Is this film sexist? - Black Snake Moan (2007) Discussion

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] oh_someday 13 years ago

Uhh.. what? No sexual double standard? Are you *beep* kidding me? Yes men and women are different. Are you telling me that because of this, gender roles should remain the same because that's the way you've always known it therefore it must be natural?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] oh_someday 13 years ago

Eh.. most of the cultural differences between men and women that have, more often than not, limited personal freedom for women come from a bygone era wherein women depended on men for survival, and so had no choice but to be submissive. I fail to see how this validates sexist attitudes in a modern context. We don't live in caves anymore.

Maybe it's best that we just agree to disagree?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] oh_someday 13 years ago

And what I'm talking about is am omnipresent sexual double standard.

If you could please enlighten me; tell me what these natural gender roles are and why you believe they can be classified as such, and then explain why they continue to make sense in the modern context? Why is it still okay to glorify men but put down women for taking part in the same activities? This form of discrimination, which I guess would be called the Madonna/Whore complex, does more damage than good. I speak from personal experience and observation.

I'm not Christian. I do not understand our society's obsession with female virginity, nor do I believe that attitudes that limit the personal freedom of one group of people but not the other should be seen as acceptable. Not to mention the fact that the very use of terms such as 'slut' and 'whore' contributes to rape culture. These attitudes lead both genders to view women who are sexual as impure - they're objects of male sexual desire and nothing else, and they deserve to be treated as such. This is not a healthy way of looking at something that is entirely natural: female sexuality.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] oh_someday 13 years ago

You make some good points, however I just don't see why women should have no choice but to be more prudish just because men need an attitude change. I also don't understand why the idea of showing off one's body is something to be considered sinister or manipulative. Yes certain women use their looks as their power, as do certain men, but the fact is most women don't feel that they live up to the beauty standards put forth to them by a mass media that continuously objectifies their natural form and is controlled (for the most part) by men, hence why women feel the pressure to wear makeup, get plastic surgery, and end up contributing to this unhealthy aspect of our culture. You see it as a way to manipulate men, I see it as women being manipulated into thinking they need to spend their money on beauty products. Women, in a lot of ways, are trained to please men as opposed to pleasing themselves. A most disturbing example of this is the fact that women will often lose feeling in their nipples when they get breast implants. These women end up taking away a form of sensual pleasure for themselves in order to please men aesthetically..

Anyway, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I agree with you in that women do contribute to this ugly aspect of our culture, however I don't think victim-blaming and forming anti-sex attitudes will do anything to change it. To me that kind of mentality just puts full responsibility on the women and none on the men who perpetuate it.

And I'm sorry but I don't take the whole uproar over "hook-up culture" seriously. What people do is their business, so long as it's within legal bounds and they use protection. Besides, it's not as if this is anything new.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] oh_someday 13 years ago

Yes but you have to admit that the focus both men and women put on female appearance goes back to a time when women had no other way to express themselves, and often times their looks were literally the only form of power or control that they had. So to me the obsession with female beauty IS the result of sexism, though people aren't exactly aware of this.

Women become victims of this culture when they are treated like objects by men, or even other women. You make a good point though, about it being disempowering. It all seems like a horrible cycle to me.

And idk.. I know a lot of people with divorced parents but they turned out fine. It's better to get a divorce than remain in a miserable marriage, which is what my parents did unfortunately. Plus I don't think hook-up culture is behind this, but rather the fact that women are less dependent on men.

The information age is most definitely over-whelming, but I think we'll survive. People had similar reactions to the onset of television, but things just ended up playing out as they should. People adjusted. I tend to see a lot of trends as being reactionary. The fact that society has become obsessed with sex is, in my opinion, people's way of reacting to our sexually reserved past. The industry has capitalized on this trend, yes, but to see everything as going downhill from here is a little short-sighted. It's easy for older generations especially to have this mindset as they observe youth culture from a distance. Then again I'm only 20, so what the hell do I know?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] faith_105 13 years ago

If women are going to pursue what men do, demand the same responsibilities & powers, than she must tone it down because she IS still entering essentially a man's sphere

------------------------------

Well that's where I'm disagreeing with you. Many women would like to change the idea of the public world being a "man's sphere" in the first place. I don't believe a woman should have to bend to be accepted into the system when they believe the system is discriminatory in the first place. Until that happens there will be females speaking up against unequal treatment in the work force and there will be men (and women) who attempt to discredit them with any number of excuses based on their sexuality.

As far as women creating their own rules not being complimentary to the already dominant paradigm - I'm not sure if you're alluding to the idea that you think women entering the workforce has harmed the stable family dynamic? To me that sounds like a man simply trying to preserve a male dominated hierarchy. Obviously culture is not static and with current Western society there is no need for firmly defined gender roles to survive. You may believe keeping women in the home and dependent on their husbands will fix the current state of our society, but the clock isn't just going to be rewound into some glorified simpler era. Women have a voice and you see what they're doing with it in the workforce. The income disparity between men and women is incredibly frustrating, and bringing sexuality and appearance or whatever into the conversation just sidetracks from the real issue.

reply

[–] faith_105 13 years ago

I did want to add that I don't believe in the idea that gender is purely a social construct. I do however think that we've largely evolved out of the need for it. The instincts (men objectifying women) are still inherent to the brain, but that doesn't mean women have to submit to it or that men should use it as an excuse. There was a time in history where it was perfectly acceptable to kill someone for stealing food from you, obviously we've evolved past this in our culture. I view gender in the same vein.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] faith_105 13 years ago

I'm not even going to try and respond to most of what you wrote. I didn't major in feminist theory; I'm sure someone who did could argue indefinitely in circles with you.

I do have to have a chuckle at your last comment about survival displacing women's rights to the back burner. You're giving me images of a post-apocalyptic society here. But in all seriousness you're probably right. There may be pendulum swings in the direction of feminist rights based on the economy, but barring a complete collapse of our culture as we know it, I don't see gender roles reverting back to where they were even fifty years ago. I guess all those feminists are just going to keep on annoying you.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] oh_someday 12 years ago

Here's the problem with your entire argument: we HAVE no mission statement. We are not just a group of people you can stick on a *beep* box. The other poster is right - whatever happens in terms of the economy, it won't lead to women being 'put in their place' as you so subtly put it.

reply

[–] oh_someday 12 years ago

Dream on.

reply

[–] KelJu 12 years ago

I think men and women are inherently equal and deserve an equal amount of respect. However, double standards are part of the culture. Part of it is due to ignorant people adhering to traditional ways of thinking and part of it is because men and women are biologically different.

Don't pretend for a second that if a building caught on fire and you saw a man run out screaming while leaving behind women and children behind that you wouldn't judge him more harshly than a women who did the same thing. What if you saw a woman acting like a tough chick by punching a guy in the face unprovoked? Would you judge the man harshly for punching her right back? Would you judge him as harshly if it were a guy that punched a man in the face unprovoked?

Double standards apply to both sexes. Mainly because human beings aren't nearly as intelligent and evolved as we would like to believe. Story tellers have to tell their stories within the confines of the current cultural atmosphere.

Is chaining a girl to a radiator to keep her from harming herself sexist? In the context of this story, it is not.

reply

[–] doubl3 8 years ago

Most women just think we should all be in denial. Thus all the movies where women magically beat up men. It shows a lack of self esteem on the women's part, that they must go into denial about the genders having different strengths and weaknesses.

reply

[–] mv5 13 years ago

The OP has it down

reply

[–] faith_105 13 years ago

Women say they just want to play the same games as guys, yet go by completely different rules

I hate this kind of argument when discussing gender equality. Most women don't want to "play the game as guys", that's a big misconception. Women want to be able to retain their femininity and sexuality and still be treated equally. If you're saying a woman has to act exactly the same as a man to be treated equally then your essentially saying a woman can never be equal because your claiming a woman must rid herself of what makes her female to be respected. So what if a woman wants to wear make-up or tight clothes? That is part of her femininity within her culture. Of course there are women who use their sexuality inappropriately but not all women do this. To stereotype that all females who wear make-up or tight fitting clothes are objectifying themselves and don't deserve to be treated equally or with respect is a completely male promulgated view. You say women want to go by a completely different set of rules but they'll only be respected if they follow the guidelines laid down by men. I say women want to make their own rules which is what men have been doing for centuries.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] oh_someday 12 years ago

hasn't made for any kind of cultural stability (if the state of marriage and the family is any indication) just more confusion.

For men stuck in the old ways, maybe.

Can't you see the contradiction in telling women they need to stick to a gender role that essentially leaves them feeling inferior and secondary in importance to men while pursuing a higher status? Just... no. Doesn't work that way.

http://digfor-fire.tumblr.com

reply

[–] AssetsonFire 13 years ago

Was Sam Jackson chained up slinking around in hotpants and a tank top? I don't doubt that the makers' intentions were good, but I don't think they had the perspective to see what they were doing, like they thought the end justified the means. And I'd think (hope) we'd be beyond any misconceptions about 'town whores' enough to not need educating on the idea.

reply

[–] aza-25 13 years ago

Speaking as a woman who lived the first 30 years of her life in a very small town in the South and have since lived in Britain, I feel I can speak objectively. I think alot of folks are reading way too much into this film. Samuel Jackson found her as he did and didn't chain her up till he realised she was deep into the DT's and was liable to hurt herself, I don't think it would've mattered if she was male of female. I bet there are loads of people out there who wish someone had chained them to a radiator for their own good, maybe that's just my down home way of thinking, but sometimes that is the best thing, whether it violates human rights or not. He recognised that she needed someone to help her out and in the process he needed her as well. Was it pc? No, not at all, but modern-day politically correct ways are not necessarily the best ways. And the reason she clung onto that chain around her waist after she got married wasn't because she was 'bound' but it was something to cling on to...something solid and grounded and to give her strength...for some people it's their faith, for some its their addiction, but for her it was a golden chain that reminded her of someone who loved and cared for her when she was at her worst. Just saying...

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Wonder_Warriors 13 years ago

I think this film is one of the most sexist i have ever seen. Brewer somehow managed to take a grim subject matter and turn it into some kind of odd couple morality tale. It is extremely distasteful that a story of a young woman being chained up by a self-rightous zealot should be treated in this way. Feminism dies a little when it sees this film. It is terrible that Rae's Freudian stockholm syndrome is celebrated by this film. In the final scene when her sexual compulsion is coming on and she touches the wedding chain there is a flashback to when she is chained up and it calms her down. This kind of justification of violent sexism is unacceptable.

reply

[–] msdamgoode 8 years ago

I know this is an old post, but having just watched I have to say...there is quite a difference between *depicting* sexism in film, and a film itself being sexist.

Are there elements of sexism in the film? Certainly so. There are also elements of racism, bigotry, sexual abuse, twisted patriotic viewpoints, etc, etc. etc...However just because they are depicted in the film doesn't mean that the film is somehow a recommendation of these ideations, but rather a story about flawed humans, with their flawed, human views.

So no, I don't think the film is sexist. I didn't watch it and think "Yep, Ole Lazarus sure has a good therapeutic way to get a woman past childhood sexual trauma, it should be employed by would-be therapists everywhere.". I watched it and thought wow, these people in this story are pretty messed up. Key word being 'story'.

reply

[–] filmfancy 13 years ago

I think alot of folks are reading way too much into this film.

I agree with everything aza-25 says--good post.

This film depicted characters who had inner demons and needed each other. Samuel Jackson, Christina Ricci, and Justin Timberlake all played tortured people, struggling with various troubles.

On the dvd, the director said that the chain represented something solid that tied them to each other. It was more symbolic than anything.

Ricci's character chooses to wear a golden chain around her waist after her wedding to remind her that she's not alone, much as the matching watches she and Timberlake wore when he left for the army.

I think the film did a good job exploring the characters' pain and their attempts to better themselves, as well as showing them forge deep friendships despite their various differences.

"And all the pieces matter"

reply

[–] Amygdalahaha 11 years ago

Some sense instead of some reactionary feminist nonsense. I applaud thee.

reply

[–] tub51461 9 years ago

Gold chain = Vice for Sexual Desire & A symbol for pride. Suppression tool simply put.

reply

[–] bricksnmortar82 7 years ago

Um, forget worrying about what's "PC" or not. What's much more important is that chaining someone up in a room against their will, and refusing to free them for days on end (or any amount of time) is a very serious FELONY...known throughout most of the English-speaking world as KIDNAPPING.

Sam Jackson's character is the only one who deserved to be locked up alone in a room for any amount of time because the only appropriate place for an aggressive, dangerous, arrogant, abusive zealot such as himself would be a prison cell.

Whether his actions were motivated by true concern for Ricci's character matters NOT ONE BIT! She may indeed be suffering from mental/psych disorders such as addiction, bipolar, depression, etc. But that's none of his business as he is not a physician, much less her physician. Hence, it's alarming that he'd feel justified at all in unilaterally rendering his unqualified, crackpot 'medical diagnosis', and then prescribe and subject her to his abusive horrorshow meant to somehow serve as 'treatment'.

People like SLJ's character, who think they're so goddamn special that they'd dismiss centuries of medical science can and DO get people seriously hurt and/or killed by playing doctor with legitimately ill people.

It makes me somewhat sick to think that the filmmakers would have the balls to portray a reckless narcissistic zealot as some sort of hero - insinuating that SLJ was wise to assault & kidnap a random girl at the very time she's already upset, vulnerable, and not quite in control of all her faculties...

And don't even get me started on the blatantly disgusting sexism!

reply

[–] TheManInOil 12 years ago

Why are people watching this and trying to extrapolate grand statements about genders and races? It's about specific characters and doesn't say anything at all about women in general or white people in general or anything like that.

Whether you find Ricci 'sexualized' when shes chained is entirely based on how you look at her and not on how she's being presented. She's someone who normally negotiates using sex, and she attempts it, but this falls flat with Jackson as it should for any decent audience member. There's a point to showing her try, but to imagine she's supposed to be a desireable sex-object at that point is simple depravity on the part of a viewer.

"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

I agree with Wonder Warriors: this film is egregiously sexist. It's not often I give movies only one star on Netflix, but this one was unreservedly deserving of it. I'm horrified that there are so many critics (thankfully not A.O. Scott of the NY Times though) who bought into this pile of malarkey.

reply

[–] theycallmebrandon 12 years ago

What's sexist about it?

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

How about, for starters, treating it like it's okay to chain a girl up because you think that's a good way to teach her not to be such a slut?

reply

[–] theycallmebrandon 12 years ago

Well I guess that makes sense. As long as you're not one of those idiots that think men and women are equal in terms of how their sex lives should be lived.

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

So men should feel free to be sexually promiscuous; but women should save themselves for marriage? Who are the men going to be promiscuous with? Oh, and it's okay to chain women up when they don't act the way you think they should?

reply

[–] theycallmebrandon 12 years ago

I don't subscribe to the belief of waiting until marriage. I am a realist however. I recognize the simple truth that men and women are different. I really hate that stupid question that circulates amongst feminist- "So it's OK for a man to sleep around but not a woman?". Yes, duh!
The day men have to turn down women, refuse sexual advances, free drinks and paid dinners is the day the sexes can look at each other and say "we're equal". Until then, I wish people would get their heads out of their asses and realize that a key that can open many doors is useful, but a door that opens for any key is garbage.

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

This is a bunch of sexist BS. Both women and men should be able to sleep around, or neither should. (I vote for both.)

You didn't explain though: if everyone acted as you think they should (men slept around, but women didn't), are the men all gay then? Who are they sleeping with?

What's really illogical and distasteful about your worldview is that it requires (at least some) women to be "tramps" to fulfill the desires of the randy boys you give a free pass, but then you heap abuse on those women for fulfilling the boys' desires. It's almost a paradox, and it's certainly unfair.

reply

[–] theycallmebrandon 12 years ago

Of course it's sexist and there is nothing wrong with it. I really hate small minded, modern ideology that is gaining ground today. You know, the one 'that we are all the same but all special'. That little ray of sunshine that people with low self esteem like to beat into our heads about us all treating each other as equals? I've got a little secret for you and others who can never see past their own perspective- nature hates equality. Yup, it's true. Nature seeks out equality and throws in a mutation that makes one better than the other. Nature sees equality as weakness. Which is why nature didn't decide that all life should just mitosis its way through existence. We should be proud of our differences. Why would you encourage a women to piss her name into the snow when she can give birth? Are you going to fight for the right for men to give birth while you fight for equality? You will never have a species that views everything as equal because that goes against every fiber of their being. A woman is not equal to a man, and vice versa. We each have our strengths and weaknesses. So why are you trying to beat a square peg into a round hole? A female has to resist sexual advances because she is the one chosen to determine who is a proper genetic mate. A male is prized by females if he has had many partners because it makes him more desirable. True story, Harvard did a study on it and going against everything that women say, woman want what other women want. A male will reject a woman that has been with many other males because that is a red flag to him that she may not be a good mother to his offspring. So, in our subconscious, we all know this but for some god awful reason.. we have a group of baboons today that think they can change a billion years of genetic preconditioning with name calling and a self righteous attitude.

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

Thanks so much for the Evolutionary Psychology 101, but:

(1) I have never said everyone is equal in every way, and I don't believe that. Some people do, but I'm not one of them so go argue with someone else if you're looking for an easy straw man to beat.

(2) You're focussed exclusively on genes, but there are also powerful things called memes (read Dawkins' book Selfish Gene for the original meaning--it has been popularly degraded into meaning LOLCats silliness but it is a powerful concept in its original form). If we only acted based on our genetic preconditioning we wouldn't have been able to create civilisations with systems of laws to overcome that preconditioning. Our governments and justice systems aren't perfect, but compared to Stone Age conditions, they do a remarkably good job of preventing and punishing things like rape, wife beating, etc.

(3) You still haven't answered my question: if both sexes act as you think they should, where are the promiscuous males going to find promiscuous females to copulate with? Your premise is paradoxical--one sex or another would have to deviate from their optimal path, meaning it is not a stable paradigm and you're going to have to rethink it.

reply

[–] theycallmebrandon 12 years ago

(1) You are trying to say that the double standard for men and women is not fair. I'm saying, rightfully so. The sexes are very unbalanced and each has their benefits and their downsides. This maybe a downside for women, but they make up for it by having far more perks than men. If women want equal respect for their sex lives, they need to start approaching me with cheesy pick up lines, buying my beer and letting me live with them for free as long as I put out.

(2) Of course we can overcome SOME genetic preconditioning. But would you be afraid if I threw a cobra at you? You probably would. It's a realistic fear the same way a man is afraid to commit to a woman that he knows is a sexual fiend. For some reason, women do not have that fear of a man whore because in their head they actually think they can change him. I have two sisters that are repeat offenders.

(3) That's a pretty weak argument and a pointless one at that. Nobody is arguing that women should be prudes and men should be whores, the only argument is that men and women are not equal when it comes to sex and they should not be treated as equals. You're trying to build your own argument from quote mining mine.

I'll break it down for you again. A man has to work for a partner, a woman has to say yes to a partner. This is why it is more desirable of a woman to have a lower number of partners because it shows that she values love more than lust and will make a good mate. Can I put a number on what is an acceptable number? No, not for everyone, but I can for me. For flings I can go as high as a few hundred. For a relationship that requires me to put my heart on the line, I would say between 6-10.

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

You are seriously deluded if you think women have "far more perks than men" (it's "perqs" btw, as in "perquisites", just FYI). That's not only sexist, it's misogynistic. I bet you are into those PUA websites too...those are teeming with resentful misogynists.

reply

[–] theycallmebrandon 12 years ago

No, it's perks, as in the plural of perquisite. The internet does have a dictionary you know. And yes, women have far more perks than men. To think otherwise is a sign of ignorance.

reply

[–] TaylorArmstrongsLips 11 years ago

Anyone who judges a woman's sexuality on a different standard to a man's is a low-intelligence individual whose ideas are luckily dying out.

reply

[–] b198426 11 years ago

Yes, because logic and reason are inferior traits to emotions a feelings.

reply

[–] bricksnmortar82 7 years ago

You seem to have a really hard time grasping the concept of equality.

Your strawman arguments have yet to make valid counterpoint for the simple reason that you keep confusing the adjective equal with another - identical. These words mean two VERY different things, but you've been using them interchangeably.

As in, males and females ideally enjoy equal rights, protections, responsibilities, protections, etc. However, you seem to keep making the ludicrous argument that feminists and other civil-rights activists are working toward some sinister agenda to eradicate all that individuality which has been innate to all human beings for the past several millions of years. By following your so-called logic, you seem to believe that you'll be seen as merely the exact same as all the other faceless cogs out there (perhaps robbing the world of your individual uniqueness?). It's typically a cornerstone goal of feminist theory that society recognize that special innate individuality in each female as we already do in the other half of the human race. Either that, or your fear of equality is rooted in the ridiculous notion that males and females are all being turned into the same, and your identity as a 'Macho, Macho Man' has vanished. Which makes you feel insecure.

But my money says that the reason women's equality scares you because it forces you to accept that you don't have as much control over the world and the people around you as you once thought. Did I get it right?

reply

[–] Zero_Wolf 12 years ago

Another thing that bothered me was how she wore a chain as part of her wedding dress which basically implied that she was exchanging one form of bondage for another. One man to hold her down for another.

I saw the chain as a security blanket for her.

reply

[–] casio_balboa 12 years ago

I think you've misunderstood the film.

"Obviously there's something twisted about chaining a half naked woman up."

Yes. It's 'obviously twisted'. So, why do you read it as if it's presented as normal?

"... if this were a man with the same problem this whole situation would not have happened due to a blatantly obvious sexual double standard in our society."

So, the film is sexist because it portrays the sexism in American society? That's like saying 'Do The Right Thing' is racist because it portrays racism in America. In other words, there's a difference between how 'Black Snake Moan' depicts women, female sexuality (particularly as a mysterious FORCE that men must fight either against or to resist) and male-female relations, and the way the same things are shown in, say, the 'American Pie' films.

As for the men who exploit Ricci's character's affliction by sleeping with her, the film, to use your term, "obviously" shows them to be "twisted". So, it's incorrect to assume the film has a "boys will be boys" attitude with regards to their behaviour.

I think you're just reading the film's surface and ignoring its 'obvious' depth. In particular, the way it plays around with and subverts tropes, expectations, the past and the present.

It's a racially provocative film: an old pious black man in the south chains a young impure white women to a radiator. It's a religiously provocative film: he sees her as possessed by some kind of 'demon' that it's his Christian duty to exorcise and preaches to her like a missionary converting a heathen. And it's "obviously" provocative with regards to gender: the "twisted" men in the film think it's OK to discipline and abuse a non-conforming woman; as men they know better; they need to be a civilising influence on this base, wild, animalistic woman.

So, is this film sexist? No. Does it deliberately provoke thought and debate by depicting sexism? Yes.

reply

[–] Fresh615 11 years ago

I think that perhaps it is up to you to form your own opinion, or are you old
enough to think for yourself?

reply