Over at the Guardian, Michael Hann is rehashing an argument that, over the last two months, has become a very tired one indeed: that Lars von Trier hates women, that “Antichrist” is his most overtly misogynistic expression yet of said hate, shock, outrage, blah blah blah.
As you know, the “misogyny” complaint is not one I have any time for, given that a) Von Trier is one of the few auteurs out there evincing a clear fascination with women in his work, b) the sympathies of “Antichrist” lie more with its emotionally riven female protagonist than her passive-aggressive husband, and c) the film’s gender politics serve principally to reinvigorate horror-film tropes.
It’s something I discussed at greater length in my review of the film last month, but you can expect to hear the “m” word bandied about a lot more as the film bows in the UK next week.
That said, even as he calls it “an expression of fear about female sexuality, with no greater purpose than the “Saw” or “Hostel” films,” Hann allows that greater offenders exist within the Hollywood system, with James Cameron’s 1994 actioner “True Lies” as his prime example.
While admitting that the director’s work on “Terminator” and “Aliens” (not to mention “Titanic”) served the fairer sex rather well, Hann takes exception to the plot strand in “True Lies” which finds Jamie Lee Curtis’s bored housewife working as an undercover agent/faux prostitute:
I thought (“Antichrist”) might be a contender for the coveted title of most hateful movie to women. Then, the other night, I saw True Lies on TV. Wow. If that was the only James Cameron film you had ever seen, you’d come away thinking he was a man who really, really, really hated women.
In order to spice up his marriage, the Schwarzenegger character pimps out his wife … I know it’s just a film. I know it’s not a serious film. I know it’s an old film. But it’s a staggering piece of work, awesome in its offensiveness. And it treats the deception and mistreatment of women as a joke. Say what you like about Von Trier, but at least no one comes out of his movies thinking his contempt for women is just a bit of a laugh.
Do I think “True Lies” is misogynistic? No — and I think Hann’s reasons for thinking so are as flimsy as they are with “Antichrist.” But I’m glad that at least one critic is making an effort to direct this discussion away from the arthouse for a change. Seriously, what recent film characterization serves women more poorly: Charlotte Gainsbourg anchoring enigma in “Antichrist” or Megan Fox’s disposable decoration in “Transformers?”
There’s only one correct answer to that question. So why is Von Trier — who at least had sufficient interest to prompt the discussion in the first place — taking so much heat?
Comments
19 responses to “‘Antichrist’ vs ‘True Lies’”
Well, whether or not Cameron’s film “hates” women is beside the point for me, because as an impressionable 12-year-old boy in the summer of 1994, that scene made me LOVE women more than ever.
I think there’s a wholly different connection here:
Both directors proclaimed to be King/Best of the world.
You forgot to whine about Bryan Appleyard’s anti-Antichrist article in the Sunday Times last week.
The most misogynist film I have seen in many years was Fireproof, but everyone is afraid to say so.
I agree. I find it much more offensive when women are given petty side roles, playing the redundant air-head/bimbo love interest. My friend saw Transformers 2(I don’t have the patience) and said that there are many scenes where For is just standing there in the frame but isn’t doing anything. Just standing there to make the scene interesting for some people.(Not that its completely bad but is that a role?)
That against a director who has consistently created superb complex leading roles for women and lead his female stars to considerable acclaim, awards and career-highs.
Megan Fox is nothing but eye candy for tasteless nerds.
I’m sure she’s eye-candy for nerds WITH taste, too.
Did anyone besides me think that Jamie Lee Curtis gave an awards worthy performance in this film? Not least because of her ability to show her character’s growing comfort with expressing her sexuality. At one time, True Lies WAS the only Cameron film I’d seen (unless I saw T2 first, which I don’t remember), but never at any point did I feel Curtis’s character was disrespected.
Regarding the larger picture, I personally am in favor of promoting feminism as a worldview in which both genders can speak plainly and sometimes painfully about these issues. No more kid gloves or tiptoeing. What kind of revolution is that? Feminism can mean more than defensiveness and anger. Anger is easy. Listening is harder.
Silencio, you are not the only one.
Aleksis: And you forgot to whine about my whining in my last couple of “Antichrist” posts. I wondered where you’d got to.
Silencio: Well, she did win a Golden Globe.
I thought Jamie Lee Curtis was very good in True Lies but I do think the film leaves a pretty nasty taste.
Also, re: the extract from Michael Hann’s article: is True Lies really an ‘old film’? Blimey! I still count that as contemporary cinema. Are Pulp Fiction and Speed old films too?
…though re: that ‘nasty taste’ I mentioned, I must also say that I applaud many of James Cameron’s other female roles, esp. the Terminator films and Aliens.
Every time I come back to the main page, that photo. It’s killin’ me.
It’s very interesting how of many of the “proclaimed” misogynistic directors (Lars Von Trier, James Cameron and Paul Verhoeven, between others) created few of the most complex female driven leading roles in the cinema.
Again, I found more offensive the portrair of Michael Bay’s actresses in many of his films than Von Trier’s
Von Trier is taking so much heat because people don’t know how else to react to his film.
You need something to title. Misogyny is the title. Misogyny is how to title the film. Finally, you can put it in a box. This terrifying beast now finally has a name and you can now put it away neatly.
Because, otherwise, the film would be something terrifying, unorganized, insane. When a film like “Anti-Christ” comes along, a complicated, dense, and mind numbingly horrifying insanity, you MUST put it in a box you can easily understand. Or else it will destroy you. Or something.
I’m sure there is a clinical name for this, but it escapes me at the moment.
True Lies’ screenplay is mean spirited towards women. I have to elect a worse offender with Paul Verhoeven’s Basic Instinct with the Jean Tripple Horn character.
If Von Trier is misogynistic for what he does to Emily Watson in “Breaking the Waves” or Charlotte Gainsbourg in “Antichrist” then is Scorsese also one (but in reverse) for all the violence he puts upon the male characters in “The Departed” or “Goodfellas”.
These stupid arguments work both ways.
Glenn and Katie: Excellent points, both of you.
Kris: Why do you think I chose the pic? (Well, other than the fact that I’m clearly a misogynist.) ;)
Interesting interview with Mark Kermode in last week’s special podcast in which Kermode gets in an “argument” with Willem Dafoe about whether or not the film is actually mysoginistic. Dafoe says no.