MovieChat Forums > How to Steal a Million (1966) Discussion > Sexist

Sexist

posted 10 years ago by fetsiboomsticks
28 replies | jump to latest

Not that there's anything particularly unusual about sexism in movies, particularly movies from that time. I thought I'd take a moment to mention how dismissive the male characters are of any protests she makes.

She protests her father's immoral and illegal activities. She protests O'Toole's lovemaking and then gives in, a seriously questionable signal to send to men - it's essentially rape - how can you tell a romantic giving-in from a helpless giving-in?

Bechdel Test failure. No women allies, she's a tool of a male-driven plot.

Not that women don't perpetrate the patriarchy on us, as Hepburn does here and in many of her films. Still love her. Thanks for the Bechdel-passing 'Children's Hour'.

[–] loonieloona 10 years ago

Oh the movie definitely fails the Bechdel test. With the exception of the cleaning staff (who presumably are not talking about men with each other but have no audible lines), she's the only woman in the movie. And yes, she does seek out the assistance of a man to help solve a problem created by another man in her life. Not a feminist film by any stretch of the imagination - still one of my favourites though, if just for the great dialogue and chemistry between the actors. They are clearly all having fun making this one.

I don't entirely agree on your assertion that she protests O'Toole's lovemaking. She is surprised by the first kiss, which I agree is not a great example of consent - and is very much of the time of the film.

When they are in the closet together though, she's pretty clear in her interest after he kisses her. "Explain it to me again" seems like enthusiastic consent to me rather than giving in.

[–] fetsiboomsticks 10 years ago

We may have to agree to disagree. :)

After she gives him no consent several times, he persists despite her protests, wears her down and she gives in in the closet... seems exactly the thing I was moaning about to me. I say if she says no it means no and he must not persist. Another word for persistence is stalking at the highest level and creepy at the lowest. Respect would be not to press her, acknowledge that she has made a decision that she doesn't like him and at LEAST confining his pressure to the non-physical realm 'Eventual' enthusiastic consent, means he's ignored her initial unenthusiastic naysaying.

This is how I see it.

[–] scottydog60 10 years ago

I respect your feelings, and everyone is different....but almost all the women I know would see this "just taking no for an answer" as lacking in confidence and not sexy at all. The attractive thing for them it seems is to politely try to overstep the mark. Of course, this will depend on how initially attractive they find the guy, and that is the great unknown.

[–] fetsiboomsticks 10 years ago

How sad to have my protestations dismissed, as a woman, by a man claiming women prefer a man to dismiss her Nos. Ironic. Bechdel would enjoy that a woman standing next to another woman to redirect a violent narrative, would be, in any case, dismissed by a man who can't *see* #WhenWomenSpeak.

[–] scottydog60 10 years ago

On the contrary, I didn't dismiss them, I acknowledged them.......I don't want you to have an unhappy life fighting against human nature.

[–] PatrickGH91 10 years ago

Feminists...SMH. What miserable lives they must lead.

[–] fetsiboomsticks 10 years ago

Actually, my life is quite happy-go-lucky. It's your miserableness that is poison for your life, which of course, in turn, is nectar for mine. :)

[–] captainkeyboards 9 years ago

Patrick, thanks for the brief breath of fresh air in this suffocating and ugly little thread.
It's incredible isn't it? These are the "new American's", the "hope of tomorrow".
What a disaster. What a tragedy. What a poison.
They don't 'live' life; like the voyeurs they are they observe others living it and unleash harsh and crippling judgements against them if they don't approve of their actions or behavior and, like was true of the little crazy children who gripped the keys to the city of Salem and were driven around in a cart randomly pointing out people and accusing them of being witches, many just blindly 'believe' them.
So many are unaware and when you try to tell them they simply refuse to see it. Sadly, they will not see it until it's clawing at their own faces like the vindictive, hate-filled little animal it really is.
More is the pity.

[–] jcosyn-1 9 years ago

Yes. At the time this movie was made, there weren't as many people who were so deeply neurotic, perpetually clenched and puckered from thighs to eyebrows, stumbling stiffly and dully through life in constant fear that someone might actually encroach upon their rigidly-guarded, fragile little egos with anything like banter, witticisms, humor or cheerful flirtation. There just wasn't a huge population of Frownyfaced Clenchbottoms waiting eagerly to shriek about harmless, silly romantic comedy movies. Most people back then understood the concept of humor, and (this will be shocking to some) actually enjoyed the company and presence of members of the opposite sex. They even (gasp!) sought it out and participated in it willingly.

People who had a stick inserted between their glutei at birth and have been brainwashed all their lives with nutjob propaganda about "sexism" (and a hundred different "isms" they're supposed to freak out about) might have a difficult time grasping how much fun life really can be when intelligent, mature, sane men and women actually enjoy each other's company and are attracted to each other. They may even find some twisted, perverse pleasure in actively searching and grasping for things to get offended by. But rational people don't pay them very much attention, other than to ridicule their ridiculous chittering.

[–] charlesg-629-659286 9 years ago

Boy, do you ever have that right! With today's generations, not only can they not watch a film for the simple enjoyment of watching a film, they have to dissect every nuance into it's "socially significant relevance" to a culture that wouldn't come into existence for another half century. (Can't wait to see what the generation fifty years from now has to say about the neuroses of today's "with-it" youth culture.) Hell, they can't even sit down to a plate of food without obsessing how their pork chop felt with it was ruthlessly separated from it's mother a month earlier. It won't be long before these kids begin picketing farms with banners that read "Celery has feelings, too, y'know!!"

[–] poetcomic1 9 years ago

Well said!

[–] roreyking (558) 4 years ago

Thanks to the above 4 posters for a striking a note of sanity on this insane thread. Claiming that this charming comic souffle is an exponent of sexism and rape isn't just hysterical - it's nauseating.

[–] Jalea 9 years ago

There was clearly mutual attraction between them from the moment they met. Simon's first kiss was in response to Nicole's parting comment, "I suppose you want to kiss me goodnight." And, after he did she was clearly affected.
regarding Nicole's father's illegal activities, as an honest person, of course she was not happy with his activities. On the other hand, she benefited from his activities in her lifestyles (although she worked also). She presents herself as intelligent, capable and in control of herself at least. She maintains her integrity despite her father's debauchery while protecting her father from international humiliation and criminal charges and gets a handsome, accomplished husband in the process. Pretty good for a helpless female.

[–] tomhenehan 9 years ago

Thanks for injecting a bit of sanity into this discussion. I do feel sorry for the OP, who must not enjoy much of her life. For her, apparently, every pre-21st-century expression of any culture, popular or highbrow, exists only to be skewered for its failure to measure up to her one and only standard of acceptability.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nashknight-1 9 years ago

Not sure if troll or Troll

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

So glad most of the responses repudiate the mud-slinging OP. With so many positive things that can be done to advance women's rights, she comes to IMDB to protest a 45-year-old Audrey Hepburn movie. At least she had the good sense to go away and stop spewing her bile.

[–] fetsiboomsticks 9 years ago

I see you, but you are right, I have better things that to fiddle with your silly trolling. Snore.

[–] rrb_1 9 years ago

LOL! Just more bile.

[–] jeffcarroll 9 years ago

Didn't she fire the first shot?

[–] cellecoc 8 years ago

i'm also a woman and frankly, you're reaching too much and overreacting...and it's a movie from almost 50 years ago...come on...

[–] oscarunger 8 years ago

sorry op but this is a desperate attempt to find sexism in this flick, im sure there are films in the 50's-60's who might fit the bill for the title but this one is a real reach

[–] uvl 8 years ago

@fetsiboomsticks, wow, your life must be full of disappointment, angst, and hate. I am certainly glad I've never met you.

[–] fetsiboomsticks 8 years ago

Gosh, it's mutual!