![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenA while ago, I let Netflix recommend something to me, added it to my queue, and when I was reorganzing the queue to space out movies and TV shows, I moved this movie up towards the top. I don't remember the name of it because I turned it off ten minutes into the thing. I think the Jimmy Olsen from Superman Returns was in it, and I know that Heather Mattarazzo was, too. It was supposed to be a rom-com, I suppose, given that the premise was the guy pretending to be gay in order to be friends with the girl. I know, Shakespeare, right? (Well, actually, kinda?) Long story short, it wasn't done cutesy, it was done raunchy, and I'd had enough of bimbos, boobs, and banging before it even started. I chucked it back in the mail and made sure to leave a scathing 1-star rating on it.
Coincidentally, at the same time, there was a thread at Pandagon about feminist-friendly romantic comedies, and after my bad luck with the aforementioned romp-com, I added a few titles to my queue. Someone recommended Coming Soon, which I watched last night. Ostensibly, this is female-empowered by dint of the three heroines all seeking the elusive orgasm that none have achieved despite all their sleeping around. To the film's credit, the fact that they have sex with people they don't like and aren't aroused by is not presented as slutty so much as curious and hormonal. The lead girl (ugh, her name is Stream, so guess what stereotype her mother plays?) doesn't care about romance or sex so much as pleasure. Which, hey, that's kinda cool. This consequence-free pursuit of sexual satisfaction should be great, right?
Well, no one ever asks a rhetorical question like that intending anyone to say "yes," so you've probably guessed that this is not the case. Part of the problem of romantic comedies--the problem, in fact--is that the women in them are never fully realized characters. Whenever they come close to being independent characters, they are then siphoned off into different stereotypical characters. They have a recognizable type--the business woman who never slowed down for love, the hopeless romantic, etc. etc.--because the film doesn't have time for them to have personalities. There's romance to be had!
So I guess I can't be too mad that the three girls, starting with the lead are just the push-over, the lesbian, and the bitch. The point is not that women have lives, the point is that all women want orgasms. And women have to flounce through a half-dozen unsatisfying situations until they realize what works to produce them. Actual agency, like, say, mentioning that you didn't have an orgasm and would like one is too much for them; they have to just trial-and-error it without giving any of their partners any hints that something is wrong. Stream just lets her "boyfriend" (aka guy who shows up, asks for sex, gets it, and leaves her hanging) use her body until she's finally so stoned on E that she lets slip that she hasn't had an orgasm with him. (Or ever.) Then he gallantly offers to make it up to her. And fails, but, you know, at least he tried to respond to her body's needs, which is more than she does.
At one point, the Bitch, discussing Stream with her therapist, says she's sure Stream has never had any orgasm. The therapist, bless him, goes, "Not even by masturbating?" To which the Bitch goes, "GAW-AWD, it's not like she's SOME DESPERATE LOSER." I know she's the Bitch character, and we're supposed to think what she says is ridiculous, but come on. She is never vilified, she never gets any comeuppance (how could she from Casper Milktoast Stream or I'm-gay-and-conflicted-so-I'm-going-to-try-and-OD Lesbian?), so her words aren't lies as far as the story goes. Stream does, in fact, have an orgasm via masturbation, which leads her to dump the asshole boyfriend. But masturbation is never revisited; Stream just goes on a series of humiliating outings with "sure thing" types who'll try and fail to get her off.
All so that she can come back to the sweet, funny kid who has been eyeballing her and making safe overtures of romance at her. (She asked him to kiss her when they were rolling around on the ground--a pretty standard method of getting the romance jump-started--and he didn't because he was nervous.) At this point, despite how cute Stream and Boy of her Sexual Satisfaction Dreams are in the two minutes they spend together, she has spent most of the movie in pursuit of random, meaningless hookups. So even though it's really great that they make an effort to show Stream's face as she has an orgasm with her ideal partner (and Learns A Valuable Lesson about how liking a guy is essential to having a good orgasm--HELLO, IT IS NOT), the lesson here is that unless it's with a dude, your orgasm means nothing. (This is emphasized by the fact that the Lesbian meets another Lesbian, has sex with her and gets her first orgasm, and the entire thing takes place off-screen save for the first kiss.)
This movie is a mess. It allows women to pursue orgasms without taint of slutitude, and it has more than one guy being sweet and pursuing romance instead of just sex. That's a plus. Women don't have any opinion on orgasm or sex that they share with their partners, they just hide their non-orgasm by saying nothing or, in the Bitch's case, overacting so her partner feels better. That's a definite minus. Any confrontation is defused by someone just letting the matter drop--mom doesn't punish daughter for sneaking out; Stream just drops the boyfriend and never really has it out with him over his, you know, lying to her when she was stoned about the orgasm he gave her that she totally didn't have. Then everything is tied off when the right couple get together and the guy gives her an orgasm. Forget that he's sweet on a cipher with zero personality who will, in return for his effort, give him zero feedback. THIS IS LOVE. WHICH WAS THE POINT ALL ALONG. TAKE THAT, DISAFFECTED YOUTH!
Why is it so hard to believe that women can have both emotional response and sexual ones, and that the two might not always have anything to do with each other? Or that they do have something to do with each other and are more intricately entwined than is commonly assumed? One is not a romantic who exchanges sex for love no more than one is automatically a slut if one exchanges sex for pleasure. We like sex. We like love. Sometimes both at once, sometimes one and not the other. It must be an astonishing thing for these writers that women? Get the equivalent of hard-ons for men they have no intention of ever loving. (Fucking, yes; lovng, no.) They objectify as much as men do (and some studies say more than men do). Their capactiy for romance is not inherently greater. Men suffer as much for these films as women because they are constantly cast as conquerors of female bodies, as manly man types with about as much reciprocal depth as is brought to them by their female counterparts. But just because one film allows guys to men and not just dudes does not make it a feminist-friendly movie. The women are allowed to be aggressive but not to have any other defining characteristics? Pssh, please.
This movie reminded me vaguely of Zerophilia, which I watched a couple of years ago. I had similar problems with tone, specifically the glossing over of non-traditional sexual desires in pursuit of romance. That film couldn't decide if it was a comedy or a serious film. Coming Soon couldn't decide how to feel about just ending on its heroine having a fucking orgasm, so they threw in some stuff about love. And lesbians. Like you do.
Mostly, it was goddamned distracting for the PEOPLE in it. The movie was made in 2000, but everyone sported early 90s hair, the sorts that most of them would have been wearing to middle school when they were in style. It's as if they never changed it even as they grew up. We're talking the Peter Petrelli emo-bangs hair. One guy had his slightly longer and kept it back with a thin headband. These are dated looks for 2000, let alone 2008. Then throw in the fact that douche-haired kid was Sean Spencer from Psych and headband-boy was Ryan Reynolds (coincidence! I swear!) and Ashton Kutcher was in there at one point, and that's enough now-famous, then-unknown boys to make my head spin. It's very telling about the compelling story of the three women at the center of the movie that not-a-one of them went on to even half-so-much fame as the least famous of those guys. Yeesh.
Coincidentally, at the same time, there was a thread at Pandagon about feminist-friendly romantic comedies, and after my bad luck with the aforementioned romp-com, I added a few titles to my queue. Someone recommended Coming Soon, which I watched last night. Ostensibly, this is female-empowered by dint of the three heroines all seeking the elusive orgasm that none have achieved despite all their sleeping around. To the film's credit, the fact that they have sex with people they don't like and aren't aroused by is not presented as slutty so much as curious and hormonal. The lead girl (ugh, her name is Stream, so guess what stereotype her mother plays?) doesn't care about romance or sex so much as pleasure. Which, hey, that's kinda cool. This consequence-free pursuit of sexual satisfaction should be great, right?
Well, no one ever asks a rhetorical question like that intending anyone to say "yes," so you've probably guessed that this is not the case. Part of the problem of romantic comedies--the problem, in fact--is that the women in them are never fully realized characters. Whenever they come close to being independent characters, they are then siphoned off into different stereotypical characters. They have a recognizable type--the business woman who never slowed down for love, the hopeless romantic, etc. etc.--because the film doesn't have time for them to have personalities. There's romance to be had!
So I guess I can't be too mad that the three girls, starting with the lead are just the push-over, the lesbian, and the bitch. The point is not that women have lives, the point is that all women want orgasms. And women have to flounce through a half-dozen unsatisfying situations until they realize what works to produce them. Actual agency, like, say, mentioning that you didn't have an orgasm and would like one is too much for them; they have to just trial-and-error it without giving any of their partners any hints that something is wrong. Stream just lets her "boyfriend" (aka guy who shows up, asks for sex, gets it, and leaves her hanging) use her body until she's finally so stoned on E that she lets slip that she hasn't had an orgasm with him. (Or ever.) Then he gallantly offers to make it up to her. And fails, but, you know, at least he tried to respond to her body's needs, which is more than she does.
At one point, the Bitch, discussing Stream with her therapist, says she's sure Stream has never had any orgasm. The therapist, bless him, goes, "Not even by masturbating?" To which the Bitch goes, "GAW-AWD, it's not like she's SOME DESPERATE LOSER." I know she's the Bitch character, and we're supposed to think what she says is ridiculous, but come on. She is never vilified, she never gets any comeuppance (how could she from Casper Milktoast Stream or I'm-gay-and-conflicted-so-I'm-going-to-try-and-OD Lesbian?), so her words aren't lies as far as the story goes. Stream does, in fact, have an orgasm via masturbation, which leads her to dump the asshole boyfriend. But masturbation is never revisited; Stream just goes on a series of humiliating outings with "sure thing" types who'll try and fail to get her off.
All so that she can come back to the sweet, funny kid who has been eyeballing her and making safe overtures of romance at her. (She asked him to kiss her when they were rolling around on the ground--a pretty standard method of getting the romance jump-started--and he didn't because he was nervous.) At this point, despite how cute Stream and Boy of her Sexual Satisfaction Dreams are in the two minutes they spend together, she has spent most of the movie in pursuit of random, meaningless hookups. So even though it's really great that they make an effort to show Stream's face as she has an orgasm with her ideal partner (and Learns A Valuable Lesson about how liking a guy is essential to having a good orgasm--HELLO, IT IS NOT), the lesson here is that unless it's with a dude, your orgasm means nothing. (This is emphasized by the fact that the Lesbian meets another Lesbian, has sex with her and gets her first orgasm, and the entire thing takes place off-screen save for the first kiss.)
This movie is a mess. It allows women to pursue orgasms without taint of slutitude, and it has more than one guy being sweet and pursuing romance instead of just sex. That's a plus. Women don't have any opinion on orgasm or sex that they share with their partners, they just hide their non-orgasm by saying nothing or, in the Bitch's case, overacting so her partner feels better. That's a definite minus. Any confrontation is defused by someone just letting the matter drop--mom doesn't punish daughter for sneaking out; Stream just drops the boyfriend and never really has it out with him over his, you know, lying to her when she was stoned about the orgasm he gave her that she totally didn't have. Then everything is tied off when the right couple get together and the guy gives her an orgasm. Forget that he's sweet on a cipher with zero personality who will, in return for his effort, give him zero feedback. THIS IS LOVE. WHICH WAS THE POINT ALL ALONG. TAKE THAT, DISAFFECTED YOUTH!
Why is it so hard to believe that women can have both emotional response and sexual ones, and that the two might not always have anything to do with each other? Or that they do have something to do with each other and are more intricately entwined than is commonly assumed? One is not a romantic who exchanges sex for love no more than one is automatically a slut if one exchanges sex for pleasure. We like sex. We like love. Sometimes both at once, sometimes one and not the other. It must be an astonishing thing for these writers that women? Get the equivalent of hard-ons for men they have no intention of ever loving. (Fucking, yes; lovng, no.) They objectify as much as men do (and some studies say more than men do). Their capactiy for romance is not inherently greater. Men suffer as much for these films as women because they are constantly cast as conquerors of female bodies, as manly man types with about as much reciprocal depth as is brought to them by their female counterparts. But just because one film allows guys to men and not just dudes does not make it a feminist-friendly movie. The women are allowed to be aggressive but not to have any other defining characteristics? Pssh, please.
This movie reminded me vaguely of Zerophilia, which I watched a couple of years ago. I had similar problems with tone, specifically the glossing over of non-traditional sexual desires in pursuit of romance. That film couldn't decide if it was a comedy or a serious film. Coming Soon couldn't decide how to feel about just ending on its heroine having a fucking orgasm, so they threw in some stuff about love. And lesbians. Like you do.
Mostly, it was goddamned distracting for the PEOPLE in it. The movie was made in 2000, but everyone sported early 90s hair, the sorts that most of them would have been wearing to middle school when they were in style. It's as if they never changed it even as they grew up. We're talking the Peter Petrelli emo-bangs hair. One guy had his slightly longer and kept it back with a thin headband. These are dated looks for 2000, let alone 2008. Then throw in the fact that douche-haired kid was Sean Spencer from Psych and headband-boy was Ryan Reynolds (coincidence! I swear!) and Ashton Kutcher was in there at one point, and that's enough now-famous, then-unknown boys to make my head spin. It's very telling about the compelling story of the three women at the center of the movie that not-a-one of them went on to even half-so-much fame as the least famous of those guys. Yeesh.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-22 08:25 pm (UTC)And I need to see Brokeback. It's just one that I have to find a mood for, you know? I want to like it and be as impressed with it as people with good taste I know have been. I'll get there.
Sex being made less taboo a subject will help immeasurably. The aura of naughtiness is just not conducive to honesty. It's already an awkward, intimate sort of level to get to with another person under the best of circumstances, but keeping it under covers doesn't help either.