Equal-Opportunity Lechery

[taste_is_sweet]

I took the kid to watch Thor: The Dark World on the weekend. I can say without any spoilers whatsoever that it is a gripping, exciting and surprisingly dramatic movie that, IMHO, didn't deserve the bad rap it's been getting from critics. I loved it.

One of the many things I loved about the movie at the time was how Thor (i.e., Mr. Chris Hemsworth the beautiful) spent a short scene without a shirt, giving the audience a long, pleasant eyeful of the results of his extensive workout regimen.

Here is a picture for your edification, because I'm nothing if not thorough when it comes to research. (I know the picture is from his first movie, but the only differences are that in Thor 2 he's wetter and wearing different pants.)

You're welcome.

As I said, I loved it, though that love was as much from the knowledge that it was complete and utter fanservice as it was from getting to see the dimples above the man's ass. (And it was even acknowledged as fanservice, in case you were wondering--poor Hemsworth struggles through discussing it here.)

I've posted about fanservice for women (and gay men) before, and my feeling is still that it's about damn time we females and non-het males get some of our own back too.

Mostly, anyway.

The thing is, when I was enthusing about the movie to my sister squeakyoflight that evening, she told me that she didn't like that scene precisely because it was fanservice. Objectifying men as well as women is still objectification, she said. And no one deserves to be treated like an object.

At the time, my argument was that since North American (and world, really) culture is patriarchal, that it's impossible to objectify men the same way we objectify women. We were seeing Thor's power there, as much as just seeing his body. But I've been thinking about it since then, and now I'm no longer so sure.

There was a great deal of completely reasonable uproar about the gratuitous scene showing Alice Eve in her underwear in Star Trek: Into Darkness, and in that scene Dr. Marcus's near-nudity is at least barely (ha! 'Bare'-ly) justifiable (she was changing into a special suit for diffusing a bomb). Hemsworth's scene in TtDW is not. It exists for no better reason than for the audience to admire him.

Fascinatingly, in the video interview I liked to above, Hemsworth says that the idea for the shirtless scene came from Joss Whedon, who said the movie needed a little 'romance' (which is I guess what they call fanservice in Hollywood). Whedon, of course, probably knows something about the male gaze, given his reputation of being one of the only Hollywood feminists out there. (Though admittedly your mileage may vary on the 'feminist' part.)

So on the one hand: thank you, Mr. Whedon, for recognizing that not every member of the audience for a superhero movie is going to be a straight male. On the other hand: really? Is this what you're advocating now, purposely setting aside screen time just for ogling? And why is this supposed to be okay?

It's not okay. It's definitely pretty and certainly amusing, but much as I've joked about it and I admit I enjoy it; even I know it's really not okay.

But as long as it's continuing, I'll still be happy that the men are getting semi-naked too. Maybe two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make things a little more fair.

(Movie still is from The Everett Collection.)

Comments

[frith_in_thorns]

I think it's a difficult topic, but also I don't quite think those examples are equivalent: Thor has his eye-candy scene, yes, but he quite clearly isn't an object in the movie; he's the main character, he has goals and purpose. Whereas Carol Marcus really didn't do much other than fill the breast quota. So I'd argue that in their respective movies she is objectified, but Thor isn't.

(Also, I'd also argue that showing a male naked torso is always objectively less sexually-serving than showing a female naked/bra'd torso -- one of those things is treated as too taboo to show in public, after all. I feel you'd have to, say, show Thor's naked butt for the fanservice level to actually be equivalent.)

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

Those are definitely good points. I have to say that in terms of the torso, naked male upper body does feel the same to me as female upper body with a bra. However I do agree that Alice Eve being completely in underwear is a heck of a lot more service-y than Chris Hemsworth fully clothed from the treasure-trail on down.

I was also thinking about the bodies themselves (so to speak) rather than the role of the actor on display through the rest of the movie. Personally, I don't know if I would have felt any differently if Chris Hemsworth had been playing a minor rather than main character.

[springwoof.livejournal.com]

on a related note,  isn't everyone,  to some extent,  objectified in the media nowadays? Think about it--is anyone onscreen allowed to be unattractive (unless spectacularly so, and then they're "the ugly one"), or even ordinary looking?  I was watching a youtube video with a clip from the early 60s, and noticed that, if the four people in it (2 males, 2 females), only one if them might be allowed to appear in media today. Of the other three, one of the females was overweight (again, not allowed unless she's supposed to be comic relief), and the two men were skinny, homely, and had bad teeth and bad hair. you just wouldn't see that today.

It's almost a relief to see normal-looking people in media nowadays. it's something worth commenting on....

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

That's true (as well as sad) and another good point. You see the same thing in how so many US 'remakes' of older shows or movies use younger actors in the same roles. You can't just be a good actor, you have to be really attractive, too.

[brumeier.livejournal.com]

I've been very happy with the amount of male flesh that's getting pedaled around TV and movies lately. About time I say! Although I agree with you about gratuitous naked parts - is it servicing the storyline? Or is just random ab flashes?

I was very excited when hubby first started watching Spartacus. Finally! Full-frontal naked mens! But even that got tedious after a while. And really? Did we need an orgy every ep to remind us we were in Rome?

Yeah, I love me some abs. And that sexy hip bone thing. But I sure don't need the hottie just standing around shirtless for no good reason. That's what magazine shoots are for. LOL!

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

Yes. Yes, we totally needed an orgy ever ep to remind us we were in Rome.

I wouldn't have a problem at all if the (semi)nudity was serving the plotline instead of just serving the fans. But its the blatancy that both pleases and annoys me for the reasons above.

But I definitely enjoyed our conversation about magazine shoots and TV shows with that as a premise.

[blythechild.livejournal.com]

Ahhhh, this is a sticky wicket for sure.

I, for one, don't feel terribly guilty about ogling nice samples of either sex. Anthropologically speaking, there are reasons why our need to look and appreciate are hardwired to our need to perpetuate the species. That impulse is a hell of a lot older than the societal dictate that we respect the example as a person - so we're a long ways off from shelving that primal instinct.

On the other hand, I get pretty bloody tired of having a hard body thrown into my field of vision as distraction from other issues (like, for example, that Alice Eve's character in ST:ID was mostly expositional b.s. - T&A doesn't change that). This happens with male characters as well (I recently watched a film called Paranoia in which Liam Hemsworth took off his shirt 3 times in 25 minutes for no good reason), but I think we can all agree that female characters bear the brunt of this. Just give us A REASON for the bareness - that's all I'm asking for!

I'm also a little wary of making an Body-Objectification!What?! argument about a spandex-goes-boom movie. Face it, if Thor were portrayed by Gary Oldman, The Dark World would've made about $47 in profit (though might have been more interesting). We're there for the muscles and the dodgy physics - we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Well, one thing about comic book movies is that the actors really should look the part (or be Michael Keaton, apparently. Eurgh). I admit that Chris Hemsworth wasn't exactly a drawback to seeing the movie, but I really didn't go to watch him. I went to watch the action and the dodgy physics.

Would I have been as willing to see it in a theater if Gary Oldman was Thor? Probably not, but I think it would be the incongruity of it as much as the looks. I don't need Thor to be a blond, blue-eyed embodiment of physical perfection, but I do need him to look like he could actually lift the hammer. :)

[blythechild.livejournal.com]

Ohhhh, don't bash Michael Keaton... he wasn't much to look at (and his hair was sorta air fluffed road kill) but he really was the precursor to any attempt at a decent, believably-motivated emo billionaire. And he was head and shoulders above George "Nipples" Clooney ;)

Okay, so the Oldman thing was hyperbole (though I probably would pay money to see that), but the short list of actors who tried out for the role were uniformly buff, symmetrical, well over 6 feet, blonde (or could conceivably go blonde) - in short: it was a physical choice. They weren't looking for someone who had done Ibsen and Strindberg. They signed up to be objectified and we signed on to that objectification when we bought a ticket to see it, whether Hemsworth does anything for you or not (in my case, not so much). That's all I'm saying - I don't see it as a value judgement on the viewer so much as just a fact of the genre. When we see bodies objectified in, say, a mystery thriller, that's a different argument.

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. :)

I love your description of Keaton's hair. For me it was the eyebrows. God, I hated those eyebrows. And in truth I didn't enjoy how he played Batman/Bruce Wayne, either. Then again, I liked Val Kilmer in the role I doubt I'm the best connoisseur of the Batman movies.

[blythechild.livejournal.com]

I'm a fan of Keaton's Bruce Wayne (not so much his Batman though), and, ya know, Kilmer wasn't that bad either but I don't think the world was ready for a blonde Bruce Wayne. Clooney just sucked dead donkey balls though. *shivers*

The Burton Batman series is a very specific fan iteration of the comic book mythos - I'm honestly surprised that it did as well as it did.

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

They totally should have dyed Kilmer's hair; I'm sure his being Batman would have gone over better.

I guess a lot of people are into angst and misery these days, I suppose? That's why Burton's Batman was so popular? I watched the first one, but it really didn't appeal to me. I'm afraid I've never been much of a Batman fan.

[green-grrl.livejournal.com]

Hah! Actually that interview with Chris reminds me that while I watched the Sharpe series, I was sure that there was a clause in Sean Bean's contract that he had to get shirtless at least once an ep. It seemed like there was always a scene of Sean washing up after battle!

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

Battle is very dirty!

I love your icon. :D

[green-grrl.livejournal.com]

kira_may wrote that little rhyme in a comment, and I just had to GIFify it!

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

She's a very clever woman. And funny. Great GIF, too.

[mcparrot.livejournal.com]

Remember Daniel Craig emerging from the water in tight swimming trunks in the first of his James Bond outings?

Um yeah. Yum yum, and all that.

But, I read/saw an interview (so long ago I can't remember) where the director/some other film maker higher up, said that Daniel had such a great body it would have been a shame not to show it off.

Well I quite agree. But that is objectifying really. But, James Bond is expected to be good looking. Which is a whole other issue really. I liked the H50 episode where Danny has a run in with the CIA and has a secret meeting with a little fat guy. The guy goes, "What. You want good looking secret agents, go see a movie."

Off topic. Lost the plot.

Sorry. I'm tired. I think I agree with you, but ... I LIKE the pretty. Why shouldn't I have pretty to look at too?

ps, And speaking of Hawaii Five Oh. Random shirt changes anyone? Mmmmhmmm.

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes. Daniel Craig. Yum, indeed.

I agree with you--if there is going to be objectification, then at least give the men's bodies equal time, eh? It'd be better if no one was objectified, but, well, that ship sailed several shirts ago.

I loved those random shirt changes! If only Danny got wet as often as Steve...

[umadoshi.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed this post, but this comment isn't about it. ^_^ Rather, I'm here to ask if I may add you to my flist.

[taste-is-sweet.livejournal.com]

\o/

Baby, you do not even have to ask. :D

<3

[umadoshi.livejournal.com]

Hooray! ^_^ *adds*