17 Again
A reader alerted us to this message at the bottom of the New York Times review of 17 Again, the new, sure-to-be Oscar-winning movie starring Zac Efron:
"17 Again" is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Girls are particularly cautioned.
After a quick plot synopsis (a dude's life was ruined because he turned down a basketball scholarship after his girlfriend got pregnant), reviewer Manohla Dargis notes "the story's obnoxious implications" are that "sex, meaning girls, can ruin your life." She makes clear that the movie's female characters are (surprise!) little more than simple stereotypes. So presumably this is what the "special girl warning" is referring to.
But if that is the case, doesn't sexist content merit a warning for boys AND girls? The assumption that a negative portrayal of women will only affect girls is simply crazy. Young people of all genders are deeply affected by repeated sexist portrayals of women in movies, music, and culture more generally. Yes, it can have very different effects on boys and girls. But how is it worse for a girl to think of herself as having to choose between harpy or sex object than it is for a boy to view all women as harpies or sex objects?
And what if the warning isn't a reference to sexist stereotypes of women? Honestly, I can't think of a single plot element that should prompt a warning for young women but not for young men, for the reasons stated above. Has anyone seen the movie? Any other speculation on what the warning refers to?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "Girls are particularly cautioned".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13244
There are so many things wrong with this movie, I don't even know where to begin...
I saw the movie last Saturday. I was surprised that I actually enjoyed it (could have been the rum that I snuck into my coke though). Despite the rampant sexism.
Throughout the movie, Zac EFron's Character, is the high school version of Matthew Perry, tranformed into his younger self and attending highschool with his children. The entire goal is to "save" his daughter from her dickwad boyfriend. Her boyfriend was a total loser, had no goals in life etc... and was in fact just like Efron the first time around in high school. So Efron's goal was to prevent his daughter from getting knocked up and moving in with her lame boyfriend. So on multiple occasions, including sex ed class, Efron breaks into a monologue about abstinence and how wonderful it is to have a child at the right time. As a result of this rant, all the girls give back the condoms that they were being given and one boy decides to take all of them. On many occasions, Efron sprays his daughter and his boyfriend with a garden hose, picks a fight with the guy etc... In the end, her boyfriend leaves her because she refused to have sex with him.
Efron's work with his son, on the other hand, was to make him popular and get the head cheerleader to like him. Eventually they end up kissing and Efron's all proud of his son for dating this girl.
DOUBLE STANDARD MUCH!?!?!?!
So that's the issue with the movie:
girls and boyfriends=BAD,
boys and girlfriends=RIGHT ON!
Thanks that was very thorough.
What's sad is that lots of younger girls will go see this movie because of Zac Efron.
Sounds like girls aren't just "particularly cautioned"--they're lectured.
Sigh... that plotline really, really depresses me.
I don't really see it as a double standard. The boyfriend was a ass who treated everyone (including her and her brother) like crap. The cheerleader didn't hurt anyone.
What I actually find more interesting is that the premise of the movie only "works" for men.
Imagine a movie about a wife and mother who has regrets about being both (regrets, not just missing the fun of youth). It doesn't matter if at at the end of the movie she reconciles her regrets with her simultaneous happiness now.*
For a wife and mother, having (and admitting) the doubts at all is heinous enough.
*I haven't seen the movie, so it's not a spoiler. But come on, how IS this movie supposed to end given what we've seen of the star and the marketing and, frankly, how a movie like this usually goes?
I saw this movie (yes, I was bored on a Saturday afternoon, so shut up) and it's just another stupid tween movie for tweens. but I like how Leslie Mann's character was sympathetic and had real emotions. They didn't make her out to be a bitch, thank god.
I see where everyone is coming from here, but I do want to point out, in defense of the NYT, that they often include snarky commentary in the rating text--stuff to the affect of "people with more than three braincells are cautioned" or "ibuprofen advised." In this case, it may have come out wrong, but I'd guess that what they were going for was to reinforce the point that "this is a movie with shitty gender messages."
Yeah, if you look at other NYTimes reviews of other crappy movies, they often add some snark in with the rating. I would take it to mean that girls in particular should avoid seeing this movie because it's particularly insulting to them.
Whoa, y'all, I think it's a joke. Especially considering the title of the article "Those Cheekbones! That Wind-Swept Hair! OMG, It’s Zac Efron!" I think it's acknowledging that Efron is a teeny-bopper sex symbol. (see also: I heard the shrieks of teenage girls in the audience)
Maybe it's not funny, but I don't think they're trying to say that poor sensitive girls will be led astray by the movie.
I saw it, and at one point in the movie, Leslie Mann's character is talking to her friend about dating again, and Efron goes off on a rant about how she's still married and had this been Afghanistan, she would have been dragged through the streets by her hands.
I reacted by saying, "What!?!" audibly in the theatre, which drew attention to myself and my friend, which was exactly what I DIDN'T want. But I couldn't BELIEVE what I was hearing! A movie for tweens using an awful thing that actually happens as a platform for a joke?? Especially in a room filled with tween girls, I felt really bad for all of them!
Also, Zac Efron cannot act if he isn't playing basketball. I think it's in his contracts.
Half of the review focuses on how positively dreamy Zac Efron is. It's just a joke.
Yes, it is warning girls that they may swoon to their deaths over Zac. A joke.
I see that many of us perceive this is as some sort of joke. I interpret it this way, but the joke is the problem. Making jokes at girl's expense? Yeah, that's super lame.
I wont go see this movie for another reason! :)
Sophia
But how is it at girls' expense? It's not making fun of girls, it's making fun of the movie.
Ablist language makes me sad. Could you reconsider using "lame" as a pejorative? My husband is lame. Making jokes a girls' expense is stupid, lazy, overdone, trite, boring, or irritating.
In light of the recent conversation about gender issues, do you think you could reword this sentence?
"Young people of both genders are deeply affected by repeated sexist portrayals of women in movies, music, and culture more generally."
Young people of any gender, perhaps? Or young people, regardless of gender?
I corrected it. Apologies. And thanks for pointing it out.
I don't want to play devil's advocate, but I actually think the discussion about abstinence in the movie was surprisingly tasteful.
Zac Efron's character (and this is just paraphrase, be warned) says that having sex, or "making love," should be about love, that you should wait to have sex until you are emotionally prepared and ready to deal with the consequences. And in that scene, he was lecturing the boys AND the girls.
Also, by the end of the movie, Efron/Perry's character realizes how much he's been taking his family for granted, that their not just "sex objects" or tools for societal gain or something expected of a middle-aged man. He de-objectifies his family by realizing again how important they are to him.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Perry's nerdy friend who sexually harasses the school principal until she goes out with him on a date.
Given the context I'm inclined to think "and ready to deal with the consequences" can only mean one thing. Having a baby. 'Cause thats definitely the only way to ~deal~ with the situation.
Somehow I doubt that Perry's character had been seeing his whole family as sex objects...
Nice civilized discussion, I liked that.
I love reading this blog daily, but I think your take on this mere quip (and the entire post in general) is embarrassing for feminists in that it's reinforcing the stereotype of "uptight, militant feminists making mountains out of mole-hills." Yeah, I said it.
First and foremost, the original article was making sarcastic criticisms of the film's admittedly lame portrayal of women, and thus the "Girls are especially cautioned" warning was an obvious quip. Contrary to your suggestion, it was apropos, funny, and in line with the tone the writer established in the article.
As to your question: "But how is it worse for a girl to think of herself as having to choose between harpy or sex object than it is for a boy to view all women as harpies or sex objects?"
...That's too easy. Because having to choose between *seeing* someone as a harpy or a sex object is significantly less burdensome than being expected to actually *live* one of those two limiting personas. If you really intend to argue this point further, I think you should move your commentary to a more appropriate venue; perhaps a paper bag or, better yet, a trash can? This is not suitable for Feministing, which is normally a blog I enjoy and admire.
Thanks much :)
I love reading this blog daily, but I think your take on this mere quip (and the entire post in general) is embarrassing for feminists in that it's reinforcing the stereotype of "uptight, militant feminists making mountains out of mole-hills." Yeah, I said it.
First and foremost, the original article was making sarcastic criticisms of the film's admittedly lame portrayal of women, and thus the "Girls are especially cautioned" warning was an obvious quip. Contrary to your suggestion, it was apropos, funny, and in line with the tone the writer established in the article.
As to your question: "But how is it worse for a girl to think of herself as having to choose between harpy or sex object than it is for a boy to view all women as harpies or sex objects?"
...That's too easy. Because having to choose between *seeing* someone as a harpy or a sex object is significantly less burdensome than being expected to actually *live* one of those two limiting personas. If you really intend to argue this point further, I think you should move your commentary to a more appropriate venue; perhaps a paper bag or, better yet, a trash can? This is not suitable for Feministing, which is normally a blog I enjoy and admire.
Thanks much :)
Thank you for this comment. There are frequently posts on this blog that I would put in the "mountain out of a mole hill" category.
I hear what you are saying; it does seem like a trifle. However, don't you think it may be worthwhile to draw attention to evidence of sexism as it exists in the worldview of people who try not to be sexist (in this case, the NYT)? Even in so-called small issues of inclusiveness and vocabulary, our true attitudes are revealed, since we are not analyzing the implications of that word choice. It is the same thing as saying "both genders" rather than "any gender" - it belies a basic normative attitude, and drawing attention to it is really the only way to change it, if indeed you believe it needs to be changed. I think the authors of Feministing and the NYT would appreciate the corrections, since it can only help smooth the cultural paradigm shift that we clearly need.
A film studies professor once told our grad class that if she avoided all movies with sex stereotypes and or sexism, that there would hardly be any films that she could see.
So, I guess an on-going. lifelong conversation with kids and teens is in order. Also, a critical approach to film and mass media is important for adults.
These images are a pervasive part of daily life and deserve to be discussed as such!
Oh, but imagine this comment written on a paperbag that you can dump in a trash can...
Even so, I still agree with Ann that it would be nice if the NYT recognized that the sexist stereotypes portrayed in the movie hurt girls and boys.
Instead of saying "girls are particularly cautioned," they could have said something more inclusive.
This was supposed to be a reply to Ganieda.
If the level of sexism in a movie is too much for girls, I think it is definitely also too much for boys. I'm going to avoid this movie. I'm not a fan of movies usually, anyway.
That being said... I didn't know Matthew Perry was still acting.
Not going to see this movie. It's one of those overblown female stereotype movies. It's sad how all these young tween girls are going to see yet another episode of barbie wars. Depressing :(