenon and draws our attention to the Finkbeiner Test, named after journalist Ann Finkbeiner.  Inspired by the Bechdel Test for movies, the Finkbeiner Test is used to judge whether stories about women focus excessively on the fact that they are women.  To pass the test, the story cannot mention:

• The fact that she’s a woman
• Her husband’s job
• Her child care arrangements
• How she nurtures her underlings
• How she was taken aback by the competitiveness in her field
• How she’s such a role model for other women
• How she’s the “first woman to…”

Awesome.

We’ve documented lots of instances of the men-are-people and women-are-women phenomenon.  It’s no wonder it shows up in obituaries too.  I’m glad that we’re becoming sensitive enough to the issue to notice it and that institutions like the NYT are responsive enough to change the most egregious examples of it.  Next step: prevention.

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

famous chef is never in a relationship for long. that’s okay — he’s in a long-term relationship with cooking and abuse

We all-too-often take for granted that photographs like this one, revealing the impact of an oil pipeline leak on Mayflower, Arkansas, will be able to inform us about the state of the world. In fact, such images are taken by actual human photojournalists whose rights of access are protected by the First Amendment establishing the freedom of the press.

This is a real thorn in the side of both corporations and governments that might prefer to control media’s access to embarrassing or illegal activities.  So, often they try to strong arm journalists, co-opt local officials, or pass (likely illegal) legislation designed to protect them from the free press’ gaze.  Here are two current examples.

First, Mother Jones reports that Exxon officials are making efforts to limit reporter access to the oil pipeline leak in Mayflower, Arkansas.  This is happening in at least two ways.  First, Exxon representatives and local law enforcement are blocking journalists from accessing the spill site, threatening  ”arrest for criminal trespass.”  Second, BoingBoing reports that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has instituted a temporary “no-fly zone” in the area of the spill.  Here’s a screenshot from the FAA’s website:

Second, in the last two years Americans have shuddered in response to the release of undercover video revealing the abuse of animals on industrial farms and the torture of Tennessee Walking horses.  These have resulted in convictions, but they’ve also raised the hackles of the agricultural industry.  The New York Times reports that, in an effort to limit their risk, they’ve sponsored bills (proposed or enacted in about a dozen state legislatures) making it illegal to videotape animals on their property without their permission and requiring all prospective employees to reveal associations with animal rights groups.

These examples remind us how important it is that journalists have the freedom to do their job.  They also remind us that we must vigilantly protect that freedom.  Corporations, and governments too, have an incentive to limit the freedom of the press.  These are powerful entities, often in cahoots, that can and will ignore the First Amendment when they can get away with it.

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

I first posted these posters on SocImages in 2008. They are designed to scare teenagers into taking precautions against pregnancy by demonizing teenagers who get (someone) pregnant. The way in which teens are portrayed in these images — labeled cheap, dirty, rejects, pricks, and nobodys — suggests that the organization, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, doesn’t care about teenagers, only in controlling their behavior.

This is the sentence that runs along the left vertical with the word “reject” extracted in bold: “I had sex so my boyfriend wouldn’t REJECT me. Now, I have a baby. And no boyfriends.”

“Now that I’m home with a baby, NOBODY calls me anymore.”

“All it took was one PRICK to get my girlfriend pregnant. At least that’s what her friends say.”

“Condoms are CHEAP. If we’d used one, I wouldn’t have to tell my parents I’m pregnant.”

“I want to be out with my friends. Instead, I’m changing DIRTY diapers at home.”

In response to ads like these, sociologist Gretchen Sisson has started a tumblr of examples of anti-teen pregnancy PSAs that use fear, shame, and threats as motivators, sent to me by @annajobin.  Here’s the one I found most stunning; I think it goes something like don’t-drink-and-party-or-you’ll-get-raped-and-pregnant-and-your-life-will-be-horrible-and-oh-your-child-will-become-a-rapist-too:

Here are a set of ads that try to convince women not have (unprotected) sex with their male peers by suggesting that the men showing interest in them are bad guys who will inevitably abandon them:

And here are a set that use simple threats to get across their message:

About her tumblr, Sisson writes:

Public service announcements that claim to be about “preventing teen pregnancy” are more frequently about shaming and stigmatizing young parents. This is not a way to encourage young people to take control of their reproductive lives, and it’s certainly not a way to support young families.

Nor is it a way to support teenagers who are negotiating complicated interpersonal terrain and making difficult decisions.  These ads are about getting teenagers to do what we want, not helping them figure out what’s best for them.  They caricature the actual lives of teenagers and make early parenthood into a comical boogeyman.  Moreover, they send a clear message to the teenagers that do get pregnant: “you’re a slut/idiot and your life is over.”  This is not good for young parents and it sets them up to fail.

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

In an article titled “Egos Inflating Over Time,” psychologist Jean Twenge and her colleagues show that rate of narcissism among U.S. college students has risen significantly. Narcissism is a “positive and inflated view of the self.” Narcissists are attention-seeking extroverts who have a high opinion of their value, importance, and physical attractiveness. They feel entitled to admiration from others and may act aggressively if they don’t receive the attention they feel they deserve.

Twenge and her colleagues found a 30% increase in narcissism between 1979 and 2006; almost 2/3rds of college students in the mid-2000s were above the mean score reported in the early ’80s.

I can’t help but think of her research every time I see this commercial for the iPhone 5:

What strikes me is the message that every moment of our lives is so amazing that it would be a horrible shame to not share it with everyone:

We can share every second… a billion roaming photojournalists uploading the human experience, and it is spectacular…

And that we should feel entitled to the technological ability to share ourselves:

I need to upload all of me.  I need — no, I have the right — to be unlimited.

Wow. I mean, that’s some pretty serious self-importance there.

Twenge and her colleagues argue that the increase in narcissism is related to the fact that American culture has increasingly celebrated individualism.  This is exactly the kind of message that they might point to as reflecting the cultural dimension of this personality shift.

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

Re-posted in honor of Roger Ebert’s passing. Cross-posted at BlogHer.

University of Minnesota doctoral candidate Chris Miller sent in a fascinating episode of Siskel and Ebert, a long-lasting TV show devoted to reviewing movies.  What is amazing about this episode is the frankness with which the movie critics — Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert — articulate a feminist analysis of a group of slasher movies.

The year? 1980.

First they describe the typical movie:

A woman or young girl is shown alone and isolated and defenseless… a crazy killer springs out of the shadows and attacks her and frequently the killer sadistically threatens the victims before he strikes.

They pull no punches in talking about the problem with the films:

These films hate women.

They go on to suggest that the films are a backlash against the women’s movement:

I’m convinced it has to do with the growth of the woman’s movement in America in the last decade. I think that these films are some sort of primordial response by some very sick people… of men saying “get back in your place, women.”

…

One thing that most of the victims have in common is that they do act independently… They are liberated women who act on their own. When a woman makes a decision for herself, you can almost bet she will pay with her life.

They note, too, that the violence is sexualized:

The nudity is always gratuitous. It is put in to titillate the audience and women who dress this way or merely uncover their bodies are somehow asking for trouble and somehow deserve the trouble they get. That’s a sick idea.

And they’re not just being anti-horror movie.  They conclude:

[There are] good old fashioned horror films… [but] there is a difference between good and scary movies and movies that systematically demean half the human race.

It’s refreshing to hear a straightforward unapologetic feminist analysis outside of a feminist space.  Their analysis, however, isn’t as sophisticated as it could be.

In doing research for a podcast about sex and violence against women in horror films (Sounds Familiar), I came across the keen analysis of Carol Clover, who wrote a book called Men, Women, and Chainsaws.

Clover admitted that most horror films of the time sexualized violence against women — meditating on the torture and terrorizing of beautiful female victims — but she also pointed out that the person who ultimately vanquished the murderer was almost always also female. She called this person the ”final girl.”

The final girl was different than the rest of the women in the film: she was less sexually active, more androgynous, and smarter.  You could pick her out, Clover argued, from the very beginning of the movie.  She was always the first to notice that something frightening might be going on.

Boys and men watching horror films, then (and that is the main audience for this genre), were encouraged to “get off” on the murder of women, but they were also encouraged to identify with a female heroine in the end.  How many other genres routinely ask men to identify with a female character?  Almost none.

In this sense, Clover argues, horror films don’t “hate women.”   Instead, they hate a particular kind of woman. They reproduce a Madonna/whore dichotomy in which the whores are dispatched with pleasure, but the Madonna rises to save us all in the end.

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Siskel and Ebert full episode:

———————–

Full transcript after the jump:

>> RUN IF YOU MUST.
>> HELLO, OPERATOR.
>> HIDE IF YOU CAN.
SCREAM IF YOU ARE ABLE, BUT ABOVE ALL, IF YOU ARE ALONE… [ TELEPHONE RINGING ]
DON’T ANSWER THE PHONE.
DON’T ANSWER THE PHONE!
RATED R.
[ TELEPHONE RINGING ]

Roger Ebert:
TV COMMERCIALS LIKE THAT, EXPLOITING THE PLIGHT OF WOMEN IN DANGER. THEY HAVE BEEN SATURATING TV FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS AND THE SUMMER AND FALL OF 1980 ARE THE WORST YET. IT’S A DISTURBING NEW TREND AT THE MOVIE BOX OFFICE, ONE WE WILL BE DISCUSSING ON THIS SPECIAL EDITION OF SNEAK PREVIEWS. ACROSS THE HEIL FROM ME IS GENE SISKEL OF THE “CHICAGO TRIBUNE.”

Gene Siskel:
AND THIS IS ROGER EBERT OF THE “CHICAGO SUNTIMES.” WE WILL LOOK AT A GROUP OF RECENT FILMS THAT HAVE UGLY THEMES IN COLUMN. THEY ARE THRILLERS FEATURES EXTREME VIOLENCE DIRECTED AT YOUNG WOMEN. TO PUT IT BLUNTLY, WHAT YOU SEE IN MOST OF THESE YOUNG FILMS IS YOUNG GIRLS BEING RAPED OR STABBED TO DEATH, USUALLY BOTH. THIS IS A DEPRESSING DEVELOPMENT IN AMERICAN MOVIES. WE WILL EXAMINE THE NATURE OF THIS TREND AND SPECULATE ON WHY WE ARE GETTING SO MANY OF THESE FILMS AND GETTING THEM NOW. A LOT OF MOVIE GOERS, ADULTS AND TEENAGERS SEE THESE R RATED FILMS AND THEY ASSUME THEY WILL SEE A BUNCH OF ROUTINE SCARY PICTURES BUT OFTENTIMES THEY ARE REALLY SHOCKED HOW AWFUL THESE FILMS ARE. AS WE EXPLORE THIS TREND, WE WILL NOT BE SHOWING YOU EXTREME VIOLENCE IN THESE MOVIES. WE PICKED THEMES THAT ONLY SUGGEST THE VIOLENCE. WE WANT TO INFORM YOU NOT OFFEND YOU.

Roger Ebert:
IT’S JUST AS WELL WE ARE NOT SEEING SOME OF THOSE FILMS. I THINK PEOPLE WOULD TURN THEIR SETS OFF.

Gene Siskel:
YES.

Roger Ebert:
TO BEGIN WITH, ONE OF THE SOCALLED WOMEN IN DANGER FILMS HAVE IN COMMON, THEY PORTRAY WOMEN AS HELPLESS WOMEN. AS YOU SET THROUGH HALF A DOZEN OF THESE FILMS AS GENE AND I HAVE HAD TO, THEY FALL INTO THE SAME PATTERN. A WOMAN OR YOUNG GIRL IS SHOWN ALONE AND ISOLATED AND DEFENSELESS AND THE SUSPENSE FILLED SCENES AND THEN WHEN YOU THINK EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE OKAY AND NOTHING WILL HAPPEN, A CRAZY KILLER SPRINGS OUT OF THE SHADOWS AND ATTACKS HER AND FREQUENTLY THE KILLER SADISTICALLY THREATENS THE VICTIM BEFORE HE STRIKES. THAT’S WHAT’S HAPPENING FROM LAST YEAR’S SLEAZY MOVIE “WHEN A STRANGER CALLS” WHICH HAS BEEN RERELEASED BECAUSE OF THE RECENT UPSURGE OF THE POPULARITY OF THESE MOVIES AFTER TACKS ON WOMEN. THE WOMAN HAS BEEN TOLD TO KEEP THE CALLER ON THE LINE THAT HAS BEEN THREATENING HER UNTIL THE POLICE CAN TRACE THE CALL.

[ TELEPHONE RINGING ]
>> HELLO?
>> IT’S ME.
>> I KNOW.
WHO ARE YOU?
I’M NOT GOING TO BE HERE MUCH LONGER.
I’M COMING HOME.
>> I KNOW.
>> CAN YOU SEE ME?
>> YES.
>> TAKE ME HOME, OR MAYBE EVEN THE POLICE.
>> YOU CALLED THE POLICE?
>> I WANT TO TALK TO YOU.
[ DIAL TONE ]

TELEPHONE RINGING ]
>> LEAVE ME ALONE.
>> JILL, LISTEN TO ME.
WE TRACED THE CALL.
IT’S COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE.
JUST GET OUT OF THAT HOUSE.

Roger Ebert:
THAT BASIC SCENE HAS PROVIDED THE PREMISE FOR AT LEAST A DOZEN FILMS IN THE LAST YEAR. IT’S ALWAYS THE SAME, THE GIRL IS AT HOME ALONE. THE MENACING ATTACKER, THE RINGING TELEPHONE, THE WIDE, FRIGHTENED EYES. I THINK THERE’S SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG WHEN AN IMAGE LIKE THAT BECOMES THE BUILDING BLOCK OF AN ENTIRE MOVIE GENRE.

Gene Siskel:
A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK THAT THE BATTLE HAS BEEN WON THAT THERE ARE STRONG WOMEN IMAGES IN THE FILM AND JILL CLAYBURGH IN “UNMARRIED WOMAN” AND FONDA AND CLAYBURGH MAYBE ONE FILM A YEAR. AND THESE FILMS COME OUT WEEK AFTER WEEK AND THE DOMINANT FILMS IS NOT FONDA AND CLAYBURGH IT’S WOMEN LIKE THAT COWERING IN THE CORNER, KNIVES BEING BRANDISHED IN THEIR FACES, BEING RAPED AND BEING SLICED APART. THAT’S WHAT’S GOING ON IN AMERICAN MOVIES. THAT’S WHY WE ARE DOING THE SHOW.

Roger Ebert:
I THINK PEOPLE IDENTIFY THESE FILMS WITH EARLIER THRILLERS LIKE PSYCHO OR MORE RECENT FILMS LIKE HALLOWEEN. THESE FILMS ARE NOT IN THE SAME CATEGORY. THESE FILM HATE WOMEN AND UNFORTUNATELY THE AUDIENCES THAT GO TO THEM DON’T SEEM TO LIKE WOMEN TOO MUCH EITHER. WE GO TO SEE THESE FILMS IN MOVIE THEATERS. THESE ARE NOT THE KIND OF MOVIES WHERE THEY HAVE NICE PRIVATE LITTLE SCREENINGS FOR THE CRITICS AND TO BE SURROUNDED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE CHEERING THE VILLAIN ON IS A SCARY EXPERIENCE.

Gene Siskel:
THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF THE KILLER AND REALLY AGAINST THE WOMEN COWERING BACK. I DON’T THINK WE CAN STRESS THIS TOO STRONGLY THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT JUST A COUPLE OF FILMS. IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE GETTING NEW ONES OF THESE TYPES OF FILMS EVERY OTHER WEEK. THAT AMOUNTS TO A MAJOR MOVIE TREND. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES. THERE’S PROM NIGHT WITH TEENAGED GIRLS BEING SLAUGHTERED AT THEIR HIGH SCHOOL PROM. THE AD CAMPAIGN IS, IF YOU ARE NOT BACK BY MIDNIGHT, YOU WON’T BE COMING HOME. THERE’S DON’T GO IN THE HOUSE. A GUY WHO WAS TORTURED BY HIS MOTHER BURNS THREE WOMEN TO DEATH, AND THE SELL LINE HERE IS YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. AND THERE’S THE HOWLING, A NEW MOVIE ABOUT A WOMAN WHO GOES ALONE ON A VACATION AND IS TORTURED BY THE LOCALS. THE COME ON LINE HERE IS IMAGINE YOUR WORST FEAR A REALITY. AND THERE’S TERROR TRAIN IN WHICH SIX COLLEGE STUDENTS AT A MASQUERADE PARTY ON A TRAIN ARE STALKED BY A PSYCHO PATH AND THERE’S THE BOOGEYMAN. A SUPERNATURAL KILLER HAUNTS A HOUSE. HERE’S ONE OF THE ADS FOR THE BOOGEYMAN.

>> YOU CAN’T HIDE FROM HIM.
[ CRYING ]
>> BY THE TIME YOU BELIEVE IN HIM, IT WILL BE TOO LATE.
THE BOOGEYMAN, HE WILL GET YOU.

Gene Siskel:
AND WE ARE OUT TO GET HIM BEFORE HE GETS YOU AND YOUR $4. THESE ARE THE MOVIES WE ARE GETTING. IT’S RELENTLESS. EVERY FILM COMPANY SEEMS TO BE MAKING ONE OF THESE MOVIES OR DISTRIBUTING ONE. IN ADDITION TO THE FILMS WE ALREADY MENTIONED THIS SEASON, WE ALSO HAVE “HE KNOWS YOU ARE ALONE,” MOTEL HELL, PHOBIA, MOTHER’S DAY, SCHIZOID, SILENT SCREAM AND I SPIT ON YOUR GAVE, WHICH IS EASILY THE I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, WHICH IS EASILY THE WORST OF THIS BUNCH.

Roger Ebert:
THEY SEE THE R RATING AND THEY THINK, R, THAT MEANS IF YOU ARE UNDER 17, YOU HAVE TO TAKE ALONG A PARENT OR A GUARDIAN, AND IT CAN’T BE THAT BAD. MAYBE THEY SAW THE BLUE LAGOON OR THE BLUES BROTHERS AND THEY SAY, WELL, THAT’S NOT SO BAD. THEY HAVE NO IDEA. I AGREE WITH YOU, ABOUT I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. THAT’S THE MOST VIOLENT, EXTREME, GROTESQUE, NAUSEATING R RATED FILM I HAVE EVER SEEN. I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW THE R RATING HAS GROWN SO LARGE TO INCLUDE THAT MOVIE.

Gene Siskel:
WHAT IS HAPPENING, THE GOUGINGS, AGAIN TO MAKE THE POINT ARE TAKING PLACE AND THEY ARE BASICALLY, BASICALLY WOMEN THAT ARE BEING GOUGED. I THINK AT THIS POINT SOMEBODY IS PROBABLY WONDERING WHY. WHY? WHY NOW? WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? I THINK IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS I HAVE BEEN SEEING THESE PICTURES, I’M CONVINCED IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE GROWTH OF THE WOMAN’S MOVEMENT IN AMERICA IN THE LAST DECADE. I THINK THAT THESE FILMS ARE SOME SORT OF PRIMORDIAL RESPONSE BY SOME VERY SICK PEOPLE OF MEN SAYING GET BACK IN YOUR PLACE, WOMEN.

Roger Ebert:
I THINK YOU ARE BASICALLY RIGHT, GENE. YOU KNOW, AFTER YOU SET THROUGH HOUR AFTER HOUR OF THIS COMPLETE TRASH, YOU BEGIN TO ASK YOURSELF, WHAT DID THESE FEMALE VICTIMS DO TO DESERVE THE HORRIBLE ATTACKS THEY UNDERGO IN THESE FILMS? WHAT WAS THEIR CRIME? WHY IS IT SUDDENLY OPEN SEASON ON YOUNG WOMEN IN THE MOVIES? ONE THING THAT MOST OF THE VICTIMS DO HAVE IN COMMON IS THEY DO ACT INDEPENDENTLY. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT ONE POINT. THEY ARE LIBERATED WOMEN WHO ACT ON THEIR OWN. WHEN A WOMAN MAKES A DECISION FOR HERSELF, YOU CAN ALMOST BET SHE WILL PAY WITH HER LIFE, AND HERE’S A SCENE FROM “THE SILENT SCREAM” WHERE SHE’S LOOKING FOR OFF CAMPUS HOUSING.

>> I’M NOT A VIOLENT PERSON BY NATURE.
IF THERE’S A ROOM HERE, I’M READY TO FIGHT FOR IT.
>> WHY FIGHT?
WE CAN SHARE IT.
>> SHE GETS A ROOM, BEATEN, GAGGED AND ATTACKED WITH A KNIFE.
[ WHIMPERING ]

Roger Ebert:
AND IN MOVIE “FRIDAY THE 13th” AND INDEPENDENT CAMP COUNSELOR GETS A RIDE WITH THE WRONG DRIVER.

>> HI.
I’M GOING TO THE LAKE.
I GUESS I ALWAYS WANT SISTERS.
I HATE WHEN PEOPLE CALL THEM KIDS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE GOATS.
BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A DREAM AS LONG AS I HAD, YOU WILL DO ANYTHING.
HEY, WASN’T THAT THE ROAD FOR CAMP CRYSTAL LAKE BACK THERE?
I THINK WE BETTER STOP.
PLEASE.
PLEASE.
PLEASE STOP!
PLEASE!
PLEASE STOP!

Roger Ebert:
NOW THAT SCENE DEMONSTRATES A VERY COMMON AND PROBABLY VERY SIGNIFICANT TECHNIQUE THAT’S USED AGAIN AND AGAIN IN THESE FILMS. WE VIEW A SCENE THROUGH THE EYES OF THE KILLER. YOU NEVER SAW THE DRIVER IN THAT LAST SCENE. INSTEAD, YOU SAW EVERYTHING THROUGH THE DRIVER’S EYES. NOW, IN THE TRADITIONAL HORROR MOVIE, WE OFTEN SAW THINGS FROM THE VICTIM’S POINT OF VIEW, BUT THAT’S NO LONGER. NOW WE LOOK THROUGH THE KILLER’S EYES. IT’S ALMOST AS IF THE AUDIENCE IS BEING ASKED TO IDENTIFY WITH THE ATTACKERS IN THESE MOVIES AND THAT REALLY BOTHERS ME.

Gene Siskel:
THAT’S A GOOD POINT. THE BEHAVIOR THAT THESE WOMEN ARE ENGAGING IN, IF DONE BY MEN WOULD BE BRAVE, BOLD AND FUN, HITCHHIKING LIKE IN “EASY RIDER.” A WOMAN TRIES TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THESE FILMS, WHAMO, THEY GET SLICED UP. WHENEVER WE SEE A MOVIE TREND, I THINK THAT’S WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON. I THINK I TALKED ABOUT THIS IS A CONVALESCED DREAM THAT THE PEOPLE MAY BE FEELING AND THE FILMMAKER HITS ON. THEY TALKED ABOUT EVERYBODY BEING AFRAID THAT SOMETHING BAD MIGHT HAPPEN TO THE WORLD, A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION. I THINK THEY ARE PICKING UP THAT MEN ARE ANGRY WITH WOMEN AND THEY ARE PANDERING, EXCITING, INFLAMING MEN. VERY BAD.

Roger Ebert:
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE CONVALESCED DREAMS. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE URGES OR FEARS THAT THEY DON’T ARTICULATE THEMSELVES AND SOMETIMES A MOVIE COMES ALONG THAT STRIKES THAT CHORD. WHEN “AIRPORT” CAME OUT IN 1970, NOBODY KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE FIRST OF COUNTLESS, UMPTEEN DOZEN DISASTER MOVIES BUT IT SPOKE TO PEOPLE THAT MADE THEM INITIATE IT. I THE FIRST MOVIE IN THESE WOMEN IN DANGER FILMS WAS HALLOWEEN, WHICH WE WILL GET TO HALLOWEEN IN JUST A MOMENT. I THINK IT’S A PRETTY GOOD PICTURE BUT IT CAPTURED AN ENORMOUS AUDIENCE. IT DID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BUSINESS AND THEN THE SLEAZE MERCHANTS LOOKED AT THAT MOVIE AND TRIED TO PUT THEIR FINGER ON WHAT IT WAS THAT MADE IT SO SUCCESSFUL. WOMEN BEING CHASED BY A KILLER.

Gene Siskel:
THAT’S WHY THEY CALL THEMSELVES EXPLOITATIONS, THESE ROTTEN ONES BECAUSE THEY EXPLOIT ONE ELEMENT AND MAKE IT SICK. AND MANY OF THESE ATTACKS TAKE ON WOMEN WHO ARE SCANTILY CLAD. I THINK THAT THE INTENT IS TO EXPLOIT THE SEX ANGLE IN THESE PICTURES. THE NUDITY IS ALWAYS GRATUITOUS. IT PUT IN TO TITILLATE THE AUDIENCE AND WOMEN WHO DRESS THIS WAY OR MERELY UNCOVER THEIR BODIES ARE SOMEHOW ASKING FOR TROUBLE AND SOMEHOW DESERVE THE TROUBLE THAT THEY GET, THAT’S A SICK IDEA. HERE’S AN INNOCENT SUN BATHER IN “I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE.” WATCH WHAT HAPPENS TO HER.
[ SHOUTS ]

Gene Siskel:
AND IN FRIDAY THE 13th WE WATCH AS A YOUNG WOMAN PRIMPS PROVOCATIVELY IN A BATHROOM MIRROR AS SHE’S STALKED BY A HATCHET KILLER. IT’S A FILM SAYING ACT THIS WAY YOUNG WOMEN AND YOU ARE ASKING FOR TROUBLE.

>> HELLO?
>> NED?
COME ON.
>> TRUST ME.

Gene Siskel:
IN THE PAST YEAR, I MUST HAVE SEEN THAT SCENE 100, 150 TIMES, EVERY MOVIE OF THIS KIND HAS EIGHT OR TEN SCENES JUST LIKE IT. I’M SICK OF THEM. I DREAD GOING TO THESE TYPES OF MOVIE. IT’S THE MOST DEPRESSING PART OF MY JOB AS A FILM CRITIC.

Roger Ebert:
THERE WE ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT. WE GO TO SEE THESE MOVIES AND I ALMOST FEEL AS IF I DON’T BELONG IN THE THEATER BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE APPARENTLY WENT TO THE MOVIES LIKE THIS VOLUNTARILY. THEY ARE REACTING AND HAPPY TO BE THERE. I FEEL LIKE AN UNDERCOVER SPY IN THE DARK. I SPENT TO SEE “I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE” AND I WAS SITTING NEXT TO A MAN WHO WAS 50 YEARS OLD WHO WAS TALKING BACK TO THE SCREEN WHO SAYS, SHE REALLY ASKED FOR IT NOW. OR THERE WAS A RAPE SCENE AND HE SAID, THIS SHOULD BE A GOOD ONE. I FELT CREEPY SITTING THERE.

Gene Siskel:
I SAW A LOT OF COUPLES ON DATES. WELL, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE THIS FILM AND IMITATE THE BEHAVIOR. SOME PEOPLE MAY, BUT I DON’T KNOW. A MAJORITY OF MIDDLECLASS PEOPLE ARE SEEING THEM. I WORRY ABOUT THIS IDEA WHICH IS WHEN YOU VIEW WOMEN, CONSTANTLY AS SPORT, BEING STABBED, I THINK THAT’S A SORT OF SICK NOTION THAT JUST SORT OF MAKES IT’S DEGRADING. YOU VIEW THEM AS SECOND CLASS, THAT SOMEHOW THIS IS ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT ALL MOVIES TEND TO ARGUE IN FAVOR OF THE BEHAVIOR THAT THEY SHOW. THESE ARE WOMEN AS SPORT TO BE STABBED. I THINK THAT’S A BAD IDEA. THEY OUTLAWED BULLFIGHTING BECAUSE IT WAS CRUEL. I ALMOST HAVE SOME OF THE SAME FEELINGS TOWARDS THESE KINDS OF MOVIES.

Roger Ebert:
IT PUTS SOME BAD IDEAS IN SOCIETY IN THE CONTEXT OF ENTERTAINMENT, YES. YOU KNOW, GENE AND I HAD SOME LONG DISCUSSIONS BEFORE WE DECIDED TO DO THIS SPECIAL PROGRAM ON WOMEN IN DANGER IN THE MOVIES AND FRANKLY, WE WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER ADDITIONAL PUBLICITY FOR THESE MOVIES MIGHT SIMPLY HELP THEM OUT AT THE BOX OFFICE. WE SURE HOPE NOT. OUR INTENTION IS TO SIMPLY REPORT ON THIS TREND AND TO WARN UNSUSPECTING PEOPLE WHO MIGHT GO TO THESE FILMS THINKING THEY ARE MERELY, GOOD OLDFASHIONED HORROR FILMS, THE KIND THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE USED TO ENJOY BECAUSE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND SCARY MOVIES AND MOVIES THAT SYSTEMICALLY DEMEAN HALF THE HUMAN RACE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOVIES WHICH ARE VIOLENT BUT ENTERTAINING AND MOVIES THAT ARE GRUESOME AND DESPICABLE. THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HORROR MOVIE AND A FREAK SHOW. AND A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT IS THE FACT THAT BOTH OF US GAVE FAVORABLE REVIEWS TO A VERY SCARY 1978 HORROR FILM NAMED “HALLOWEEN” THERE MUST BE PEOPLE ASKING HOW COULD WE PRAISE A MOVIE LIKE THAT AND NOW SAY THESE OTHER MOVIES SORE TERRIBLE. WELL, HERE’S A SCENE FROM “HALLOWEEN” IT HAS THE SAME BASIC SITUATION AS ALL THE WOMEN IN DANGER MOVIES HAVE. THERE’S A WOMAN ALONE IN A BIG HOUSE AND SHE’S BEING CHASED BY A KILLER, BUT LET’S LOOK AT IT FIRST AND TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES.

>> WE WILL TAKE A LITTLE WALK.
>> WHAT IF IT’S THE BOOGEYMAN.
I’M SCARED.
>> THERE’S NOTHING TO BE SCARED OF.
>> WHY?
>> I KILLED HIM.
>> YOU CAN’T KILL THE BOOGEYMAN.
[ SCREAMING ]
>> LOCK THE DOOR!
¶

Roger Ebert:
OKAY. THAT’S “HALLOWEEN” A HORROR MOVIE WE BOTH THINK IS PRETTY GOOD.

Gene Siskel:
VERY GOOD.

Roger Ebert:
HALLOWEEN IS DIRECTED AND ACTED WITH MORE ARTISTRY AND CRAFTSMANSHIP THAN THE SLEAZE FILMS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. AS YOU WATCH HALLOWEEN, YOUR BASIC SYMPATHIES ARE ENLISTED ON THE SIDE OF THE WOMAN, NOT WITH THE KILLER. THE MOVIE DEVELOPS ITS WOMEN KILLERS AS INDEPENDENT, INTELLIGENT, SPUNKY AND INTERESTING PEOPLE. HALLOWEEN DOES NOT HATE WOMEN.

Gene Siskel:
YOU KNOW WHEN I SAW THAT SCENE, I MUST ADMIT I WASN’T WORRYING AS MUCH ABOUT THE WOMAN, BUT I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT KILLER AND HOW I WOULD HANDLE. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT HALLOWEEN NOT ONLY HATES WOMEN BUT IT LOVES FILM AND FILMMAKING. THE MUSIC IS FABULOUS, THE WAY HE STARTS ONE THEME AND KEEPING THE OTHER THEME REALLY GOOD. ALSO THE LIGHT COMING THROUGH THE SLATS IN THAT CLOSET. IT’S A FILM THAT’S UP. THAT SCENE IS UP AND YOU ARE JUMPING RATHER THAN GETTING DEPRESSED AND FEELING SORRY AND FEELING SORRY THAT YOU ARE WATCHING.

Roger Ebert:
ARTISTRY CAN REDEEM ANY SUBJECT MATTER. THAT’S WHY I HAVE BEEN OPPOSED TO CENSORSHIP. I DON’T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE OFF BASE. WHAT DOES THE ARTIST DO WITH IT? HOW DOES HE PUT IT THROUGH HIS ART IN ORDER TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT IT OR TO MAKE IT INTO A COMMERCIAL FILM OR A SERIOUS FILM. I BELIEVE IN THE CASE OF THE MOVIE LIKE HALLOWEEN, WE CAN ENGAGE IN THAT JOY OF FILMMAKING THAT YOU TALK ABOUT. THAT’S NOT THE CASE WITH THE OTHER FILMS THAT REALLY ADDRESS THEMSELVES TO THE LOWEST POSSIBLE COMMON DENOMINATOR.

Gene Siskel:
THE FILM WE ARE DEALING WITH DO NOT HAVE THE ARTISTRY OF HALLOWEEN. THEY BOIL DOWN TO ONE IMAGE, ONE DISTURBING IMAGE, A WOMAN SCREAMING IN ABJECT TERROR.

[ SCREAMS ]

Gene Siskel:
AS TO WHAT PEOPLE CAN DO ABOUT THESE FILMS, THE TREND IN THE MOVIES THAT WE HAVE BEEN SPOTLIGHTING, I THINK PEOPLE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT THE BOX OFFICE SPEAKS LOUDER THAN JUST TWO FILM CRITICS. IF ONE OF THESE FILMS IS AROUND, IF YOU HAVE AN IDEA THAT IT MIGHT BE AROUND, STAY AWAY.

Roger Ebert:
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT FILMS TO STAY AWAY FROM, USUALLY YOU CAN TELL BY THE ADS, R RATED WITH A KNIFE OR A HATCHET, A GIRL SCREAMING AND SOME GUY IN A HOOD. THESE MOVIES ARE JUNK AND GIVE THEM A PASS.

Gene Siskel:
WE WILL SEE YOU AT THE MOVIES.

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky:
I MEAN I HATE TO DEFEND A FILM THAT ISN’T ALL THAT GOOD. I THINK ROGER IS BEING UNFAIR TO “I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE.” IT’S A FILM ABOUT A BRUTAL ACT.

Christy Lemire:
BUT HE’S APPALLED BY THE ORIGINAL, AND “LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT” WHERE THEY LANGUISH OVER AND FETISHIZE THE RAPE IT’S NOT JUST ALLUDED TO. THEY SPEND TIME WITH IT NEEDLESSLY AND THERE’S THE WHOLE TREND OF MOVIES LIKE “HIGH TENSION” WHERE THE WOMAN IS A VICTIM IN THE BEGINNING BUT SHE GETS HER REVENGE IN BLOODY, GORY WAYS.

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky:
MANY OF THESE FILMS WHERE WOMEN ARE QUOTE/UNQUOTE VICTIMIZED OR PUT IN DANGER ARE WHERE WOMEN TRIUMPH OVER DANGER. HORROR IS THE ONLY PLACE WHERE YOU CAN FIND A FEMALE PROTAGONIST.

Christy Lemire:
JAMIE THREE CURTIS “THE FINAL GIRL.”

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky:
SHE LASTS THROUGH THE ENTIRE FILM WITHOUT GETTING KILLED. JOIN US NEXT WEEK FOR ANOTHER LOOK BACK AT SNEAK PREVIEWS. YOU CAN FOLLOW THE DISCUSSION ON FACEBOOK AND ON TWITTER. UNTIL THEN, THE BALCONY IS CLOSED.

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)