Well, what can I say? I may be a bad person.
Last night, I went and saw "Man of Steel" and thoroughly enjoyed myself. As a movie it was very entertaining. I enjoyed the story line, the action sequences, and the general look and feel of the whole movie; but if I'm being honest - I mainly enjoyed lusting after Henry Cavill.
For the past little while, it hasn't been normal for me to really bone-out on a film-star, or to be incredibly heated up by something on screen, but last night Superman had me salivating. #howJessiegothergrooveback
After my sister and I did a full run down of Mr. Cavill's amazing abs, chiselled jaw and perplexing pecks, my father started to get indignant about our objectification of Clark Kent. Why was it okay, he asked, for us to fall all over ourselves about this actor, when I was always so judgemental of men doing it to women in film?
Good question, Dad. Thanks for calling me on that.
I have thought a lot about this last night as I was lying awake until 2 am. I think I have come up with an answer that explains why, and also allows me to continue to Google the shit out of my favourite super hero - because he is not being marketed to me as a sex-symbol.
When you watch the ads of Man of Steel, there are a few seconds of shirtless glory - some gritty scenes of rippling muscles, but when I watch the trailers, I see this as a show of Superman's super-human abilities. I feel like this is presented to the audience as physical proof that he is the strongest man. I feel like what is on display is his strength and super-natural skills. Due to his amazing body, he is able to save lives and perform unbelievable feats.
But when I got home and started my fan-girl hunt for scintillating images of the star, I was disappointed by my lack of eye-candy. How is it that there are a limited number of shirtless pictures on the interweb! IMPOSSIBLE! It was the official website of the movie that brought me to the reasoning behind my irritation.
When I compared the official website to what I remembered of the Transformers trailers and website, I kept on recalling the incredible sexualization of Megan Fox (who, by the way, was supposed to be a teenager??). I think the difference is that we were shown her body as sexualized object, versus that strength and stamina that we are given in the form of Henry Cavill. I feel like I just happened to find a man insanely attractive instead of a trailer telling me "This is an attractive man - commence drooling". I feel like this is how women are portrayed "This a hot woman, look at her!" without any of the dualism of what benefits the hotness her body may give us - what's she going to do? Blow some Decepticon circuits with her bodacious bod? I don't think so.
Maybe this is because women aren't as vocal about what they want to see sexualized on screen? When Magic Mike came out, I was astonished by the reaction from women - it's was like they had never seen a naked torso before? I think the fact that the movie was presented as a sexual movie for women was what caused all the commotion. Same with 50 Shades of Grey. While those books are terribly written and have a crap plot line, they opened up a discourse of how women hide their sexual selves, and how it's possible to open that up.
I'm not saying that if we objectify men, it somehow makes it okay to keep doing it to women. That isn't how equality should work. I want to say that we should market women in a different light, with the added bonus of them being attractive.
In the end I have a screen saver of the sexiest part of Superman that Warner Brothers would provide me: his jaw.
No comments:
Post a Comment