Mansplaining Ghostbusters 2016: A Facebook Discussion
I can’t tell you the last time I saw a movie on it’s release date. But I knew that for Ghostbusters, I was going to go. I knew the importance of supporting this film I was so excited for, led by some kickass women in comedy! I went, I loved it, and I wanted (and still do) as many people to see it as possible. And most importantly I want people to bring their kids, so they know that anything is possible, for anyone. Shortly after I posted several things on Facebook that fall in line with that desire, I saw a post from a colleague and friend, whom I admire and respect. He happens to have a young daughter, and one that I think might really dig this movie. While I respect anyone’s decision not to see this movie for nostalgia purposes, or because they just simply hate all reboots, assuming that there’s nothing significant about the fact that it’s an all-female cast, with a female writer, is just wrong. And when I mentioned its importance I was met with explanations on how it’s just not “good enough”. And so, I break down what mansplaining is all about via these posts, starting with his original post.
MB: “32 years ago, we saw the release of the funniest movie set in New York. It was written by, and starred, some of the funniest comedy guys in the business. It was smart, savvy, entertaining, and silly. It was called Ghostbusters. I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t like it.
About a year ago, I first heard that there was a plan to do a remake of Ghostbusters starring Channing Tatum and Chris Pratt. I immediately recognized that this was a terrible idea. So did everyone I talked to. No one had any particular ill feelings toward Tatum and Pratt; we simply recognized a remake of Ghostbusters as a really dumb idea. There was no reason to believe it would be any better than the remake of Psycho, the remake of Arthur, the remake of Solaris, or the remake of The Stepford Wives. For that matter, there was no reason to believe it would be any better than that godawful sequel to Ghostbusters that came out in 1989.
Then, something very interesting happened: The studio executives pulled the idea of doing the movie with Tatum and Pratt and went back to an earlier idea they had bandied about — doing the film with four women, headlined by Bridesmaids stars Kristin Wiig and Melissa McCarthy.
Now, suddenly, everyone seems to think a remake of Ghostbusters is a wonderful idea.”
My response: “Suddenly everyone seems to think a remake of Ghostbusters is a wonderful idea”? That’s just not true. It’s been slammed since they announced an all-female cast. I think you should see it if you want to be judgemental about it.”
There’s been such a disgusting display of misogyny since day one of the female cast discussion. Here are some fun comments posted just yesterday in response to the trailer:
“What will be next? Bible stories with Jesus as a Female?”
“The feminazis have succeeded in destroying families, marriages and relationships. Now the feminazis have succeeded in destroying classic movies as well. Feminism is the worst disease mankind has ever faced.”
I didn’t delve into my feelings about it’s importance as a feminist, as we had already been having another discussion on my own page about that very topic. But he responded to my above post with the following:
“Politically, it’s actually a very interesting problem:
If the movie is a hit, women will be given more remakes of classic works instead of the fresh, intelligent, original screenplays they deserve. On the other hand, if this remake of a classic work flops, the studio will blame it on the women instead of blaming it on their own artistic cowardice, and proceed to provide fewer opportunities for lead actresses rather the making fewer remakes.”
TC (a friend of MB’s): “If they really cared about advancement they should write those four exceptional actors their own movie series that they can claim as their own.”
MB: “Bingo! The four leading ladies are not to blame, here. In fact, their presence is the ONLY palatable thing about the idea (in spite of the insistence of those who say you can’t be against this for non-sexist motives). They deserved far better.
Male actors are not expected to settle for rehashes of classic work as the only opportunity to show their empowerment. Denzel Washington was not reduced to doing a remake of In the Heat of the Night. He was given a chance to do Malcolm X. These ladies should be provided similar opportunities.”
First of all, this was a fresh, intelligent, original screenplay. Secondly, I don’t see ANY problem in women being given more remakes of classic works. This opportunity is available for men all the time, a fact that he actually cites later. At the end of the day, work is work. Having a successful movie doesn’t mean that’s the only thing that will be produced. There will still also be new ideas that people will create, and hopefully continue to cast women in those IN ADDITION to these franchises that only men have been able to earn a living from until now. Regardless of your feelings on remakes and reboots personally, I don’t think that most men who’ve worked on those films has ever thought of it as degrading. If you like a project, and someone wants to pay you to do it, then that’s an opportunity. And making a comment like the one about Denzel, is actually offensive, as it assumes that these women in the lead roles didn’t get involved because they were excited to be there, but rather that they had no other options. While these are breakout opportunities for Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon, Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig are not hard-pressed for jobs. The comments above really began to set me off, and so I felt the need to reply, and perhaps enlighten:
“ This thread is filled with a lot of mansplaining. Almost every female comedian I know in this city is thrilled with this movie. And if you haven’t seen it then you can’t add anything to the discussion.”
MB: Or even then. Once I see it, my contribution will still not be of any value. If I say anything other than “It’s great!” my position (regardless of its content or its motives) will simply be chalked up to mansplaining.
Me: “ No it won’t. You’re entitled to have an opinion on a movie that you see, but telling women what kinds of things are acceptable roles for us is mansplaining.”
MB: “ So, are you telling me that it IS okay to have that kind of glass ceiling? Or it’s just not okay for me to mention it?”
Me: “ I don’t see how it’s a glass ceiling though, to give women an opportunity to play strong roles only played by men before them. Men take on all sorts of roles that others before them have held — Star Trek, Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, just to name a few.”
MB: “Personally, I’m not a fan of the Star Trek and Superman etc. reboots either. The sex of the star is not the issue; the tired old reboot formula is. I admit to liking the recent Batman movies, though I find the older ones quite poor. So that is a rare case of improving on a flawed original, rather than redoing something that was already great, in the vain hope that lightning will strike in the same place twice.
But FAR more important is that women should be given more opportunities to play new roles in exciting projects so that, if a studio wants to return to the well with a film like this, it should be just one opportunity out of hundreds to shine in a strong empowering project. And sadly it’s not. And that imbalance of opportunity is a glass ceiling.
But all of this is incidental to the original post, which was far more about the audience and far less about the movie itself. Would you be half as supportive of this project if it starred Channing Tatum and Chris Pratt?”
Me: “ I don’t see how you can’t see the difference though. It does make a huge difference that it’s an all-female cast. If it were Pratt and Tatum I probably wouldn’t give a shirt (autocorrected from shit) about it”
MB: “At the end of the day, this could turn out to be a simple difference of priorities. While casting is not *unimportant*, I have never considered it as central or significant to a movie’s artistic value as, say, the writing. If a script has problems, putting it in the mouth of a female actor instead of a male one is not going to solve those problems.”
BINGO right back at you!
YES, it’s a difference of priorities, because growing up, I didn’t have four badass ladies fighting ghosts. If I had wanted to dress up as a Ghostbuster as a little girl, I would have had to fight against: “but you’re a girl! Girls can’t be Ghostbusters!” And now, there’s a great new movie that has changed that for little girls everywhere! Which DOES MATTER!! The sex of the star does matter. And saying that the sex doesn’t matter comes from a place where you’ve never HAD to consider it, because there have ALWAYS been AMPLE roles for me. A place where you don’t carefully dissect every creative work you see and consider how the gender roles are portrayed. A world in which when playing with amateur improvisers you’re constantly labeled as a woman, even if you make a clearly masculine choice. If the original post was about the audience, then that was why I was trying to bring to light how much this does matter. How it matters when you say everyone got on board with this movie just because a cast of females was involved.
We’ve discussed this type of thing in person before, I believe. I’ve expressed my feelings about the On The Town “reboot”. How I found it so tired and out of date that I couldn’t imagine paying to see it (I saw it for free). How, as a writer, it’s frustrating to see a revival like that, at a time like this. I don’t need to go see a musical with a bunch of outdated gender norms, and mostly white faces, when there are so many stories out there to be told. How, if you’re going to bring something like that back, then PLEASE update it somehow, because it matters, because these things affect us — the audience. How bringing Misty Copeland on was the best thing they could do, because it provided an opportunity for young girls of color to see that THEY TOO could grow up to play that role, traditionally cast as strictly white. This is what #BlackLivesMatter is all about, about understanding that we’ve never had a time in this country where we have to rally in the streets to remind people that white lives matter — but MB knows this, and supports the movement, which is the only reason I would bother with this engagement. I know that I’m dealing with someone who has intelligence, compassion, and awareness.
And the posts that led to this whole piece:
GS: “ Unfortunately the sexist assholes and the purists who don’t think any movie should be remade or rebooted ever got lumped together when they most likely only share a generous section of a Venn diagram. As a result anyone who is wary is tarred with the same misogynist brush. Though I’m still open minded and want this to be at least watchable, I’m skeptical. I hope that’s not too much of a mansplanation.”
Me: “Here’s what mansplaining is: I, a woman, say I enjoyed the movie and find it empowering for women. You, a man, say this is not empowering, doing a different movie would be empowering. Do we understand the difference? You don’t have to like this movie, you don’t even have to see it. But if you don’t see it, you can’t much comment on it (much like not voting in an election and then complaining about the outcome), AND as a man you can’t tell me when I can and can’t feel empowered.”
MB: “ I have never stated, hinted, or implied whether you can or can’t feel empowered (or, for that matter, whether you can or can’t feel anything). You have every right to feel whatever feelings this movie evokes in you. However, IF you are going to claim that it is empowering to offer an entire group of people limited choices that lack the innovation or artistic integrity that other groups of people are offered, my coincidental (accident of birth) membership in the advantaged group does not prevent me from finding that theory rather strange.”
Me: “ If you were to say something in front of a black person and they turned to you and said: hey, I find that offensive. The only appropriate response would be: I’m sorry. Same goes in this scenario”
MB: “ If you DON’T say something in front of a black person and they turned to you and said: hey, I find that offensive. The proper response would be “I didn’t say it”. If you want to turn this thread into 17th century Salem by simply accusing me of saying something I never said, and assuming I will confess to a lie, you are not likely to be pleased with my response.”
Me: “I will go through this thread later to help you understand what I’m referring to. I was simplifying the discussion to make it easier to understand. But right now, I will say there are things that you and other men said here that I find offensive, as a woman.”
But the REAL mansplaining took place over on my page. I posted about how important I find this movie to be, and especially for young girls to see (I also think boys should see it too, so they can’t tell a little girl she can’t be a Ghostbuster):
My post, on MY timeline, before his:
“Seriously, if you’re thinking of seeing Ghostbusters, please see it this weekend. Support female creators! It’s so great, and if you care for girls, bring them to see it too! You’ll have a great time AND you’ll be showing the trolls that ghost girls are cool too!”
JS: “Was it directed by a woman as well?”
MB: “It was directed by a man, Paul Feig. Among the five writers credited on IMDb, one is female and the other four are male. There are also 13 producers credited with a breakdown of 10 men and 3 women. This is, of course, the movie that was almost made with a bunch of heartthrob Channing Tatum types, but was then changed back to the idea of an all-female team. I cannot find any indication that a single one of the creative team was motivated by feminism.”
Just want to quickly jump in here to link to two interviews with Paul Feig that pretty clearly state the feminist ambitions of this project: From Nov 2015 and July 2016
Me: “Mostly correct. Katie Dippold was a head writer along with Feig. And it is feminist just in being what it is.”
JS: “I can’t remember a movie of this sort with all female cast in the lead antagonist roles so if its a good movie as well I’m all for it especially as a father of an eight year old girl: EDIT PROTAGONIST roles”
Me: “If I had a daughter I would take her to see this in a heartbeat. It’s fun and empowering”
MB: “There is a wonderful movie from the late 90’s called Paradise Road. It stars Glenn Close, Frances McDormand, Jennifer Ehle, and a young Australian named Cate Blanchett in her film debut. It is the story of a bunch of allied prisoners of war in a Japanese camp during World War II. The simple way to describe it is as a female Bridge on the River Kwai.
But it’s NOT ACTUALLY a remake of Bridge on the River Kwai. It is a movie with thematic similarities and a very similar setting, giving these brilliant women a chance to take center stage. But it is a new script that is not a half-assed rehash of a major classic. I highly recommend it.
I would love to see a woman play the lead in an Indiana Jones-type film. But it shouldn’t be an actual remake of Raiders of the Lost Ark. It should be a new piece. I would love to see a woman play the lead in a James Bond-type film. But it shouldn’t actually be “Jane Bond”. It should be a new piece. I would love to see a woman play the lead in a Die Hard-type movie. But it shouldn’t actually be a remake of Die Hard. It should be a new piece.
New pieces please. Enough with the damn remakes!”
Right there. Right there, I said “It’s fun and empowering.” I get to say that. I am a woman. I get to be empowered by this film. BECAUSE it’s a female-led cast, with a female writer, AND very enjoyable! And in response to my declaration, you brought up a movie that I’ve never heard of — which sounds great, but if I didn’t see it growing up, it defeats the purpose of what MY original post was. Then you dismissed my statement by listing a slew of movies that have been redone over and over with strictly males — including James Bond — which blows my mind, because that’s been recast with men a million times over, and so I don’t quite understand why we shouldn’t be able to see a Jane Bond. Do you feel that they should never make another Bond film? Seriously. Did you only watch the original Bond? How do you feel about a black man playing Bond? Does that not have relevance? If so, then why would that be different for a female? I would love to say a female Bond, or a female Jones.
Of course I think there should be more films and shows and plays with strong female protagonists, that are original and different! But when you change the gender or race or both, of a beloved franchise, that does matter. It does make a difference. Especially for our children to see. Because being told that “you can’t” can be damaging, and if you don’t see anyone who goes against that, then it’s easier to believe it’s true. For some of us, it may work to make us stronger, but not without adding at least a small amount of anxiety and insecurity to everything we look to do. But a lot of people are just immediately discouraged. So, if you don’t want to see this movie, or if you see it and you don’t enjoy it, that’s entirely up to you, and you’re totally entitled to your own opinion, but when a woman pipes up and says: hey, it matters that this is a female cast, and I find it empowering, please understand that by responding with how I’m settling for something subpar is dismissing my statement. And THAT is mansplaining. You’re assuming that I can’t both feel thrilled about this reboot AND root for other opportunities in completely original works.
At the end of the day, this movie inspired some of the best things I’ve seen on Facebook in a while:
Julie Rosing: “I’ve seen #Ghostbusters twice this weekend… It’s exciting and hilarious and I loved every moment. I guess this is what it felt like in 1984 for all the dudes boycotting the current version.”
Madonna Refugia: “Seeing Ghostbusters reminded me of when I was a lil girl watching A League of Their Own for the first time and thinkin “hell ya girls are the shit”
Ruby Marez: “there were multiple times when watching this movie I became aware of how rare it was for ME to see 4 female leads onscreen, with not a man in sight and not talking about a man, and how weird that was. Not weird like I can’t relate. More like my eyes were not used to seeing this in a movie and I felt like I was watching a rare and beautiful bird take flight. It’s 2016 and THIS LACK IS STILL A THING.”
Alex Song: “ I loved every second of Ghostbusters and if I were a kid growing up in 2016 I’d have posters of Kate McKinnon all over my bedroom wall and I’d never waste all that time dating boys”
Nayomi Reghay: “ Hi I just saw Ghostbusters with my dad and now I have superpowers”
And the best thing so far was this episode of a little girls’s crafting web-series.
Finally, a great post that really speaks to what I’m trying to say:
Jess Lane: “Hi. If you are a man and you didn’t care that much for Ghostbusters, sorry to drop this big bomb on you, but nobody cares. There is no need for you to share your opinion right now, because there are some more important things at stake right now than your measly personal opinion and taste in film, namely the existence of role models for young women and the future of women on-screen and in the film industry as a whole. It might be a nice gesture for you to keep your opinion to yourself if you care at all about allowing women to reap the full benefits of this, one of their rare moments in the sun (of which we have no guarantee of ever getting to experience ever again). Thank you for your polite consideration.”
Just drop your kids off at the theater and go see The Shallows or something, if you want to see women in “original works”.
