An Apostate’s Chapel

May 1, 2008

Chloe Liked Olivia

Filed under: literature, nonbelieving literati, society — the chaplain @ 7:35 am

http://thechapel.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/room.jpg?w=150&h=225 A Room of One’s Own, published in 1929, is an expansion of two lectures that Virginia Woolf delivered at Newnham and Girton colleges on the topic of women and fiction. Woolf’s overarching theme is that “a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction.” She supports this assertion by examining the economic and social constraints under which women lived for centuries. In addition to discussing the lives and works of such notable authors as Jane Austen and Emily Bronte, Woolf examines the way women were generally portrayed in literature. Woolf’s thoughts about this issue were prompted, so she reports, by reading the simple sentence, “Chloe liked Olivia.” Woolf goes on to say,

I tried to remember any case in the course of my reading where two women are represented as friends. There is an attempt in Diana of the Crossways. They are confidantes, of course, in Racine and the Greek tragedies. But almost without exception they are shown in their relation to men. It was strange to think that all the great women of fiction were, until Austen’s day, not only seen by the other sex, but seen only in relation to the other sex.

A little later on, Woolf says,

Suppose, for instance, that men were only represented in literature as the lovers of women, and were never the friends of men, soldiers, thinkers, dreamers; how few parts in the plays of Shakespeare could be allotted to them; how literature would suffer! We might perhaps have a good deal of Othello; and a good deal of Antony; but no Caesar, no Brutus, no Hamlet, no Lear, no Jaques - literature would be incredibly impoverished, as indeed literature is impoverished beyond our counting by the doors that have been shut upon women.

According to Woolf, not only were women proscribed from writing throughout much of human history - the literary roles they were alloted (by male authors) were rigidly constrained. Off the top of my head, I can think of two current fiction series that feature groups of women or female buddies: Lisa Scottoline highlights a female law firm in several books and James Patterson has a series that features a Women’s Murder Club. If you’re familiar with other female buddy fiction series (and you probably are), mention them in the comments.

Moving on from women’s roles in literature, let’s look briefly at women’s roles in movies. Specifically, taking my cue from the ideas that Chloe liked Olivia, that Chloe and Olivia were friends who had interests other than romantic intrigue and child-rearing, I want to consider the “buddy movie.”

The first buddy movie that I remember in any detail was Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. I had previously seen some of the Dean Martin/Jerry Lewis movies on TV reruns, but I can’t recall anything about them except that Martin was the straight man and Lewis was the buffoon. In the years since Butch Cassidy hit the screens, I’ve seen countless other buddy movies, such as 48 Hours, the Lethal Weapon series (I believe there were 4 of them), The Odd Couple, Grumpy Old Men and Grumpier Old Men, The Last Boy Scout and Men in Black (I think there are 2 of these). As you’ve no doubt noticed, all of these movies feature men. Furthermore, you can probably name many others that I’ve omitted. As always, you may note them in the comments.

Now, let’s look at female buddy movies: Thelma & Louise, Outrageous Fortune, Big Business, Fried Green Tomatoes and, if we’re willing to enlarge the circle of buddies from two to three, perhaps 9 to 5, are the only ones that come to mind immediately. Of these, only Thelma & Louise is listed as one of Amazon’s 25 Best Buddy Movies. Think about that. 25 movies. 24 of them feature male pairs. The last time I checked, men did not outnumber women 24 to 1. What is going on here? Do Hollywood writers believe that women are not friends with other women? Do they believe that women’s friendships with other women are far less interesting than men’s friendships with other men? Are moviegoers so uninterested in women that they prefer movies about men to such an outrageous degree? Why? As one who enjoys reading books and viewing movies about both men and women, I’m perplexed by the lack of attention that women continue to receive in film and literature. It’s the 21st century! By all means, let’s continue exploring the multiple facets of men’s lives. But, please, let’s also start viewing women in roles other than wives, mothers and jealous lovers. I know for a fact that women make fabulous friends, and I, along with Virginia Woolf, want to read their stories.

– the chaplain

19 Comments »

  1. Thanks for the analysis. As a man, I found it informative (if somewhat uncomfortable) reading. It made me realize how significant the series “Cagney and Lacey” was, and perhaps helped me understand why I enjoyed it so much - the cop stuff was almost irrelevant with the relationship between the two women being the compelling element of the shows. I didn’t realize at the time how what I was watching was so (sadly) rare and innovative.

    Comment by athinkingman — May 1, 2008 @ 8:46 am

  2. If Virginia Woolf was the one who first anaylzed and publicized the lack of female-female relationships in literature, then I owe her a debt of gratitude (even if I was perhaps underwhelmed by her style, sorry…). This point is one of the central themes of the blog The Hathor Legacy which analyzes such questions in the modern media.

    As for a current fiction series that features groups of women or female buddies, I can think of one. It begins here.

    Comment by chanson — May 1, 2008 @ 9:23 am

  3. Once again, Chaplain, you open my eyes to another manifestation (womanifestation?) of gender bias in our culture. I am starting to see that the fact the these issues get such short shrift in relation to other biases is, in and of itself, another way of dismissing it as mere “girl stuff.”

    Comment by Lifeguard — May 1, 2008 @ 9:23 am

  4. Now that I think about it, even in action movies and TV shows that center on a strong female lead (which some think indicates that feminism has taken over Hollywood) they are all surrounded with male cohorts and few, if any, female companions. Ripley on the Alien movies, Dark Angel, Underworld, etc…. It serves to demonstrate that such women are abberations who don’t fit in with their own kind.

    Comment by Brian — May 1, 2008 @ 9:41 am

  5. Ummm, I think there’s a double meaning to the Chloe-Olivia passage that you’ve ignored in this post. Woolf is saying two important things, both at the same time, using the same words. Her first point is the same one that you’ve made very well here. Her second point was that Mary Carmichael, the writer of the Chloe-Olivia story, now dared openly publish a novel about a lesbian relationship.

    Comment by The Exterminator — May 1, 2008 @ 11:30 am

  6. A few more come to mind that might fit - “A League of Their Own”, “Bend it like Beckham”, “Calendar Girls” and in a strange sort of way “To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar”. OK - I know in that last one the leading roles are played by men, but as their characters are drag queens, and are befriending and empowering the other female characters in the movie as women, I think it could fit.
    And from TV - “Kate and Allie” immediatly springs to mind. And the relationship between Lucy and Ethel has to fit in there too. (And Mary and Rhoda) (And Laverne and Shirley). So who is doing better at this, TV or movies?

    Comment by Ubi Dubium — May 1, 2008 @ 12:00 pm

  7. All of this is just a reflection of reality. Face it. Men have been predominant for hundreds of thousands of years. It’s really only in the last century, and arguably only in the last 40 years, that women have even been discussed and perceived, much less treated, as equals of men. It takes generations to get rid of old bias.

    Culture tends to move in advance of this, so it will take a lot of Cagney and Lacey’s before it becomes a reality.

    Comment by Spanish Inquisitor — May 1, 2008 @ 1:46 pm

  8. The wonderful comics artist Alison Bechdel (most recently of Fun Home fame) had a hilarious and very apt comic strip on this very issue.

    Two women — lesbians — are talking about whether they want to see a movie, and one of them says, “I only go to a movie if it satisfies three basic requirements. One, it has to have at least two women in it, who, Two, talk to each other about, Three, something besides a man.”

    The other women says, “Pretty strict, but a good idea.” And the first one says, “No kidding. Last movie I was able to see was ‘Alien’; the two women in it talk to each other about the monster.”

    While I’m not a strict adherent to the Bechdel rule, I almost always pay attention to whether the movies I see would pass this test. And it’s unbelievably depressing how few of them do.

    Comment by Greta Christina — May 1, 2008 @ 1:46 pm

  9. Yeah, I thought immediately of the Bechdel rule when I read that passage! It really is silly how few movies pass it. With books, these days, there is less of a problem — is that simply because of the sheer diversity of books?

    Comment by Lynet — May 1, 2008 @ 2:10 pm

  10. Two men with no women around can be buddies. Two women with no men around are inevitably assumed to be lesbians. See: Thelma and Louise, Kate and Allie, Fried Green Tomatoes, Xena.

    Another problem would be the popular definition of “buddy” and “buddy movie.” Men are buddies. Women are girlfriends. Men hit each other. Women cry. Man love is awkward and funny. Chick love is sweet and expected. Is Mystic Pizza a buddy movie? What about Steel Magnolias? I would say yes, but I don’t think Hollywood sees it that way. Those would get lumped into the “Chick flick” genre.

    I wouldn’t have thought of Bend it like Beckham, but it fits. Even there, though, the main conflict is over a guy. And if you want to put drag movies into the mix, Ubi, please go with Priscilla, Queen of the Desert over To Wong Foo. Priscilla was real, Wong Foo was ridiculous.

    I don’t think that list comes from Amazon. It’s just a guy. And I don’t really like his list or apparent definition. I wouldn’t call Tremors a buddy movie. I certainly wouldn’t put 48 hours at the top. Smokey and the Bandit needs to be in there somewhere and, obviously, the best buddy movie of all time would be Butch and Sundance.

    I don’t know that I would label the lack of serious women’s roles on TV or at the movies discrimination. Hollywood simply wants the cash. I don’t know the current popular demo, but I bet it’s still males 18-25. And they don’t watch movies with real women in them.

    Comment by bullet — May 1, 2008 @ 2:55 pm

  11. Thanks again for selecting the book Chappy. I can see it’s given everyone important things to think about.

    Bullet said:
    I don’t know that I would label the lack of serious women’s roles on TV or at the movies discrimination. Hollywood simply wants the cash. I don’t know the current popular demo, but I bet it’s still males 18-25.

    I think this would only change the nature of the question about sexism. WHY would 18-25 year old men be the key demographic? Do 18-25 year old women not spend moeny? Do they not have there own unique tastes in movies or TV shows?

    Comment by Evo — May 1, 2008 @ 3:46 pm

  12. Athinkingman: I liked Cagney and Lacey too. Thanks for reminding of that one.

    Chanson: I must confess that this is the only work of Woolf’s that I’ve read. I didn’t mind her style too much. I kept imagining her speaking the text rather than reading it silently. I was able to play with inflection, tone and delivery that way. I apologize for overlooking your novel. :(

    Lifey: Gender discrimination will be hard to dismantle, because 49-50% of the population has great interests in perpetuating it. Naturally, they want to pretend it doesn’t exist.

    Brian: You’re right, even movies with strong female leads balance the estrogen level with casts that are heavy in testosterone.

    Ex: I thought about the lesbian angle, but didn’t want to complicate my post too much. Unlike some bloggers I know (not to mention your name or anything), I wanted to keep this literati post fairly short. ;)

    Ubi: I definitely should have included A League of Their Own, if for no other reason than I love that movie. I hesitated, however, because the story featured several women rather than just a duo or trio. I think that breaks the traditional “buddy” formula. I like several of the TV series that you mentioned. It seems that TV has been more progressive than movies. Or does TV cater to a different demographic, namely women?

    SI: I agree that it takes time to weed out attitudes and behavioral patterns that have developed over millenia. The only way to weed them out, however, is to point them out when they show their ugly faces, then take steps to get rid of them. They won’t be destroyed until they’ve been identified.

    Greta: I hadn’t heard of the Bechdel rule. I’m afraid I’d see almost no movies if I applied it. And, to be honest, I frequently enjoy the eye candy of male buddy movies (Butch and Sundance won my approval on that criterion alone, not to mention that it actually was a good movie). You’d think men would reciprocate that feeling towards female eye candy.

    Lynet: I think there is less of a problem with books and it is probably due to the fact that there are many more books available than movies.

    bullet: I agree that two women in strong lead roles that don’t focus on home and heart are often regarded as lesbians. So what? Lesbian relationships are built on a lot more than sex.

    Evo: I agree with your questions about the marketing demographics and strategies. I wonder if the assumptions are made that a) guys going to movies with other guys will only watch movies about guys, or b) guys going to movies with girls are paying the bill and will only pay for movies about other guys, or c) guys may pay to see a chick flick with their dates, but not a movie about women as anything other than love interests for male actors.

    Comment by the chaplain — May 1, 2008 @ 5:19 pm

  13. Damn! I was thinking of the Bechdel test all through this post, and I was going to leave a comment about it, but Greta Christina and Lynet beat me to the punch. Then again, I’m glad that plenty of other people are familiar with it too. :) (You can thank my feminist girlfriend for introducing me to the idea… ;)

    Comment by Ebonmuse — May 1, 2008 @ 6:26 pm

  14. I don’t think Chloe and Olivia were meant to be lesbians - after all one’s married with kids. They were simply meant to be friends, not competitors, two people who are the same as all the men in all the books. There aren’t many buddy movies, and I think it’s for much the same reason that all the books you read in school are about boys: boys won’t read about girls.

    I liked your take on this, Chappy.

    Comment by The Ridger — May 1, 2008 @ 6:47 pm

  15. Two men with no women around can be buddies. Two women with no men around are inevitably assumed to be lesbians. See: Thelma and Louise, Kate and Allie, Fried Green Tomatoes, Xena.

    Primarily by men, though. (And not all men. I don’t think I assume that.) I would tend to think that most women, when seeing two other women together, don’t assume they are lesbians. The reverse is true, too. I don’t, for instance, when I see two men together, assume they are gay. Unless they’re holding hands or otherwise being obvious about it.

    Comment by Spanish Inquisitor — May 2, 2008 @ 8:33 am

  16. Nice post, Chappy.

    I think I also read it as two lesbians. I wasn’t sure I was correct, but it did seem she meant something more than just friendship. And I liked that she pointed it out with ambiguity. I don’t think you have to read it as more than friends, but either way it was unusual. It was noticeably out of the norm.

    Comment by ordinary girl — May 2, 2008 @ 1:07 pm

  17. Great blog! The xkcd blog tallied up how many good movies have female leads, and it was more of the same, but seeing the numbers is pretty compelling.

    Comment by judgesnineteen — May 4, 2008 @ 7:05 pm

  18. judges: thanks for stopping by. I saw the xkcd blog when I was writing the post. It presents the issue very clearly and succinctly. Thanks for the link.

    Comment by the chaplain — May 4, 2008 @ 7:09 pm

  19. “So what? Lesbian relationships are built on a lot more than sex.” Yeah, but real lesbians (as opposed to Hollywood lesbians) are icky.

    Comment by bullet — May 6, 2008 @ 4:13 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

  • Recent Homilies

  • Sacred Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 35,667 hits since November 20, 2007
  • Chaplain's Office

  • Blog at WordPress.com.