Open Thread: Let’s Talk About Misogyny at the Movies

Over the course of the past few days, I’ve found myself reading a quite a bit of hand-wringing, and even engaging in a few spirited Twitter conversations, with regards to the number two movie of the weekend, Project X — specifically, the picture’s attitude toward women (towards anyone who’s not a young white male, really). If there’s a buzzword for the Project X’s opening weekend, it’s misogyny. “Project X is the male gaze substantiated and concentrated into ninety sweaty minutes,” writes Badass Digest’s Meredith Borders. “The way these guys talk about the girls, the way they look at them, the way Dax’s camera presents them, validates every misogynistic tendency a high school boy may be capable of feeling. Project X celebrates and rewards that misogyny.” The L Magazine calls it “a misogynist fantasy of high school wildness,” while View London says it’s “ultimately let down by some appalling misogyny and a deeply unlikable central character.” The reviews that don’t explicitly drop the “m-word” at least echo these sentiments (The best one-liner comes via the AV Club’s Keith Phipps: “It would be easy to say Project X objectifies women, if the word ‘object’ didn’t imply too much dignity”).

For the most part, your author agrees with these criticisms, for reasons I’ll expand on presently. What’s curious, though, is how thinking through my feelings on this film and these ideas have led me to second-guess some ideas I’ve had about teens and pop culture and “responsibility” for decades, and that’s where I’m curious to know what you think.

The film, which is basically a found footage Superbad, concerns a trio of high school losers who try to attain popularity by throwing a massive party that quickly goes way out of control. Their endgame, as it is for most teenage boys doing most things, is to get laid. This is not controversial material; the details are different, but Porky’s, Fast Times, and American Pie covered this stuff decades ago.

What’s causing, I think, so much gnashing of teeth over Project X is that “deeply unlikable central character” that View London mentioned. His name is Costa, the main character’s sweater-vested douchebag best buddy, the guy who puts the party together and invites the school hotties, instructing them to “wear somethin’ tight.” A loathsome tool whose stated objective for the evening is — and I’m gonna go ahead and paraphrase this — to have sexual intercourse with a woman of oversized bosom (he doesn’t even mind if she’s overweight! So long as she is voluptuous!), Costa is the most hateable movie character in many a moon; when he’s onscreen, you never want to stop punching him.

Does the fact that a film is centered (and make no mistake, it is; though the main character is ostensibly Thomas, the birthday boy whose home houses the soiree, Costa gets far more focus) on a vile, unlikable misogynist make the film itself, consequently, misogynist? Hardly. Plenty of fine films have made protagonists of people we deeply dislike, for a variety of reasons, from The King of Comedy’s Rupert Pupkin to Young Adult’s Mavis Gary; plays and films by David Rabe, David Mamet, and Neil LaBute have presented the interactions of utterly appalling men and the women they psychologically and verbally abuse. Are those works misogynist?

There is a fine line between films that are misogynistic, and films that are about misogynists (and they’re not mutually exclusive). What it boils down to, ultimately, is how the film treats those characters — how the filmmakers appear to feel about these people, and thus aim to make the audience feel about them. And this is where Project X becomes problematic. Whether or not the adults who wrote, directed, and produced Project X know that Costa is a boil of a human being (and I think they do), their film chooses to celebrate him, and present the events of the film as, ultimately, his triumph. That’s the takeaway from the closing scene (spoiler alert), which finds him a minor celebrity, pimped out for an interview with busty TV personality Jillian Barberie, whom he invites to “wear somethin’ tight” to his next party. It’s a catchphrase! (End spoiler.)

Unlike a Rabe or LaBute, who end their tales of male savagery with, at the very least, an acknowledgment of the emptiness at these men’s core, the creators of Project X find Costa a lovable rogue — vulgar and crass, sure, but hey, isn’t he funny? And doesn’t he get the job done for his buddy? And thus, we’re supposed to laugh along with his dialogue, peppered with “bitches” and “hoes” and “faggots” and, once, even a “nigga.”

But the film’s attitudes about women don’t lie solely in the noxious dialogue. There is exactly one female character given any integrity or personality, and though she’s given legitimate reason to snub Thomas, she folds like a card table at the end for no reason other than an apparently weak will (or an awareness of the film’s quickly expiring running time). The young women who come to the party, on the other hand, are slabs of flesh, ogled by the handheld cameras in a barrage of underwater and up-skirt shots (often in slo-mo, for added effect). Project X may not be a movie that hates women, per se, but it certainly doesn’t know how to regard them as anything more than potential conquests.

So, you might retort, how does that make his movie any different from the majority of Hollywood product? And that’s a legitimate question, and one that leads me to open a troublesome can of worms. The answer is that the film is being marketed, R rating or no, directly at teenage boys. And, well, teenage boys are impressionable, no?

Look, I’m not trying to sound like one of those out-of-touch politicians who insists that the morals and standards of behavior in America are falling as a result of movies and video games and hippety-hop music; that’s a stupid argument, and not one I’m trying to make. But as I get older and further out of my teenage defensive crouch, I’m more willing to admit that, yes, sometimes these things do have an effect. Did listening to NWA (ach, showing my age) permanently damage my attitudes about women? Probably not. But it did affect how I felt about them at the time, just a little, and it certainly affected how my friends and I talked about them amongst ourselves. So maybe that’s why I winced when Costa’s “bitch” dialogue is played for laughs, or why I was so particularly bothered by his “faggot” lines — because the kind of 14-year-old guys who’d buy a ticket for The Lorax and sneak into Project X and find that dialogue hilarious are the same guys who are bullying gay teens who end up killing themselves.

I know, I know, it’s a stretch. It’s a dumb teen titty comedy. But does it have to be an all-or-nothing proposition? Can we admit that while ingrained morality and parental responsibility and peer pressure are all factors, the things that people see and hear in popular culture also play some part in how they talk and act? Or am I going off some sort of deep end here?

I’ve talked too much. Help me out. What do you think?

Filed Under:

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

I thought this film was deeply misogynistic and I think that showing it to a screen full of people without any discussion about how disgusting it is is harmful. I was clenched and tense for the entire film. The girls are just dismembered body parts. There was a scene where someone blew a girl's skirt up with a vacuum, and the entire cinema I was in laughed. Sexual harassment much? News flash, it's not ok to call girls hos or bithces or sluts. Girls do not exist for revolting teenage boys to fuck and grope. Girls have their own stories. Girls have things between their ears. I don't care if people think its "just a movie" because it's that narrow minded cop-out thats got us to the state we're in now. Hollywood needs to stop normalizing the objectification of women, it's really not fucking ok

I don't think teen girls know more about real misogyny than adult women. But even a lot of teen girls don't like being called bitches and hos.

Thanks for this thoughtful article. I would note that the demographic here-- teens- are generallly unconcerned with what older people moralize. This was true with religion-- the traditional sort- and is true for nontraditional religions like feminism. So, generally, female teens do not consider the actions of teen boys to be misogynistic. Older females/feminists do (for many reasons). The teen girls have not demonized the male libido yet (and arent blind to misandry either). The better, more scientific-- social scientific- discussion would be about: Does the male libido deserve to be demonized? At what age is a male (or female) considered a 'sexual predator'.

I haven't seen the film, but the trailer was pretty clear. I was extremely offended when "American Pie" came out because it promoted filming someone with a webcam without her knowing it. Years later, the same thing was done to a gay boy who killed himself. The films seem like harmless fun because the majority of us can watch them, perhaps joke insensitively with our friends for a few years (emulating our crass on-screen heroes) and then grow out of it when we realize that behavior will not get us any dates or even friends. However, a few of us will actually think that we have a right to such behavior - especially if we have money to pay women to act that way or we have a large group of people backing us up (fraternity brothers, sports entities) - and that is what makes some men have delusional thinking. Unfortunately, these films come off as realistic and perfectly acceptable fantasies because none of the women or men in the film are complaining. Heck, they are always having the time of their lives when they exploit others or are exploited by others. When these men act like this in real life, the men/boys involved in such actions think, "But it was just fun, it was just a joke." They cannot comprehend why the outcome is not the same as the film. Or worse yet, maybe no one complains because they are too afraid to. Or maybe someone does complain about the behavior but these men literally don't hear it because in their mind they are living out the fun, wild fantasy, so they just think, "Oh, they don't really care, it's all in good fun." We copy what we see on screen in terms of what we wear, the kind of slang or common phrasing that we use and we even decide what national/international events are important to us based on what we see on a screen. How in the world are you going to tell me that what we see on screen does not affect our actual behavior? It does.

I haven't seen this movie and probably won't, but bringing up "Superbad" in the beginning got me thinking. While I found that movie hilarious, fun, and quite touching, a female friend pointed out that the whole thing was about these guys' plans to get the girls drunk and have sex with them, essentially to rape them. I defended it and pointed out that the whole movie is about the boy's desperate attempts to find friendship amidst their raging hormones and naive confusion about life, and that the way it all plays out was profoundly compassionate and sweet. She had a good point though, and now I'm wondering about whether I was blowing hot air. I'm curious what other people think about this ...

i agree with @Diana, tiptoeing around this for teenage boys only leads to grown men like rush limbaugh. how is it possible things are getting worse for females and not better in 2012?

When I saw a trailer for this movie, I felt like Liz Lemon seeing a group of young people and said with a shudder, "Youths...!" and ran away. On a serious note, this movie seems to perfectly reflect what most young men naturally do in regards to women. The job of changing those attitudes starts at home, not with the film industry. Of course, it would be nice if they took some responsibility.

Not only do films like Project X do damage to impressionable teenage boys but even more so to impressionable teenage girls who then allow themselves to be treated like slabs of flesh, being called bitches and hoes and much worse.

So you brought up "American Pie". A film series that is celebrated for being about a group of immature teens looking to "get laid", who become young men falling in love. With the exception of one character, Stifler. In every movie while the other characters have story arches about falling in love and learning to treat women respectfully, Stifler never changes. He's still calling his friend the "F" word and "B" word. The other males laugh at his jokes and then defend him to the female characters who call him on his crap. With even the latest movie's trailer, they still present Stifler as the guy just looking to score. So if Costa is just another Stifler where's the difference? You do mention the camera being a character, making it sound like a "Girls Gone Wild" video. That sounds more ugly then any fictional character an actor is portraying.

Unfortunately, Hollywood has been poisoning the minds of young people since it regained control of the content after the brief high water mark of the early and mid-1970s. Most mainstream fare going out of the LA these days is really dreadful. They don't even try anymore at the major studios, it's just paint by the numbers.

I think it's a sign of how bad things have gotten that you constantly undermine your arguments throughout this whole piece. Even here, in this context, you can't just come out and say, "This movie is misogynistic and people shouldn't be watching this garbage because it's hurtful to women." You're still softpedaling so as not to offend the men who will defend this movie - "well I just don't want *teenage* boys to see it"/"it might result in teen bullying" etc. This is a sign of how deeply entrenched this bullshit is - that you can't just tell those defenders to fuck off, that they are wrong, that this movie is hurtful and that enjoying it probably says something about your character.

From a filmmaking standpoint, I think the "found footage" genre the film falls under plays into this misogynistic viewpoint (beyond the more obvious character/plot traits you pointed out). When the camera doing the ogling and controlling the scene is not some neutral observer, simply capturing footage for the audience to take as it will, it means the camera is a character. And that character is obviously supportive of the acts being captured in this movie. And so is the camera, and so it isn't just misogynistic characters in the film (which can be in a non-misogynistic movie as you point out, Jason), but a misogynistic CAMERA, which is far more powerful/influential to the audience.

Isn't this a reflection of the backlash against women that we're seeing in politics right now? If its perfectly okay (with very little retaliation) for a pundit to call a stranger a "slut" because she's talking about women's health issues - isn't it perfectly okay to condone that kind of behavior in our movies? I don't think you are going too far - not even close to too far. We need to talk about this: bullying - misogyny; they're born out of the same thing. You can rationalize it by saying it's born out of self-loathing or fear of the "other." Ultimately though, individuals make choices and society makes collective choice. And it seems that more and more we are a society which chooses to be hateful, selfish, and disgusting.

Thanks for this article. I'm happy that people (particularly men) are finally starting to point out what a problem attitudes like this are. It seems like most people shrug and mumble something about "boys will be boys". There's so little compassion for the women who are being treated like this, who are growing up with these types of expectations about who they are and where their values lies.