M S and O: Movies, Sex and Objectification

Warning: This article contains some content relating to sexual assault.

This week we have sadly seen many stories of even more crimes being committed against women within the music industry and within society. Some of these stories haven’t been given enough coverage in the media and some have been given more prominent coverage. One of the stories I came across involved the experience of a model on the set of a music video. For decades in music videos we have seen female workers turn up to dance in music videos.

What stood out to me in terms of the account I read I about was that the abuser addressed his victim in the (ridiculous) terms of how her femininity and beauty had caused him to sexually assault her. As I read through her harrowing account of the despicable crimes committed against her; it seemed to represent a distinct misunderstanding of female sexuality and the gender roles we as a society have casually embraced for too long.

Is there a path beyond this criminality and how does the motion picture industry help men to understand the difference between objectification and positive expressions of male sexuality.

This week I watched London Fields (2018), Mathew Cullen’s troubled adaptation of the much lauded Martin Amis novel from 1989; starring Amber Heard, Theo James, Jim Sturgess and Billy Bob Thornton. I am aware a director’s cut of this picture does exist but I have not seen it. For a specific dissection of the problems the production faced then check out the piece over @filmstoriespod for a more detailed examination of the labyrinthine production problems faced by the movie.

In London Fields Amber Heard plays Nicola Six, a recently widowed woman who is also a clairvoyant. She predicts her own murder at the hands of one of three men. Theo James’, Guy Clench, Jim Sturgess’ Keith Talent and Billy Bob Thornton’s, Samson Young. It Is young who takes it upon himself to write the story of her murder and the events leading up to it.

Amber Heard is stunningly beautiful in the movie and the camera clearly wishes to illustrate her beauty and sexuality. The images of Heard are dominated by expensive lingerie, bikinis and dresses.

We also see Nicola express her own sexuality and fashion throughout the movie and how her projections of her sensuality affects her life and the other characters. Herein lies the problem at the heart of the movie and how it is representative of the subconscious sexism and misogyny which leads to actual criminality outside of the movie and in society.

*spoilers* At the end of the movie each of the male characters arrive at the conclusion that the problems they are now experiencing are because of the beautiful woman who has had an influence on their lives. Yet if you dissect each male character they all have key character flaws both before and after Nicola Six arrived in their lives. Also none of the male characters are in control of their own sexuality or seem to have any understanding of how it reflects on their actions.

Therefore, it is Nicola Six who must die because she was a sexual, mysterious and flawed person. Yet the movie is happy to insist that because Nicola Six is a sexual woman who inspires passion and desire that somehow she is a transcendental figure who can be easily crucified by one of the male characters without any moral recourse or justice.

I myself do not have problem with expressions of sexuality on screen or in life.

The problem arises when you do not understand the gravitas and scope of how that plays into the sexual simulacrum of the people and in this case the women around you as a grown male.

Nicola Six’s head is smashed in with a blunt object prior to the perpetrator writing a letter of apology to his male landlord and proceeding to kill himself.

The movie then concludes with a quick cut back to Jim Sturgess’ character who is annoyed about how his story will be represented by another male character. Credits role and the movie is over. The movie casually suggests that her death is actually for her own good as it reductively returns to decades old misogynist theories like ‘Hysteria’.

The male character’s fail to take responsibility for their actions or their lives and their complicity is represented by an act of violence because of their own failures. One character even describes Nicola as the personification of death, he also says she is in league with the devil.

So when I see stories in the real world like the one I mentioned earlier men project the misunderstanding of their own responsibilities onto women which then forces emotional, physical and spiritual abuse onto women.

London Fields not only depicts this but then suggests that this is somehow just the norm. As we see in society some men do not understand the scales of balance between their own sexuality and how it should be an inspiration not a justification for criminal acts or the entitlement to women’s bodies.

Human beings are sexual creatures, we have seen this played out over hundreds of years, in the digital age sexuality is synchronised with imagery and constant stimulation. Yet also within this space it is clear that the same misunderstanding of male sexuality plays out in society in distinctly terrifying ways.

In film the idea of the Femme Fatale fulfils the male fantasy of the beautiful, sexual and mysterious woman and then at times portrays her as a fearful character to be dismayed by and who is only there to corrupt the male characters either through lust or emotional discovery.

My main question is as to why hetero normative approaches to sex in terms of popular culture do not result in many men thinking of femininity as a pejorative and not a source of morality or inspiration.

In Frank Darabont’s Shawshank Redemption (1994) the inmates at the prison watch Rita Hayworth in Gilda (1946) in the prison cinema. The modern movie subverts the femme fatale here as Hayworth’s character is a symbol of hope in a movie within a movie.

This motif is then carried through by the famous character Andy Dufresne who escapes injustice via hacking away at the prison walls behind posters of Hayworth and later Marilyn Monroe and other female idols.

Are the prisoners watching Hayworth all asexual men without desire? No, but here their sexuality is something to be inspired by and brings freedom on a metaphorical level.

In Shawshank cisgender male sexuality creates idols and not people to be the innocent victims of sexual violence.

In La Verite (1960) Brigitte Bardot’s character Dominique is put on trial. She does not face a jury of her peers. Not only is she placed on trial for the crime she is accused of; Dominique is also placed on trial for her beauty, sexuality and charisma. In a similar fashion to London Fields the male characters are unable to take responsibility for their own actions, instead a bizarre refraction of their moral responsibility is played out on screen.

The movie is an indictment of sexism and patriarchy, yet it is also a movie with a message some people have not learned from.

In Gasper Noe’s controversial movie Irreversible (2002), Monica Belucci’s character, Alex is brutally raped. Yet the men in her life do not support her, they see her terrifying experience as a reflection on themselves as they then go on to seek revenge instead of looking after her emotional needs they leave her and seek revenge. It is almost as if they seek self-actualization rather than being attentive and kind after the horrors of the crime perpetrated against Alex.

Noe’s movie is often cited as a seminal piece of work within Bellucci’s canon of work. Whilst Bellucci’s performance in Irreversible is courageous and an accurate display of her wondrous talent.

Bellucci as an actress is often a woman upon which the plot of the movie projects male desires onto her in movies like Per Sesso O Per Amore? (How much do you Love me?) 2005 and Manuale D’ Amore 2 (2007).

This male desire for Bellucci is also represented in her 2000 production Malena. In the movie Bellucci plays a woman who is lusted after by an entire town in fascist Italy. Her husband thought dead she is drawn into a world of sex work to avoid poverty.

It is in this context that the movie exposes the paradox between objectification and sexuality. Each man in the town treats Malena as a sex object. Nobody cares about her emotional welfare or her economic plight. What stands out in this movie is that a young teenager spends the entire movie fantasising about Malena in numerous sexual situations. The key component of the story though is the youngster is the only male in the village who cares about Malena's welfare. It is he - Renato who eventually finds Malena’s husband for her and the couple are reunited.

The movie illustrates how sexuality does not mean objectification, or it wouldn’t if we were able to have frank and honest conversations about sex. The fact we don’t have these conversations at times means boys grow into men without understanding the key differences between the objectification of human beings and the enjoyment of sexuality.

In terms of ‘masculinity’ our first relationships with women are the first time we have to consider someone else’s experience on an intimate level. That alone should make us aware of wider society and the compassion love and empathy we as men should show to women other people and ourselves.

Growing up and then in adult life most men have women in the para-social world and in 'real life' those who we have crushes on and who inspire us daily. This should not inspire sexual repression within society as we are all sexual beings but it should inspire respect, kindness, inspiration, respect and love for all women across different religions, gender identities, sexualities, races, professions and class boundaries. That also means embracing a broad coalition which includes trans, gay and bisexual women too.

Growing up my favourite character was Bob Kane’s Batman. My favourite character now is Evan Rachel Wood’s Delores from Westworld. Is that because I am a monk? No, but it is fun having female heroes as much as male ones, the two aspects of life are not mutually exclusive and nor should they be.

I would like to conclude that unlike the despicable themes and men in London Fields we must not treat female sexuality as something which belongs to us as heterosexual men.

Nor is female sexuality ours to possess. It is simply a facet of our lives as we build relationships but let’s make human mistakes in that context and not commit crimes against women.

Let us be inspired by the glory of their sexuality and what a privilege it is to exist in harmony and friendship with women rather than using our own flaws as a passive excuse for sexual violence, murder and death.

Yet to do this we must understand the difference between objectification and sexuality.

Hell, like Andy Dufresne we as men might actually escape the prison of masculine tropes into a better world for everybody.

Can we improve the lives of women around us by understanding the difference between sexuality and objecification?

The answer lies behind the imagery not in front.