Boots - For All Your Gender Stereotyping Needs.

Not sure if anyone caught this, but there was a Boots advert on TV up until fairly recently which blatantly ripped off a scene from the film What Women Want (2000). I can’t find it online anywhere, but the gist of it is that a woman doesn’t feel like having sex and tells her partner she has a headache, to  which he quickly (almost preemptively) whips out a box of paracetamol. Hooray for Boots and their ready supply of cheap painkillers, and also for their lazy advertising that not only rips of a mediocre film*, but is also supposed to be aimed at women yet presents them as liars and stereotypes!  

Honestly, I was more surprised at the nerve of their probably overpaid advertising team for presenting an idea that wasn’t their own. I was also mildly annoyed that no one else seemed to have noticed, or if they did they simply didn’t care or see a problem with it. It’s harmless right? Well, considering the stink that was caused by several men’s health websites over this 2010 Boots advert, I find it frustrating that no one recognises the same lazy, stereotypical advertising at work:

The advert was referred to as, ‘typical misandric crap’, ‘very sexist and stereotypical ‘, ‘breath-taking hypocrisy’, ‘lazy humour’, ‘disconnected from reality’ and ‘part of an increasing trend in the negative portrayal of men’. I can actually get on board with some of these views. This is most definitely an example of terrible  advertising which uses gender stereotypes for a cheap laugh. However, for women, this is nothing new and when you consider some of the advertising that is supposedly geared towards women (and most of the advertising aimed at men) there are negative representations and stereotypical portrayals as far as the eye can see. Take, for example, this current advert for a ladies shoe retailer:

Not all women are obsessed with shoes. And those that claim to be are not literally obsessed, they are probably just mildly preoccupied with them. Now, the idea here might just be that the man is concerned because his partner seems to be experiencing some sort of serious trauma when confronted with a delivery of shoes. However, I can’t be the only one who picks up a different message from this man’s panicked expression- ‘Oh god no, I have to pay for these.’ Surely we’re past the assumption that when a woman spends money the husband automatically covers the expense? Especially when it comes to personal expenses such as shoes. Didn't anyone listen to Destiny’s Child when they told you – the shoes on their feet, THEY bought them!! This advert  is also a rip-off (is there no originality in advertising anymore?!) of another advert. This time it is for beer and, whilst also exploiting this strange ‘women + shoes = manic bliss’ myth, it evens the score by including the similar ‘men + beer = manic bliss’ hypothesis. We can all laugh at harmless stereotypes so long as it’s tit for tat in my book, and this one is far funnier so it gets away with it:

*It should be noted that in said shitty movie (and it really is shitty) the idea is dismissed as terrible and offensive. But I guess the Boots advertising team stopped watching at this point, but who can blame them really.

For more information on the negative portrayals of women in advertising, and the impact this has on society, you can't do much better than Jean Kilbourne's series of talks Killing Us Softly: Advertising's Image of Women. The third installment is available here. (This may or may not be legal, but I didn't upload it so don't sue me.) 

British Airways - To Fly. To Serve. Provided You're a Man.

I hate to rain all over BA's 'weren't they the good ol' days when women knew their place at home with the kids and men ruled the skies' nostalgia-fest - but there are female pilots too these days.

Just look, here are TWO of them in your Pilot Recruitment video - why not give them a mention in your national advertising?

Drive (2011) Dir. Nicolas Winding Refn

Female Characters: 2 (Irene/Blanche)

Male Characters: 5 (Driver/Shannon/Bernie/Nino/Standard)

Does it pass the Bechdel Test? No

Let me just start by saying, and I feel that I might have to say this a lot in the course of writing this blog, that despite my criticisms I really enjoyed this film. Mainly because it has the best soundtrack I’ve heard since last year’s TRON:Legacy, but also because it explores some interesting ideas regarding masculinity and heroism. However …

Drive contains only two female characters, and whilst unfortunately I don’t find this particularly unusual,  I was stunned that so little screen time was given to such high profile actresses as Carey Mulligan and Christina Hendricks. I realise that Hendricks is making the transition from TV to film and so might not be landing major roles just yet, but her amazing performance as Joan in Mad Men (not to mention the constant public scrutiny of her body in the media) has made her something of a household name. As for Mulligan, granted she is still an up-and-comer, but with a recent Oscar nomination to her name I’d expect to see her in a bigger role. Adam Smith, reviewing the film for Empire Magazine, writes , ‘Mulligan might not have a lot to do, but she looks believably vulnerable’. It seems to me however that, from the little we see of her character in the film, she seems to be coping quite well with her position as a single parent with a husband behind bars. Just take for example the scene where she is shopping in a supermarket with her young son – there are no tantrums, no obvious signs of stress or vulnerability, and basically no indication at all that she needs to be rescued. I found Ryan Gosling’s character similar to that of Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, not just because of the late night driving scenes, but also because of the way he latches onto a female figure, idealises her and uses her as motivation for being a better person. Also, both characters feel a conscious need to play the role of the hero and, not knowing how to do so, resort to violent, hyper-masculine actions. In Drive Gosling plays the strong, silent type to a tee. He is a Man with No Name and is usually seen chewing on a toothpick, a parody of Western screen heroes such as Clint Eastwood. In a recent interview Gosling commented on his character’s cinematic delusions:  

I think he’s somebody who’s seen too many movies. He’s confusing his life for a film, and he’s made himself the hero of his own action film. He’s just kind of lost in the mythology of Hollywood. 

The ‘mythology of Hollywood’ is an intriguing idea, and the film seems to explore how images in cinema have influenced our perceptions of what it means to be a hero. Gosling commented further on this idea and what it means for his character:

I think that he’s psychotic, but he’s not a psychopath. He’s a myth as well, you know? We tried to treat the film like a fairy tale, like Los Angeles is this fairy-tale land based on fantasies, and he’s the knight in his mind and Irene [Carey Mulligan] is the damsel in distress. Bernie Rose [Albert Brooks] is the evil wizard, and Ron Perlman’s the dragon he needs to slay. 

This idea of an L.A. fairytale helped me to look at the film in a different way. I still think that Irene’s character is not presented as vulnerable, but really she doesn’t need to be. The Driver believes that he must play the part of the hero, and therefore he needs someone to rescue, so Irene and her son present him with an opportunity. There does however seem to be some reluctance on his part to accept this role, and in one scene he pauses and sighs before deciding to approach Irene and offer her a lift when her car breaks down. It's almost as if he has taken a moment to get into character as the hero and this scene in particular reminded me of a the knight on horseback rescuing the damsel in distress.

Gosling seems to be drawn to films which explore issues of masculinity, having co-starred in 2010’s Blue Valentine. In this film his character has a hard time dealing with society’s strict definitions of gender roles, often resorting to violence and aggression to assert his masculinity. With several brutal, and often fairy schlocky scenes of violence, Drive also places this theme at the forefront. The most extreme example is the lift scene, where Gosling kick's a man's head in until it resembles a smashed pumpkin. It is juxtaposed with a moment of dreamy, ethereal romance, in which Irene and the Driver share their first kiss. This technique is used throughout the film and it serves to further emphasis the extremity, and often the absurdity, of the violence. This scene could easily have been sanitised, as it usually is in typical action movies, in order to dehumanise the act of the murder. Instead, the brutality of this particular scene, and the look of shame on Gosling's face afterwards, are what make it so effective. As a result of trying to live up to society’s, and his own, expectations of manliness and heroism, the Driver has completely lost himself in a fantasy. Mulligan’s very realistic reaction is also important –she is justifiably horrified and shocked. If this were a typical action movie she probably would have swooned at this display of savagery. Or perhaps, as I was anticipating, she might have reacted like Karen in this scene from Goodfellas(1990).

The soundtrack is massively important for this film, and director Nicolas Winding Refn scores major brownie points with me for citing John Hughes as an unlikely source of inspiration, appreciating his talent for ‘using music to really underscore emotion.’ The stand-out track which really sums up the film is A Real Hero by College feat. Electric Youth, as it highlights exactly what the Driver is trying to do throughout this film – remain a real human being whilst trying to live up to Hollywood standard of what a hero should be, in a movie he has ultimately constructed in his head. 

30 Minutes or Less (2011) Dir. Ruben Fleischer

Female Characters: 2 (Kate/Juicy)

Male Characters: 6 (Nick/Chet/Dwayne/Travis/Chango/The Major)

Does it pass the Bechdel Test? No

Rape jokes? Check. Child molestation, abortion and AIDS jokes? Check . Racist slurs and misogynistic language? Check.  30 Minutes or Less sure covers all its bases when it comes to offensive, juvenile comedy.  It makes for some particularly awkward viewing, especially since this film is by no means intelligent enough or self-aware enough to tackle the material it does, most notably when rape is the punch-line. Much in the same way that the word ‘fucking’ is used incessantly by Danny McBride’s character throughout the film, (as if swearing automatically makes the mediocre script funnier) rape jokes are used for ensuring cheap laughs.  

And since when exactly did rape become so hilarious anyway? Take for example 2009’s Observe and Report (Why on earth did this year offer up two films about mall cops?) which contained a scene in which lead character Seth Rogen has sex with a drunk, passed out Anna Faris. Now, I know what you’re thinking, how could this get any funnier? Well, I’ll tell you. Midway through the rape (which, contrary to popular belief,  IS the same as the cuddlier term ‘date rape’) Rogen stops, prompting Faris to slur, ‘Why are you stopping motherfucker?’. Hi-larious! And apparently, according to Rogen, this verbal consent is the ‘one thing that makes it all OK.’ When really all this scene does is confuse the issue of rape further for an audience of mainly adolescent boys.  


30 Minutes or Less is also guilty of trivializing rape, with the inclusion of a scene in which a cashier, ringing up toy guns and ski masks, asks the main characters if they ‘wanna grab some condoms’ -  because apparently that’s ‘what men buy before they rape someone’. Ok, I must be a bit naïve because I feel like I’m the only person who didn’t know this side-splitting fact. Just who exactly is this joke intended for anyway? I can only imagine it being intended as a piece of observational comedy for actual rapists. In a recent interview lead actor Jesse Eisenberg was asked what he thought about some of the film's risqué jokes, to which he replied:

I’m very uncomfortable with that word [rape], personally because I do work with domestic violence organisations and I’m very aware of the alarming statistics of women who are abused. So I’m very uncomfortable with that. I’m not uncomfortable with the sexual jokes.

I have to give Eisenberg credit here, not just for realising that rape isn’t funny but also for distinguishing between rape and sex jokes, which I feel are treated as one in the same in some comedies. If the film hadn’t been shot pre-Social Network I might have thought Eisenberg to be a tad hypocritical, because I can’t image it being too difficult for a young, white, male actor, with an Oscar nomination under his belt, to find decent film roles. Hopefully Eisenberg’s future films will focus more attention on being good, rather than exploring the apparently comic side of rape.

In this same interview Eisenberg commented further on the film’s shock humour tactics:

Danny McBride and Nick Swardson’s characters are the bad guys in the movie, and they just say the most insane and crass stuff, because guys like that would be – they’d speak in this awful way.

Whilst it’s fair to say that the film does undeniably set these characters up as the bad guys, and there are occasions throughout the film where we are encouraged to laugh at their stupidity, there are also  many instances where the obvious intention is that we laugh with them. For example, when asserting his role as the mastermind of their criminal operation, Danny McBride quips,  ‘I’m the one fucking this bitch you’re just holding the camera’, and then there’s the conversation where they reason that they need to hit Eisenberg’s character where it hurts, and not  ‘in his dick’ but ‘in his pussy’ – a reference to Eisenberg’s girlfriend.  I’m just not buying that these kind of throw-away misogynistic one liners were intended to make a targeted audience of mainly young men think , ‘Oh, I get it, these guys make incessant misogynistic remarks – they must be the bad guys!’ especially since these are the kind of jokes we hear from the supposed good guys in most Judd Apatow comedies.

As for the female characters, there’s really not much to say because there are only two. On the upside they are both women of colour, on the downside they are fairly insignificant characters. One is used mainly to provide gratuitous T&A shots, whilst the other plays the lead’s love interest and is, unsurprisingly, kidnapped half-way through and turned damsel in distress.

Ultimately one of this film’s biggest crimes is simply that it is just not that funny. However, some credit has to go to go to Aziz Ansari, who plays something of a 'new man' character in the role of Chet. He has a stable job as teacher, makes light of his attempt at quiche making (apparently just as difficult as dismantling a bomb) and at one point delivers an enlightened rant about how the guilt of letting Eisenberg blow up might spoil his future relationships with his wife and kids. I was reminded of a similar character in the 2003 film School of Rock, where Mike White played the responsible half of a duo containing a lazy, immature Jack Black. Contrastingly, this character was portrayed as timid, weak and ultimately miserable, buckling under the thumb of his domineering girlfriend. I find it refreshing therefore to see a male character in the genre of fratboy humour who is not a feckless man-child and, more importantly, is not portrayed as weak or effeminate because of this.

Rape jokes are so funny they put them in the trailer!