I can’t say much about Tarantino or Von Trier here, but in regards to Fassbinder I think the accusations of misogyny are totally bogus. Unfortunately there are many people who upon seeing a female character in a film that is less than perfect immediately jump to accusations of misogyny or sexism. Personally I think films where women are shown as saints are more damaging because it perpetuates the traditionally strict standards of purity and prudence that, at least in the US, men have historically used to control and oppress women.
In my opinion, the only Tarantino movie that is not misogynous is JACKIE BROWN. Although Bridget Fonda’s character counterbalances (a lot) Pam Grier’s.
For me, it’s less about being a saint or innocent or any of that crap, it’s about equality. Marlene DIetrich in The Scarlet Empress achieved greatness tantamount to that of many great emperors, and she did it on her own. She came to the realization that everyone is selfish and if you don’t look out for numero uno, you will be cast aside. On the flip side, Nicole Kidman in Dogville didn’t come to her great epiphany until being talked to by her father. The man is the one who had to interject his opinions. And that’s where my opinion of misogyny comes in.
I think Tarantino is too full of himself to even have a concept of sexism in his films, nor have I seen enough Fassbinder films to have an opinion, but with von Trier, I can go for days.
This may sound contradictory to what I said a paragraph ago, but I don’t think that men and women are equal. Would I want a woman saving me from a burning building? No. But I do believe that women are capable of great things without the aid of any man. Catherine II is a great example of that. I recently watched Coach to Vienna and the female lead is less than innocent, but her actions are all her own. There’s a scene when the carriage gets stuck between two trees and the male soldier couldn’t get it out, but she comes and shoulders it loose and says “weak.” It’s not the other way around. The women in Ugetsu are way more sensible than the men and their lust for money. There are countless examples, but you get my drift.
woody allen also claims it is easiest to write female leads for him.
Yes, Den, and Woody’s written some great roles for women but also some terrible ones. He became so lazy with his female roles that in Sweet and Lowdown he even writes Morton’s character as a mute! As for the OP, Fassbinder made some of the more interesting female characters in film history. It fits the melodramatic mold of his films which were largely based on women protagonists ( traditionally known as “women’s pictures.”) As for Tarantino and Von Trier, whatever their merits, they don’t write real characters. They riff on cultural archetypes (QT on “kickass babes”, VT on “suffering women”).
“Would I want a woman saving me from a burning building? No.”
This is a very strange statement to me. It sort of embodies the cognitive bias that makes sexism so rampant… both genders consider accepted roles to be more important than opportunity, necessity, independence, and circumstance. If you were caught under debris in a burning house, and a woman was trying to move some boards to free you, would you tell her, “I don’t need help from a woman!” and shoo her away?
You might say, “Go, save yourself! We don’t both need to burn alive,” which would be perfectly understandable, but if the gender roles were reversed, why shouldn’t a woman have the prerogative to say the same thing to you? Isn’t it always the responsibility of the willing and able to come to the aid of the trapped and unfortunate? It seems to me that these kinds of obligations should extend across gender lines.
I can’t speak to Fassbinder. Not familiar enough with his work.
Von Trier is a subtle filmmaker, putting some challenging and difficult realities on display; in Breaking the Waves (for instance), Bess is a truly noble character whose passion leads her to sacrifice herself… a Madonna turned against her own nature by love. As much as it seems to be a celebration of her compassion, however, it’s also incredibly voyeuristic. It seems to fetishize the violence and sexual humiliation she undergoes, and in the end, the narrative rewards these things. Whether they’re “glorified” per se is up for debate. At any rate, it demonstrates an incredible capacity for ambiguity in Von Trier… he takes the fundamental contradiction of “identity politics” (celebrating the “true nature” of a group, versus celebrating their transgression of that nature) and runs with it, turning it into something that seems to celebrate femininity and despise it at the same time.
Tarantino, on the other hand, seemed to forget the feminine entirely in his early films. Reservoir Dogs: not a female presence in sight. Pulp Fiction: the females become accessories to their males, and become objects for exchange in power games. It’s only recently that he’s started integrating a female presence, and he does it in the way that’s most suited to his style: he gives the females the assets and personalities that allow them to compete with the macho male presences that dominate his view of the world. By creating some very strong females who still have traces of their femininity… The Bride with her maternal instinct, Foxy Brown as a confident lover and caretaker, Shosanna controlling her sexual allure in pursuit of redemption and revenge… he’s made a lot of progress in channeling his transgressive instincts through female characters. I applaud him for that.
Instead of actually contributing I thought I’d just attack other people’s comments (less thinking for me).
“On the flip side, Nicole Kidman in Dogville didn’t come to her great epiphany until being talked to by her father. The man is the one who had to interject his opinions. And that’s where my opinion of misogyny comes in.”
That’s the funny thing – so many of these feminists are the most sexist people you’ll meet. Is that not a pathetic irony? I know that I identify with women because they trigger something inside me, hidden feminine qualities or something pretentious like that. And if you put a man in that role it just doesn’t have the same effect. Everyone can relate to this. A character who is struggling to make it by in an oppressive environment it just feels right to be a woman (most of the time). Whereas if you have a character who is constantly faced with dangerous confrontations it feels right for it to be a man. Take a movie like Passion of Joan – it could have been about a man instead (Passion of Jonas or something), but it works much better with a woman because she is being used and abused and treated unfairly and this kindles something in our minds relating to woman. And I’m not saying it’s a dogmatic rule (ex Punch Drunk Love). If you ask me, most directors cast woman because they feel like women sometimes. And a woman best embodies certain things they want to express. Course if a female director casts a man, there’s no comotion. Look, we’re all human. We all feel the same things, just in different ways.
Weekend
lars von trier, quentin tarantino, rainer werner fassbinder.
what do you guys think of them and their apparent fascination with female perspectives. both von trier and fassbinder have said, more or less, that they feel they can best express themselves through female characters. many of their films are characterized by strong female leads (except for von trier whose characters are more vulnerable and capricious). all three dont commit to long term relationships…. some have said that they’re all misogynists. I dont think they are and I can relate to these three directors.
what are your thoughts?