MovieChat Forums > Proof (1992) Discussion > The part of the Drive-In Scene that is ...

The part of the Drive-In Scene that is over looked.

posted 15 years ago by Piewackett1
14 replies | jump to latest

The Drive-In theater scene is a greatly over looked and makes a strong comment on slasher films, misogyny, and the fetishizing of violence against women. Martin says something like "If you analyze your feelings you realize you want the slasher to kill the girl." When a gory murder takes place all the people in the cars flash their lights and honk their horns. Violence, specifically against women, has become entertainment and is perceived as amusing and even normal. Considering this film was made in 1991, violence against women as entertainment has increased dramatically since that time. Violence in films and television shows has risen starkly and so has real life violence. Some might say that depictions in movies are not real life and that is true. Yet the power of film to persuade and propagandize ideas is proven. Just ask Leni Riefenstahl or Joesph Goebbels.

[–] whereisbai 15 years ago

Focus on her perky titties instead and chill out.

[–] MargeGunderson-Brainerd 11 years ago

I'm a woman who hates misogyny, and I laughed so hard at this coffee shot out my nose. :D

You hilariously make a great point. And I really don't think it's just women; I remember all my friends (boys and girls) going to see the Friday the 13th, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc. in high school in the 1980s and we, along with everyone else in the theater, always cheered for the slasher.

It isn't about enjoying real suffering, being anti-women (or anti-men), or any of that, and the vast majority from my youth movie audiences as well as what's described here in Australian audiences, would be sickened and scarred for life to see someone actually sadistically mutilate a living creature for real.

It's entertainment, relax and enjoy it. Those of you who prefer women can "focus on her perky titties," those of us who prefer men can focus on the delightful sight of a young Russell Crowe. (And Hugo is pretty hot here, also, so we get two visual feasts. :D)

[–] email-etude 15 years ago

I think you are reading too much into this. I really doubt this is any attempt to make any statement. Using a horror film suits the scene pretty well. Imagine it was just a regular drama where the dialogue tells the story - Martin isn't at a disadvantage. If it was a fast paced drama Andy couldn't describe the action fast enough. A horror film works for the scene. I wouldn't read anything more into it than that.

If you want to see a movie that has something to say about violence in films, then watch "Funny games." Very disturbing but the whole film is a commentary about the horror genre and and way so many horror films interact with the expectations of the audience. It also has something to say about violence in these films. Not a very enjoyable film, but thought provoking nonetheless for those with an analytical bent.

[–] jmanlove 14 years ago

Piewackett: I think you are right. This scene does make an insightful comment on misogyny and the fetishizing of violence against women. Thank you for pointing it out. and of course the rage and violence against gay men in public and the picking on of anyone who is momentarily vulnerable. it's animalistic. Jessica

[–] Piewackett1 14 years ago

Thank you for NOT attacking me!

YES, the homophobia that is regularly in the subtext, if not the direct text of many films is quite disgusting, as is the still quite overt racism. I find all these forms of hatred inextricably linked, as they are the very basis; misogyny, homophobia,and racism, of patriarchy, our violent and insane system under which we attempt(some of us)to live peaceful and fulfilling lives.

The fact that corporations have achieved "person-hood" and that our elected officials are for sale to the highest bidder, makes it impossible for any type of justice to be achieved except of course for the extremely wealthy.

If only a few people have access to justice is there any true justice at all? We have lost our representative democracy and traded it in for the right to shop and pay %33 interest on credit cards to corporations for the privilege!

I don't know how to get power back, but it must be gotten back and soon. I am one of the few "straight" people I know who actively campaign for gay rights. This fact disgusts me! Does an injustice so glaringly wrong have to affect one directly in order to feel outrage against that injustice? Apparently for most, the answer is yes. Don't get me started on women's right to choose, sexual slavery, and a myriad of other civil issues! GW Bush did a number on this country but good!

What a pleasure not to get hate mail! This site is frequented by young straight (allegedly)white males, so I fear for this country's future. This is how I proselytize. I have to tell my young teenage nephews constantly that "gay" in not a pejorative word. Le sigh!

Thank you.

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”

[–] zombiefrank 14 years ago

I find it interesting that you brought that point up, specifically because I had taken a genre studies course and this was a topic that we spent a couple of classes on. In 1975, there was an academic film study called "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" by Laura Mulvey which describes exactly what you mentioned in your first post. It was more of a feminist approach and was a pretty groundbreaking work for the legitimacy of horror. There was also another study released in 1991(coincidently this film was released around the same time) called "Men, Women and Chainsaws:Gender in The Modern Horror Film" by Carol J Clover. Clover actually had a different take, that audiences, especially men, actually side with and relate to what Carol defined as "the final girl". She argued that it was not sadistic experience, but more a masochistic as suffer just as much as the girl and want her to ultimately kill the killer. I definitely recommend both books for counter ideas.

[–] Piewackett1 14 years ago

Thanks for that info as I never had a chance to take any of those interesting gender classes in college. I could spend the rest of my life in class!
I was struck by the "Final Girl" and Clover's conclusion bothered me.
I did a little research and I agree with this writer's conclusions. I copied the most important paragraphs for you,the ones that elucidate my points, but you may go to the site and read the entire article article and I hope you do.

Thanks so much for your contribution and I think I just found a great web site because of your comment. So depressed today about my dear friend's death last month and the 1 year anniversary of a parent's death as well, so Zombie Frank-you made my life that much more bearable!

From "Cinema de Merde" Great title!

http://web.archive.org/web/20070824233928/www.cinemademerde.com/Essay-Final_Girl.sh

"I think there’s a similar principle with slasher movies. The young men in the audience legitimately enjoy all of the torture, terrorizing and murder of what are almost invariably young women in these movies. What’s more, these women are usually the types that the males in the horror movie audience want and cannot attain: “hotties” of any and all varieties, usually ones who have rejected men like those in the audience in the past. So there is an impetus there to see these types of women “get what they deserve” by being tortured, raped, murdered… or all three.

Final Girls Excuse the Audience’s Sadism
Let’s add to this another feature of how many men view women: as either “Women” or “Whores”. As Clover quotes director Sam Peckinpah in her book: “There are women and there’s pussy” [P. 139]. I think this split also works quite actively in allowing men to enjoy watching the “victim” women in horror films be tortured and raped; they’re “whores.” But the Final Girls aren’t; they avoid sex, and they’re invariably shown as smarter and more conscientious than the other women. So they’re different; they’re “women.” The very presence of these “women” tells a viewer that part of the point of view of the movie is: “Not all women are whores.” And if not all women are whores, this knowledge makes possible the enjoyment of watching the torture and murder of those who are.

And how do the women who are not whores earn men’s respect? By being more like men. So in A Nightmare on Elm Street, Nancy learns how to build booby traps and sets them as she turns to attack Freddy. It is only before she becomes active in these ways that she is sexualized; Freddy’s hand comes up between her legs, and soon after she is pulled into a pool and we are invited to oogle her breasts. In Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, Stretch, after literally wearing a male exterior, assumes the phallic instrument of power that has been used against her. What’s more, she symbolically turns her opponent into a woman by carving a vagina-like wound into his chest.

This assumption of male-like qualities helps to make the Final Girl an “Okay chick.” In this way a guy can relate to her, as he respects that she’s not afraid to kick some ass when she needs to. What is important is that the Final Girl is NOT a helpless “whore.” That Final Girls on the whole do not want to have sex is one of the few areas in which they preserve their difference from most men. However, this distinction serves an important purpose: it explicitly sets them apart from the “whores.”

Once these women have been split into two types in the male audience member’s mind, he is free to enjoy getting off on watching the “whores” be tortured, terrorized and murdered, because the presence of the smart, active Final Girl as “woman” tells him “not all women are like that.” The Final Girl slaying the killer at the end restores justice and order, thus excusing—and enabling—all of the prurient thoughts the male audience member had all along.

This would also indicate why it is vitally important that the Final Girl be a girl; a man who vanquished the killer would not balance the perceived view of women. Thus all of the torture and murder the male audience member enjoyed would remain unbalanced by a more positive image of womenhood, and he would start feeling guilty about seeing all of these women as "whores." Having a prominent woman be obviously capable, intelligent and effective assuages the guilt of watching the torture and murder of women who aren’t.

Clover believes that men vicariously enjoy the rape, torture and murder of women in slasher films, but identify across gender at the end to root for and empathize with the surviving woman. Although one can greatly appreciate her generosity of spirit toward men, the truth may be much darker. I believe that the presence of an intelligent and effective woman triumphing at the end of a horror film excuses the guilt a man might otherwise feel from his vicarious enjoyment of watching women be terrorized, tortured, and murdered."

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”

[–] zombiefrank 14 years ago

I am very appreciative that you found my post to be helpful and uplifting during a difficult time in your life. I know it sounds cliche, but things will get better. To be honest, I was not expecting a reply since your post was from some time ago. I just happened to catch Proof on tv recently and thought Martin's observation was very true. I found it interesting that I discovered your post here elaborating on this theory. I love discussing hidden subtext within films that most people do not pick up on, I don't know maybe iit is the film nerd in me. I did not like the fact that you were attacked by other commenters because of your, well, very valid opinion. I am glad you enjoyed my recommendations and I thank you for posting that passage and website for me to read. Im a very open minded straight male and enjoy discussing gender/sexuality issuses in cinema. I find that not a lot of people are comfortable with these topics, especially when it comes to strong female and homosexual characters in film. I think it is something that should be talked about more openly.

[–] Piewackett1 14 years ago

I appreciate your appreciation! I find it funny when people say "it's only a movie" as if art wasn't reflective of the culture from which it sprung.

There is so much intentional/unintentional subtext in film that not discussing it, or even being aware of it, is incredibly sad.

I wrote a post about a Washington Square reference in Wilder's Sunset Boulevard, and I can't get anyone to respond to it! This reference was certainly intentional and one that I realized only after repeated viewings. I have never heard anyone mention it before and would LOVE to know what YOU think.

You are obviously secure enough with who you are to write and think about the topics we have been discussing with out feeling threatened. All the anger and vitriol is fear-based and getting worse from what I see on these boards.

I wrote this some time ago on the Sunset Board when the OP made a point about Swanson's acting choices.

"I strongly dislike the middle school bully atmosphere on this site when someone raises a legitimate question such as this. There are plenty of idiotic posts written for spite alone, and this question doesn't fall into that category.
Does a different opinion on a performance in a movie make someone a moron and a mortal enemy? This seems like an awfully low tolerance level for a site designed to exchange opinions and info on movies."

This country seems to have gotten to a point where if two people disagree it is A-okay to start shooting; and everyone is locked, stocked and loaded!

Do we ever get out of middle school? Cheers!

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”

[–] MargeGunderson-Brainerd 11 years ago

I hope you didn't infer hate, insults or any form of attack from my previous comment responding to the first person who commented on this post – when I said I'd laughed at his comment, it was at the absurdity of the visual he presented.
I didn't infer any hate, insults or disrespect toward you in his comment or I would NOT have found it at all amusing.

Something else you've probably noticed that sums up your points also: whenever there is a news story about some new law, policy, construction project, heck, even a pending snow/ice storm, there is always, always among the random, man-on-the-street commenters some grinning imbecile responding some form of, "It doesn't affect me, so I don't care!"

As to this comment I missed last time, you make a number of excellent observations on the myriad ways our justice system has deteriorated. However, in the first paragraph, did you infer homophobia from the drive-in movie scene here, or was that a general comment about the entertainment industry?

The latter, I completely agree. The former, I'd strongly disagree. First, Martin isn't gay.

Next, the man in the other car wasn't offended by thinking Martin was gay; he was offended that some strange man wearing sunglasses at night was apparently staring intently at him and his girlfriend. Not only did the apparent weirdo (again, for staring so intently, not for being there with Andy regardless of the nature of their relationship) refuse to look away, he held up the string of condoms.

Even if the people in the next car were assaulting Martin and Andy and vandalizing Andy's car because of homophobia, they looked like a bunch of bullying, over-reacting idiots. They were not intended to be portrayed as heros standing up for heterosexuality.

[–] SaliceMcD 8 years ago

But their attackers *did* think Martin - and Andy, by association - were gay. After the driver gives him the universal sign for intercourse, Martin unknowingly "responds" to it by holding up a package of condoms.

[–] henrimaine 11 years ago

I've never been to a drive-in cinema. Could be an interesting cultural experience. But I suspect, not good for really concentrating on the movie.

[–] timlin-4 9 years ago

Except it's not true. It's just a line written by a woman that is not even demonstrated in the story, and which is not backed by personal experience of the male horror director or audience. It's possible that's what women feel when they watch horror movies, but that's a defect with female nature best corrected with gang rape.

[–] MovieHeartGirl 7 years ago

Very interesting discussion! I only wanted to add that perhaps Martin makes this comment because he is enraged at Celia for being an evil, psychotic, dangerous, obsessed, and cruel presence in his life, and deep down, he'd like to kill her, too (I don't blame him one bit-she is terrifying, and even though she leaves at the end of the film, how in the world is she going to just "let him go" peacefully when his photos are all over her apartment!) I think that if a sequel had been made, it would have been a "buddy movie" and Andy and Martin would have schemed to "take down" Celia because she would have been trying to destroy everything that Martin had worked for his whole life (remember how she threatened to post the picture of him on the toilet?). If she were a woman scorned, she'd be capable of a lot more.

So, I think that perhaps a slasher movie was chosen to add another revealing character moment that touched on Martin's anger at Celia (and his mother).