That's
the plea from Bronwen Clune, a feminist critic writing in
The Guardian,
fed up with encountering profiles of female celebrities which linger on
their bodies, and describe them in excessive detail. She specifically
name-checks the
male gaze theory:
We’re
all familiar with the concept of the “male gaze”, particularly when it
comes to Hollywood film – the lens lingering on the curves of leading
ladies’ derrieres (Lane talks of Johansson’s “contours” of reputation) –
a scopophilic guilty pleasure. And, let’s face it, women’s bodies are
delightful things to look at, one of the reasons media executives
conveniently argue that the economics of the industry make it impossible
to avoid stereotypes of women.
But
when respected male writers profile powerful women, is it
wrong that we should expect more than lengthy, voyeuristic wet dreams?
In the cases of both Hardy and Johansson, the writers of their profiles
are accomplished and well-regarded. Their audiences, a “new
intelligentsia”, are likely to congratulate themselves on their
progressive values. Their subjects are powerful and sexually subversive
women. Yet in both cases the women are reduced to something resembling
not much more than titillating, slightly fearsome, but ultimately
decorative objects.
She notes how one
actress was described as having "nice tits" - something the male writer
even went as far as to confirm with her housemate - and goes on to note:
I’m reading a profile of Scarlett Johansson by Anthony Lane where she appears as if “made from
champagne”, her laugh “dry and dirty, as if this were a drama class and
her task was [sic] to play a Martini” and her backside, “barely veiled
in peach-colored underwear”. As Slate points out
this is not the first time Johansson has inspired “culture writers to
do horrible things with words”
Does this chime with your experience? Do you think seemingly respectable
highbrow media (as opposed to tabloid press/TV) are just as guilty of needless objectification? Any examples you want to share?
