Women in "The Social Network": An attempt to rationalize
In celebration of the DVD release of The Social Network, I thought I would discuss the accusations leveled against screenwriter Aaron Sorkin about the negative portrayal of women in his film about the invention of the social networking phenomenon Facebook.
Somewhat lost in the midst of the overwhelming positive response to the film as a whole were claims that female characters, such as they were, were little more than dressed-up floozies looking to have sex with a star. This is not an uncommon female stereotype so it is understandable that those concerned with women's rights would take notice. Where these arguments are flawed, and I would say severely so, is that The Social Network is not a piece of fiction completely dreamed up by a male screenwriter. Rather, these are real people who's lack of attention from women in high school generated a deep resentment towards the gender that so glibly rejected them. But mixed in with that hatred of women is the desire to have what was not granted to them when they were anonymous, skinny nerds in high school.
Sorkin himself echoed some of these defenses in a post on Ken Levine's TV Blog. Following is an excerpt (courtesy of Cinemablend).
"Tarazza--believe me, I get it. It's not hard to understand how bright women could be appalled by what they saw in the movie but you have to understand that that was the very specific world I was writing about. Women are both prizes an equal. Mark's blogging that we hear in voiceover as he drinks, hacks, creates Facemash and dreams of the kind of party he's sure he's missing, came directly from Mark's blog. With the exception of doing some cuts and tightening (and I can promise you that nothing that I cut would have changed your perception of the people or the trajectory of the story by even an inch) I used Mark's blog verbatim. Mark said, "Erica Albright's a bitch" (Erica isn't her real name--I changed three names in the movie when there was no need to embarrass anyone further), "Do you think that's because all B.U. girls are bitches?" Facebook was born during a night of incredibly misogyny. The idea of comparing women to farm animals, and then to each other, based on their looks and then publicly ranking them. It was a revenge stunt, aimed first at the woman who'd most recently broke his heart (who should get some kind of medal for not breaking his head) and then at the entire female population of Harvard.
More generally, I was writing about a very angry and deeply misogynistic group of people. These aren't the cuddly nerds we made movies about in the 80's. They're very angry that the cheerleader still wants to go out with the quarterback instead of the men (boys) who are running the universe right now. The women they surround themselves with aren't women who challenge them (and frankly, no woman who could challenge them would be interested in being anywhere near them.)
And this very disturbing attitude toward women isn't just confined to the guys who can't get dates."
In short, Sorkin's movie is sexist and misogynistic because the world and characters he was writing about were sexist and misogynistic. They chose to surround themselves with cheap floozies who were impressed with what status they had. I'm sure if Zuckerburg and company surrounded themselves with intelligent women, Sorkin would have included them. In fact, he did in the character of Erica Albright, played by Rooney Mara, and Marylin Delpy, lawyer portrayed by Rashida Jones. In fact, Delpy was one of the only characters invented by Sorkin and she obviously is a positive female force in the film. Just like in every subset, there are positive and negative members and to pretend otherwise is simple naivety.
We would all like to live in a world where racism, sexism and homophobia does not exist but, sadly, none of us will live to see that world and it's art's mission to portray all aspects contemporary culture. I also understand women's frustration with the lack of positive female characters in mainstream, Hollywood pictures. The simple fact of the matter is, there needs to be a concentrated effort to reshape the image of woman in popular media but to attack a film based on actual events is the wrong battle to fight. Instead, focus efforts on sexist filmmakers like Michael Bay who treat women as nothing more than sexual objects to be admired and relegated to a submissive role.
Again, I am in no way saying sexism (both male and female, but, let's face it, mostly female) does not exist in movies or that it's not a problem that must be addressed. But this reaction is yet another sympton of a migration towards the whitewashing of the negative aspects of society. Even if all art portrayed a eutopian, perfect world. That doesn't mean we would get to live there.
And finally, how are men portrayed in this film? Positively or negatively? I fail to see how men are somehow more positively portrayed.
-John Boschini
Somewhat lost in the midst of the overwhelming positive response to the film as a whole were claims that female characters, such as they were, were little more than dressed-up floozies looking to have sex with a star. This is not an uncommon female stereotype so it is understandable that those concerned with women's rights would take notice. Where these arguments are flawed, and I would say severely so, is that The Social Network is not a piece of fiction completely dreamed up by a male screenwriter. Rather, these are real people who's lack of attention from women in high school generated a deep resentment towards the gender that so glibly rejected them. But mixed in with that hatred of women is the desire to have what was not granted to them when they were anonymous, skinny nerds in high school.
Sorkin himself echoed some of these defenses in a post on Ken Levine's TV Blog. Following is an excerpt (courtesy of Cinemablend).
"Tarazza--believe me, I get it. It's not hard to understand how bright women could be appalled by what they saw in the movie but you have to understand that that was the very specific world I was writing about. Women are both prizes an equal. Mark's blogging that we hear in voiceover as he drinks, hacks, creates Facemash and dreams of the kind of party he's sure he's missing, came directly from Mark's blog. With the exception of doing some cuts and tightening (and I can promise you that nothing that I cut would have changed your perception of the people or the trajectory of the story by even an inch) I used Mark's blog verbatim. Mark said, "Erica Albright's a bitch" (Erica isn't her real name--I changed three names in the movie when there was no need to embarrass anyone further), "Do you think that's because all B.U. girls are bitches?" Facebook was born during a night of incredibly misogyny. The idea of comparing women to farm animals, and then to each other, based on their looks and then publicly ranking them. It was a revenge stunt, aimed first at the woman who'd most recently broke his heart (who should get some kind of medal for not breaking his head) and then at the entire female population of Harvard.
More generally, I was writing about a very angry and deeply misogynistic group of people. These aren't the cuddly nerds we made movies about in the 80's. They're very angry that the cheerleader still wants to go out with the quarterback instead of the men (boys) who are running the universe right now. The women they surround themselves with aren't women who challenge them (and frankly, no woman who could challenge them would be interested in being anywhere near them.)
And this very disturbing attitude toward women isn't just confined to the guys who can't get dates."
In short, Sorkin's movie is sexist and misogynistic because the world and characters he was writing about were sexist and misogynistic. They chose to surround themselves with cheap floozies who were impressed with what status they had. I'm sure if Zuckerburg and company surrounded themselves with intelligent women, Sorkin would have included them. In fact, he did in the character of Erica Albright, played by Rooney Mara, and Marylin Delpy, lawyer portrayed by Rashida Jones. In fact, Delpy was one of the only characters invented by Sorkin and she obviously is a positive female force in the film. Just like in every subset, there are positive and negative members and to pretend otherwise is simple naivety.
We would all like to live in a world where racism, sexism and homophobia does not exist but, sadly, none of us will live to see that world and it's art's mission to portray all aspects contemporary culture. I also understand women's frustration with the lack of positive female characters in mainstream, Hollywood pictures. The simple fact of the matter is, there needs to be a concentrated effort to reshape the image of woman in popular media but to attack a film based on actual events is the wrong battle to fight. Instead, focus efforts on sexist filmmakers like Michael Bay who treat women as nothing more than sexual objects to be admired and relegated to a submissive role.
Again, I am in no way saying sexism (both male and female, but, let's face it, mostly female) does not exist in movies or that it's not a problem that must be addressed. But this reaction is yet another sympton of a migration towards the whitewashing of the negative aspects of society. Even if all art portrayed a eutopian, perfect world. That doesn't mean we would get to live there.
And finally, how are men portrayed in this film? Positively or negatively? I fail to see how men are somehow more positively portrayed.
-John Boschini
Comments
Post a Comment