MUST BE OK WITH TOPLESS NUDITY!!!!

So, now that I have your attention. Here goes:

I was torn over whether to try to tackle this topic. I don’t want to exploit a tragedy. But since someone else has already pushed it into a conversation on film, I feel OK to say something.

There has been a lot of talk about how mainstream media may have helped shape Elliot Rogers’ views on women. Along with following the #YesAllWomen trend on twitter, I’ve been trying to read as many articles about it as I can, from both sides of the fence.

I read an article by Ann Hornaday in The Washington Post:

“For generations, mass entertainment has been overwhelmingly controlled by white men, whose escapist fantasies so often revolve around vigilantism and sexual wish-fulfillment (often, if not always, featuring a steady through-line of casual misogyny),” she wrote. “How many students watch outsized frat-boy fantasies like ‘Neighbors’ and feel, as Rodger did, unjustly shut out of college life that should be full of ‘sex and fun and pleasure’? How many men, raised on a steady diet of Judd Apatow comedies in which the shlubby arrested adolescent always gets the girl, find that those happy endings constantly elude them and conclude, ‘It’s not fair’?”

It’s odd, but this opinion reminded me of part of the pitch for my film off my web site:

These movies can infect our expectations. They follow us out of the theaters. And when we look at our own lives and our own romantic relationships, we are always left feeling that we are incomplete. Where is our perfect match? Where is our happily ever after? Whatever joy we are given in the theater, we pay back by having to live romantic lives that can never live up to the unrealistic demands placed on us by movies.

What’s weird is that she’s talking about movies made for guys: sex comedies and action films. And I’m talking about movies made for women: romantic comedies. I don’t know if she’s right in linking this problem to this incident. But we’re both making the same point as it relates to movies in general.

The article also reminded me of another reason I decided to try to make this movie. I was an actress auditioning for roles that had no depth. When I’d look at the casting breakdowns these were the types of roles I’d have to choose from:

-       “Hot college girl. Every guy’s dream. Must have great body. ”

-       “Girl next door. Cute, sweet, all-american. Must be okay with topless nudity.”

-       “Sex kitten, must have model good looks.”

The female breakdowns were almost always only about looks, while the male breakdowns were real human beings with ambitions.  The times when I did stumble across a female character description that sounded interesting and complex, the project almost always had a female writer/director.

And once I started casting my film, I noticed that 2 out of 3 actresses’ reels contained a scene where they were being attacked, murdered or held hostage by a man. There were also a lot of scenes where the actress served only as a prize to be won.

Maybe these roles are the price for stories of “sexual wish fulfillment.” We don’t get to play real, dynamic characters because no real person would do the things our stories ask of them.

Screenwriting guru Robert McKee says that stories are “equipment for living.” What he means is that stories give us important information that helps us figure out how to live our lives. Is it possible that we’ve reached a point where our stories are failing at their job? Are we using faulty equipment?