Question for Readers

[eredien]

Have any of you ever read anything you liked by self-described "feminist brown person" Teresa Jusino? I just read a review of the controversial movie Sucker Punch by her on tor.com, and am so incandescent with the idea that her work passes for smart feminist pop-culture SF critique that I am not going to link to the review, and am considering just not reading any more of her work, ever, which is sad, because I *really* like reading smart feminist pop-culture SF critique, and want to support the cultural critique work of feminists and/or people of color in general. She's written some things about the Wheedonverse, which I haven't read because I don't really understand the love for Wheedon's shows (sorry, lotusbiosm), even after having given one of them a shot (Dollhouse) a while back to see what all the controversy was about, and decide for myself.

I really hope that someone can point me toward something she's written that's balanced, and well-thought-out, because I really don't want to lump her and her work in with the work of, say, Piers Anthony, but right now I'm leaning toward giving her work the same label I give Anthony's, which is "this work presents disturbing scenarios and then tries to argue that the presentation of those disturbing scenarios is edgy, empowering, funny, or important, without really offering anything to back up that assertion other than the author's own feelings about that work, stripped of any context other than a self-referential one. Automatic do-not-read."
I really don't want to put her on my automatic do-not-read list, because honestly I found at least some of her smaller points (mostly about attractive people in attractive clothing not being automatically exploitative when presented) somewhat compelling, but the larger ones...oh, god.


I agree that sometimes disturbing scenarios need to be presented in art, and that sometimes the *exploration* of those scenarios can be biting and necessary social commentary. But there is a huge difference between presentation of those scenarios, exploration of those scenarios (whether in a group media setting or in one's own thoughts), and exploitation of those presentations.

For instance, this is the paragraph from Jusino's review of Sucker Punch that literally made me gasp in horror [warning: rape/sexual assault triggers]:

Why Sucker Punch Isn’t Exploitative, Misogynistic, or Any Other Word Thrown Around Without Context In Feminist Discourse

Another criticism of Sucker Punch is that it is misogynistic and exploitative simply because it shows women being raped and objectified. I hate to break it to those critics, but...rape happen and women are objectified in real life. Be angry when it happens then. The objectification and sexual abuse in Sucker Punch need to be there, because these are the obstacles these young women are overcoming. What’s more, they aren’t shown outright, but through metaphors, which takes yet another step away from being exploitative and sensationalistic. By making sex “dancing” and a corrupt mental institution into a burlesque hall/brothel, Snyder is being the opposite of exploitative. He isn’t showing for the sake of showing, as many films do. Rather, he’s making a situation clear while attempting to not take advantage of his young actresses.

I just...I don't even hardly know how to react to that.No, wait, I do. Sentence-level analysis powers, go!

What is this movie saying about rape and sexual assault, according to Jusino's paragraph above?

1.) We cannot be angry about or debate the value of fictional portrayals of rape or sexual assault, we can only be angry when those things happen in real life (apparently rape culture is created out of thin air! Who knew?)

2.) Fictional objectification and sexual abuse need to be present in this movie because objectification and sexual abuse are the obstacles the fictional characters are overcoming in this particular movie. My reaction to that rationale is twofold:
- It's a fictional world--as Jusino says, a movie. The filmmakers could have picked any obstacles for these women characters to overcome, but these filmmakers picked sexual assault. Why pick that? Just because it was a really, really hard obstacle for your fictional women to overcome? Just so they could fight really hard, so the audience had a high stake in the well-being of these fictional characters--oh, wait. We're not supposed to get angry about or too invested in fictional rapes and assaults, because they're not real rapes or assaults. Well...scratch the idea of audience investment or character development.
- Can you imagine this sentence being used to rationalize or justify rape or sexual assault in real life?: "Women need men to put them in their place, because all women should learn their place in the world." Woman: "It's just an obstacle women must learn to overcome," or, "Queers just need to use their sexualities the way God intended, because the only real relationship is with someone of the opposite sex." Queer person in religious therapy: "My sexuality is just an obstacle I must learn to overcome."

[sarcasm] Why, I'm sure I'd never hear that in real life. That would never happen. I've never ever seen the rationale or threat of corrective rape deployed against anyone as an actual real-life control tactic anywhere in the real world. No, I'm sure that nobody would ever use those sentences to justify rape or sexual assault or coercion in real life. Sexuality and the free exercise thereof is only viewed as an obstacle to be overcome via rape in fictional settings. [/sarcasm]

3.) What’s more, they aren’t shown outright, but through metaphors, which takes yet another step away from being exploitative and sensationalistic. By making sex “dancing” and a corrupt mental institution into a burlesque hall/brothel, Snyder is being the opposite of exploitative. He isn’t showing for the sake of showing, as many films do. Rather, he’s making a situation clear while attempting to not take advantage of his young actresses.

- I fail to see how not showing acts of rape or sexual exploitation, but instead implying that those acts take place off-camera, clarifies the status of those acts to the viewers of the film. Indeed, most of the internet debate I have seen about this movie is centered on the questions, "do you think the main character killed her sister, given that the bullet impact happened offscreen? Do you think the main characters were raped, given that any such actions would have taken place offscreen?"

- Death or sex metaphors are automatically less exploitative and sensationalistic than actual onscreen death or sex act equivalents would be? OMG, I'd better raise Henry Reed from the dead right now to tell him that nobody ever understood that Naming of the Parts was about death and sex, because he couched the whole poem in those utterly opaque military metaphors!

- It's "Show and Tell" time, People in Real Life Class: remember, first you show something, and then you talk more about the thing you showed in some way, so we can see why it's interesting or important to you. Toby? A turtle? And you've made this youtube video of it eating? That's very interesting; thanks, Toby. Senator Green? A bill we should all vote for? Which this chart says will bring about world peace? Well, you've all given us something to think about, Senator. Thank you. Director Zak Snyder? A movie featuring off-screen rape of a woman character? ... Well, is there anything you have to say about rape or women? No, Mr. Snyder, showing it again isn't going to get your point across. No, Zak, showing it again with robot dinosaur burlesque Nazi laser guns isn't going to tell me what you were thinking about women or rape the first time. No, Zac. The class will not guess if it really happened since you never really showed us the pictures. No, we will not guess if it was really all an ether-dream or not. Sit *down,* Mr. Snyder. Do you want me to call you down to the principal's office? ... thank you, Zac. Please see me after class.

Comments

[lotusbiosm.livejournal.com]

In fairness, Dollhouse isn't necessarily Whedon's best work, or a great intro. And many people who like Firefly don't like Buffy and vice versa. And I don't like anime, so, you know, different strokes.

I have no real knowledge of Sucker Punch other than that it exists and there are many people who have Strong Feelings about it. It's rare that I don't know what a movie currently in theaters is about, but I've never seen a single trailer or commercial for it, oddly enough.

[eredien]

Well, from what I understand, it was sent back to the MPAA 9 TIMES in order to get a PG-13 rating rather than an R, so maybe they couldn't get the MPAA rated trailers out in time.

[adaorardor.livejournal.com]

(Hi. Routinely friends-list hopping, as I do when I am bored.)

Her work has been showing up on my feed via Tor. At first, I thought, well, maybe she is just one of those people who tries to be ~edgy~ for the sake of being ~edgy~.

Then? Then. Then I decided she was just an ass.

"Beautiful with real bodies—not the anorexic 'beauty' too often favored in Hollywood—Jessica, Candis, and Lyndsey are a joy to watch because they feel like real people."
GUESS I GOTTA GO TELL MY GIRLFRIEND SHE ISN'T REAL ANY MORE.

[eredien]

I honestly don't think she's trying to be edgy for the sake of being edgy. I just...think that maybe she says things that are really pointers to other ideas that maybe she should explore more in-depth, and then doesn't read what she wrote, and thus doesn't see the logical implications or do much more in-depth exploration. I just...I mean, I appreciate the fact that she points out the double beauty standard for women, as a larger woman myself. But then she just goes and double-standards that with the "feels like real people" phrasing. It's like the sentence carries the seeds of the destruction of her own ideas in it. I don't think she's tryig to be an ass--very few people do that deliberately, and a whole lot more do so by actively trying to avoid it.

[adaorardor.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I really spoke out of irritation.

[shatterstripes.livejournal.com]

All I can really say is that the amount of controversy about this movie kinda makes me want to see it and decide for myself. Everyone ripping it apart is making it sound like a film that is flawed but intriguing, and powerful. And has robot dinosaur burlesque Nazi lasers to boot. If it just stunk I don't think anyone would be dedicating this much effort to dissecting the precise details of its awfulness.

Is it ever possible to engage the issue of rape in a work intended to be part of popular culture without being called out as contributing to "rape culture"? I mean, from what I hear about this movie, the rape is off-screen and is presented as a Bad Thing, rather than being something the camera lingers on and thus glorifies. (On the other hand it is also quite possible that this particular handling of an off-screen rape is, indeed, ham-handed and cringe-inducing. I dunno. I haven't seen the thing.)

Admittedly my feminist credentials are pretty suspect anyway what with the whole "mildly aspie transwoman" thing.

[rax.livejournal.com]

Admittedly my feminist credentials are pretty suspect anyway what with the whole "mildly aspie transwoman" thing.

If this is by necessity true, I should just switch careers now. :)

Is it ever possible to engage the issue of rape in a work intended to be part of popular culture without being called out as contributing to "rape culture"?

Is it possible to do so without being called out as contributing to rape culture? Irritatingly, not as likely as the possibility of doing so without contributing to rape culture. In some ways, this is because most things that try seriously to take on rape culture are going to reflect it in some of the ways they don't undercut it. In representing something, it's hard to avoid leaving room for a reinforcement of that thing through acknowledgement, but at the same time it's hard to engage with something without representing it. I also haven't seen the film in question (or even any trailers), so I can't say much about it.

[eredien]

In representing something, it's hard to avoid leaving room for a reinforcement of that thing through acknowledgement, but at the same time it's hard to engage with something without representing it.

I think this is a good summary of how I'm feeling in general about this question, shatterstripes; I feel like it's really hard for a movie to claim, like Sucker Punch, that it's engaging with the aftermath/consequences of the actions of rape and abuse and the double-standard for women, for instance, while leaving it up to the viewers to figure out if any of those things actually happened because the viewers aren't sure if they really happened off-screen.

I mean, this quote from the director: "...the irony is so important to me; someone asked me, 'why did you dress the girls like that?' And I said, 'I didn’t dress them that way, you did.' That’s what pop culture demands, not me. And that’s fun for me — I love that when confronted with the exact formula that they request, they get all freaked out by it, because they’re like, “wait a minute – he’s right. I do like this, and maybe that’s my fault.”

I think it would be great if his movie actually encouraged people to think, "gee, I do like to see infantilized women in corsets with machine guns shooting robot dragons and then being lobotomized and raped on a slow Saturday afternoon. I wonder what complex things that says about me?" But all I can see is that he's presenting me with the infantilized women in corsets with machine guns shooting robot dragons and then being lobotomized and raped, and encouraging me to ask that question afterward, in order to make his movie some kind of artistic meta-statement about the possibly-disturbed ethics and morals of his audience. Would he honestly be happier if people saw the trailer, asked themselves, "gee, well, I don't think the corsets, hot women, or robot dragons are bad, but I think I'll pass on the lobotomy and rape," and didn't go to the movie? No, he wants them to go see the movie, and afterwards wonder if maybe they were awful people for sitting through the rapes and lobotomies to get to the awesome robot dragons and beautiful corseted women, after he gets their $10.

He wants to make a cultural critique about how disturbing it was that audiences liked his movie, while disavowing the fact that it was really his movie, because all that violence and double-standard was exactly what the audiences demanded. I feel like you can make that valid cultural critique, and that it's ok for an audience to be unsure if they liked something "wrong" or not, and to make an audience think about the movie they just saw, but if you're the person putting that out there in front of an audience and trying to make that cultural critique, it's just disingenuous and wrong to also try and say, "I didn't put that out there. That wasn't my movie; I just gave that audience what it wanted."

"I didn't dress them that way, they did. I didn't demand that, they were asking for it." Sound familiar? If he was saying those words to defend a rape he committed, rather than a movie containing fictional rapes which he directed, he'd be parroting the standard rape apology line. He's disavowing his own involvement in the pop culture movement that he himself is contributing to with this movie, and trying to play that as some kind of larger cultural critique about women and rape and violence and the double-standard.

Just because you think pop culture might be "asking for it," that doesn't mean you get to give them what you want to and think they want, then sit back and say, shocked, "*I* didn't commit this artistic act. The culture acted like it wanted it. It came; it even watched; it must have liked it because it just sat there the whole time and didn't say a word. And now it's complaining that it didn't like it very much. But I didn't do anything to that culture, except give it what it already wanted! It was asking for my movie! What else was I supposed to do?"

I just...the parallels are really unavoidable, once you start to see them.

[eredien]

I personally have decided not to see it, because I don't think I'd like it, which makes me sad, as I usually like scantily clad hot women with guns blowing up robot zombie dinos...when I'm not watching Peter Greenaway adaptations of Shakespeare.

I also decided not to go see this movie after reading a lot of reviews and figuring out that the violence was so stylized, and the plot so hard to follow, that different reviewers came away with a different idea of what happened in the plot not due to clever plotting, but just due to confusion. For instance, I found several reviews that stated that the main character did not kill her sister, but was framed for it; several other reviews that stated that she accidentally killed her sister and was framed, and one review that claimed that her stepfather killed her sister and framed her for it. I've never seen a bunch of people who write about movies for a living be so confused about the literal plot of a movie, during a part of that movie where events supposedly aren't supposed to be ambiguous. I keep feeling like maybe the critics wished the director should have passed out Cliff's Notes at the screenings, just so they could get their bearings on what was supposed to be happening at the most basic level. And it's not like critics don't like or can't get ambiguity or unresolved plot points or complex timelines in movies--see also Inception, the Sixth Sense, Memento.

I really see a lot of people wrestling with the question of how much this movie contributes to rape culture, even though a lot of the movie critics don't always frame it in those exact terms. There's a *lot* of talk about if it's better to be portraying something onscreen or offscreen; there's a lot of talk about how portrayal of rape may or may not equal commentary on rape just by itself.

I've wrestled with this question a lot myself, as a huge fan of the Kill Bill movies. It's not like those films don't glorify immense violence against women, or don't depict rape. But I feel like those films actually show some moral and emotional consequences of violence and rape, how those actions echo through the lives and deaths of the characters, and show how violence and rape can twist people until they lose themselves in their own anger, and show how they can be taken out of that anger by having people to care about and care for them, and having a genuine reconciliation.

I even believe that the main plot device of Sucker Punch--disassociating into a fantasy world in order to escape abuse--is a very valuable one to show, critique, and dissect, and the fact that Sucker Punch shows some of that is a reason why I am personally so interested in this movie--disassociating like that can get you through a lot of rough times and abuse, and be very useful for the times you need it. But I don't think that Sucker Punch shows anything except that initial disassociation, and it doesn't seem to really be critiqued as a useful escape mechanism, except perhaps (possible spoiler) in a deus ex machina sense, which I think cheapens the whole idea of having escapism from abuse be your plot device. I think a very good movie could be made from these elements. I don't think Sucker Punch is it.

[eredien]

PS - I dunno, your feminist credentials look to be in order at my end.

[kaypendragon.livejournal.com]

Before you completely write off Whedon, give a few episodes of Firefly a chance. Dollhouse was on the bizarre side of his scale.