Why Not Sexualized Female Movie Characters?

[Skwim]

I ask this because I came across the following video on YouTube

Spoiler: Top 10 Needlessly Sexualized Female Movie Characters

Watch it. Don't watch it. It's premise should be obvious; its producer, WatchMojo.com, doesn't believe female movie characters should be sexualized---or at least that's what it would like you to believe---although it never says why. At most it simply asks, "Is it really necessary?"

My only comment is, so what if Sexualized Female Movie Characters aren't necessary?

.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Are there sexualized male movie characters? If not, why not? And if there are--Why? Are they sexualized in the same way (e.g., gratuitous nudity), and for the same purposes (e.g., increasing box office revenue)?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I am okay with sexualized characters. I guess what I'm really not okay with is how corporations have made many women believe being objectified is being successful. In other words, it has been harmful to women actually being successful with good careers, equal pay, etc. Even if we can point to successful women, there's still an idea of women as objectified, including that they're almost expected to treat themselves that way. Women are expected to 'look pretty', wear certain clothing, and the like. I'm aware this is probably a little off your original point.

No issue with sexualized characters though. I wouldn't personally watch certain things, but it's a choice.

 

[BSM1]

I think we've evolved to the point where we can concentrate more on their sammich making abilities...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are there sexualized male movie characters? If not, why not? And if there are--Why? Are they sexualized in the same way (e.g., gratuitous nudity), and for the same purposes (e.g., increasing box office revenue)?

I can't say. You would need to ask a woman or a gay guy. Who do they find "yummy". A bit of gratuitous sex does not bother me in the least. And it can help the movie. I remember many years ago when a friend of mine reported back on watching Titanic with his wife. He was getting rather bored, it was pretty much a romance that was aimed at women more than men. Then there was the topless scene in the middle of the movie. A totally gratuitous flash of breasts. But that one scene piqued his interest and he got back into the film.

 

[SomeRandom]

Are there sexualized male movie characters? If not, why not? And if there are--Why? Are they sexualized in the same way (e.g., gratuitous nudity), and for the same purposes (e.g., increasing box office revenue)?

Off the top of my head James Bond, anything Alexander Skarsgard is in, Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey, multiple chick flick romances, one could even argue any modern superhero movie. Hell TV shows like True Blood, Vampire Diaries and even to an extent Buffy/Angel are a veritable model runway of hunky guys.
We have our beefcake movies but women do like a personality as well. So that might not always be a big draw as much as sexy women. That said I mostly grew up on various gritty European movies so Hollywood's idea of sexuality seems rather quaint to me.

 

[Skwim]

Are there sexualized male movie characters? If not, why not? And if there are--Why? Are they sexualized in the same way (e.g., gratuitous nudity), and for the same purposes (e.g., increasing box office revenue)?

For one thing, males rate physical attractiveness of the opposite sex more important than do females of males (for females, they rate earning capability and social standing more highly than do males). Moreover, female breasts are a significant factor in female attractiveness to males, whereas male breasts are not a significant factor for females. The upshot: men enjoy looking at scantily clad, even partially or fully naked females more than do females enjoy looking at scantily clad, even partially or fully naked males.

.

 

[BSM1]

For one thing, males rate physical attractiveness of the opposite sex more important than do females of males (for females, earning capability and social standing are more important). Moreover, female breasts are significant factor in female attractiveness to males, whereas male breasts are not a significant factor for females. The upshot: men enjoy looking at scantily clad, even partially or fully naked females more than do females enjoy looking at scantily clad, even partially or fully naked males.

.

...and, unfortunately, size does matter. Uhh...of course it's not a concern for me...*cough* *cough*

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Sexy women don't bother me, be sexy badasses.

I'm more concerned with female representation. Men in movies don't have to be studly muffins to get work, and they don't have to be young. There are old, fat, gangly, small men in the biz who make buttloads more cash than their female counterparts of the same non-ideal body types. Oversexualization of women in movies really means less options for actors, and less roles for women to relate to.

 

[Jumi]

Oversexualization of women in movies really means less options for actors, and less roles for women to relate to.

There hasn't ever been any western film where I've related to a character that's male from their appearance and only once with their thoughts. There was only one role of Matt Damon where I felt the character had something relatable thought patterns. I guess this is why I almost never watch films.

 

[Srivijaya]

At most it simply asks, "Is it really necessary?"

My only comment is, so what if Sexualized Female Movie Characters aren't necessary?

I think it's difficult to generalise but some of the examples were unnecessary. Back in the day I remember seeing Princess Leia in the skimpy slaves outfit and feeling that it was out of place for her character. Just felt wrong. I guess because I never saw her in a sexual way.
In the first movie she was the only character who really knew how bad things were and she took this burden upon herself when she knew what it would cost her. I saw her as a very courageous and noble character.

Some of the other examples were only included to sex-up the movie for entertainment/revenue purposes. Others were key 'sexualised' characters but would they have worked so well otherwise? Who knows.

As to your question; what if Sexualized Female Movie Characters aren't necessary? There are plenty of top-rate films without any such characters, so great movies can be made without the necessity of including them. Other films probably need them to work. Context I suppose.

I guess my own preference doesn't preclude female characters having a splash of sex appeal to them but I'm more held by complex and deep characters. "Obvious" just gets boring.

 

[BSM1]

I think it's difficult to generalise but some of the examples were unnecessary. Back in the day I remember seeing Princess Leia in the skimpy slaves outfit and feeling that it was out of place for her character. Just felt wrong. I guess because I never saw her in a sexual way.
In the first movie she was the only character who really knew how bad things were and she took this burden upon herself when she knew what it would cost her. I saw her as a very courageous and noble character.

Some of the other examples were only included to sex-up the movie for entertainment/revenue purposes. Others were key 'sexualised' characters but would they have worked so well otherwise? Who knows.

As to your question; what if Sexualized Female Movie Characters aren't necessary? There are plenty of top-rate films without any such characters, so great movies can be made without the necessity of including them. Other films probably need them to work. Context I suppose.

I guess my own preference doesn't preclude female characters having a splash of sex appeal to them but I'm more held by complex and deep characters. "Obvious" just gets boring.

Ooohh! Slave girl Princess Leia...! Oh, sorry. Did I think that out loud?

 

[Skwim]

I think it's difficult to generalise but some of the examples were unnecessary. Back in the day I remember seeing Princess Leia in the skimpy slaves outfit and feeling that it was out of place for her character. Just felt wrong. I guess because I never saw her in a sexual way.
In the first movie she was the only character who really knew how bad things were and she took this burden upon herself when she knew what it would cost her. I saw her as a very courageous and noble character.

Leia was in a "skimpy"---actually, nothing more revealing than a bikini---costume because she was emulating a harem slave girl, which, I might point out, were often depicted with bare breasts, and sometimes completely naked. So I think her costume was quite appropriate.

.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

While I thought the Princess Leia slave-girl outfit was a bit more than needed, it did also fit the treatment that Jabba would see as appropriate.

But I think to other movies...Would Casablanca have been improved by Ingrid Bergman running around in her underwear (Yes, I probably would have liked to see more of her), but would it make the relationship any clearer? Or a love scene between Bogie and Bergman? (Yes, again...but does it improve the story?)

Would North by Northwest have been better if Eva Marie Saint and Cary Grant had a little love scene? How would that scene have improved the story, over the suggestion of their dinner conversation and her note to James Mason about what she should do with him?

Some dramas might appropriately include partial or full nudity, even sex scenes, and definitely many comedies could and do--and perhaps should...but again, how much is really needed? It depends on the context of the story being told.

 

[Skwim]

While I thought the Princess Leia slave-girl outfit was a bit more than needed, it did also fit the treatment that Jabba would see as appropriate.

But I think to other movies...Would Casablanca have been improved by Ingrid Bergman running around in her underwear (Yes, I probably would have liked to see more of her), but would it make the relationship any clearer? Or a love scene between Bogie and Bergman? (Yes, again...but does it improve the story?)

It isn't that unnecessary sexualization doesn't improve the story, being unnecessary, that's a given, but the claim that it shouldn't occur at all because it isn't necessary to the story. As I pointed out, a lot of unnecessary stuff happens in movies, but why pick on unnecessary sexualization, instead of, say, three minutes of screeching tires? My opinion is that people are still uptight about sex. That they have yet to come to terms with it.

Would North by Northwest have been better if Eva Marie Saint and Cary Grant had a little love scene? How would that scene have improved the story, over the suggestion of their dinner conversation and her note to James Mason about what she should do with him?

There are a lot of elements that could qualify as unnecessary in a story, and may not improve it. However, improvement is not what I'm talking about.

Some dramas might appropriately include partial or full nudity, even sex scenes, and definitely many comedies could and do--and perhaps should...but again, how much is really needed? It depends on the context of the story being told.

The issue isn't about need, but the merit of sexualization being unnecessary. I don't believe there is any such merit: So what if the sexualization is unnecessary, unless, that is, it hurts the story.

One of the examples given in the video is the character Leeloo, who is depicted In "The Fifth Element" wearing "a series of bandages that reveal more skin than they cover up." Does it hurt the story? No.

And in "Swordfish" where Halle Berry is shown reading a book topless. Does it hurt the story? No.

Want to appeal to my voyeuristic interests? Why thank you mister movie maker.
Don't want to appeal to my voyeuristic interests? Okey dokey. That's quite alright.



.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It isn't that unnecessary sexualization doesn't improve the story, being unnecessary, that's a given, but the claim that it shouldn't occur at all because it isn't necessary to the story. As I pointed out, a lot of unnecessary stuff happens in movies, but why pick on unnecessary sexualization, instead of, say, three minutes of screeching tires? My opinion is that people are still uptight about sex. That they have yet to come to terms with it.


There are a lot of elements that could qualify as unnecessary in a story, and may not improve it. However, improvement is not what I'm talking about.


The issue isn't about need, but the merit of sexualization being unnecessary. I don't believe there is any such merit: So what if the sexualization is unnecessary, unless, that is, it hurts the story.

One of the examples given in the video is the character Leeloo, who is depicted In "The Fifth Element" wearing "a series of bandages that reveal more skin than they cover up." Does it hurt the story? No.

And in "Swordfish" where Halle Berry is shown reading a book topless. Does it hurt the story? No.

Want to appeal to my voyeuristic interests? Why thank you mister movie maker.
Don't want to appeal to my voyeuristic interests? Okey dokey. That's quite alright..

Okay, so you're saying that the unnecessary sexualization has a reason behind it that justifies it, and I certainly agree with that, no problem, and I agree that people (mostly Americans) are prudes. Something like a person coming out of the shower or sitting reading a book NAKED is not really sexualization, as it reflects what millions of people do every day.

the presence of unnecessary sex, foul language, gun fire, chase scenes, etc., are why I don't watch a lot of movies and TV shows, reflecting my preference for quality vs. quantity, perhaps--even if America is too prudish and needs to get over stuff.

I've been increasingly disappointed in the Star Wars saga, for example, because it has become so formulaic: "first, someone is moody, and now there's a light saber battle, then some dialog and D2D2 and BB8 do cute stuff, then we have an even bigger battle between star ships and stunt fighters (than we've ever had before)," and on and on...

More and more special effects, or gratuitous violence and gore, more and more explosions and car chases because, gee willikers, we just can't come up with an original story or fill up the time or generate enough viewers and revenue otherwise.

 

[Srivijaya]

Leia was in a "skimpy"---actually, nothing more revealing than a bikini---costume because she was emulating a harem slave girl, which, I might point out, were often depicted with bare breasts, and sometimes completely naked. So I think her costume was quite appropriate.

.

I get the context argument. It was part of the plot. It fitted. Logically.

Still didn't 'feel' right though and I'm not a prude.

 

[Skwim]

Okay, so you're saying that the unnecessary sexualization has a reason behind it that justifies it, and I certainly agree with that, no problem, and I agree that people (mostly Americans) are prudes. Something like a person coming out of the shower or sitting reading a book NAKED is not really sexualization, as it reflects what millions of people do every day.

the presence of unnecessary sex, foul language, gun fire, chase scenes, etc., are why I don't watch a lot of movies and TV shows, reflecting my preference for quality vs. quantity, perhaps--even if America is too prudish and needs to get over stuff.

I've been increasingly disappointed in the Star Wars saga, for example, because it has become so formulaic: "first, someone is moody, and now there's a light saber battle, then some dialog and D2D2 and BB8 do cute stuff, then we have an even bigger battle between star ships and stunt fighters (than we've ever had before)," and on and on...

More and more special effects, or gratuitous violence and gore, more and more explosions and car chases because, gee willikers, we just can't come up with an original story or fill up the time or generate enough viewers and revenue otherwise.

I agree. Original stories seem harder to come by all the time. Take "The shop around the corner" (1940) which was remade as

"In the Good Old Summertime" (1949),
"She Loves Me" Broadway musical (1963)
"You've Got Mail (1998),

Or The lodger (1927) that was remade as

The Lodger (1932)
The Lodger (1944)
Man in the Attic (1953)
The Lodger (2009)

.

.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I agree. Original stories seem to be harder to come by all the time. Take "The shop around the corner" (1940) which was remade as

"In the Good Old Summertime" (1949),
"She Loves Me" Broadway musical (1963)
"You've Got Mail (1998),

Or The lodger (1927) that was remade as

The Lodger (1932)
The Lodger (1944)
Man in the Attic (1953)
The Lodger (2009)
.

Don't mind remakes so much, if they'd actually leave some time between them...However, the Batman movies seem to reboot about every third year...

 

[SomeRandom]

I get the context argument. It was part of the plot. It fitted. Logically.

Still didn't 'feel' right though and I'm not a prude.

It's not supposed to feel right. That's the point!! Jabba is a mild antagonist. You're not supposed to think his actions are right or good. That's the entire point of having an antagonist.