The Representation Test grades movies based upon how
well they represent a diverse culture of people, claiming to help Hollywood
change its limiting culture and challenge the status quo. Giving points for
representing people without using stereotypes, the test hopes to create cultural
change. However, it fails to see past issues of race, feminism, and acceptance
of other views. It limits the way a film can affect a culture and present a
message by forcing films to water down a product by including others. The Hunt for Red October is a powerful
film that was well received by critics, receiving a 96% rating from critics on
rottentomatoes.com. It provides a strong message about the goodness of humanity
and not judging people just by their nationality or stereotypes. By putting The Hunt for Red October through the
Representation Test, I will prove that the test is not effective at showing the
cultural impact of a film because it fails to see past race, feminism, and
acceptance of other views.
The
first category of the Representation Test is women. When viewing the cast of The Hunt for Red October on
Wikipedia.com, there is only one woman on the list. She is not over the age of
forty five, not a woman of color, and has a trim fit body. In fact, she is
barely in the movie at all, playing the wife of CIA analyst Jack Ryan. The name
Cathy Ryan does not even come up in the plot description featured by the movies
website. As essentially the only woman in the film, she does not pass the
Bechdel. The only point women receive in the movie is for not being represented
as “objects for the male gaze.” However, as I watch the movie, I don’t even
notice that there is a lack of women, because quite frankly, they would detract
from the film. Where would they be in this film? They could not operate as part
of the submarine crew or as one of the high ranking government officials in the
cold war time period. My opposition to women in this film is not sexist but
practical. I don’t want to see a film’s product watered down by going out of
the way to include strong women. It would not make sense to include this in an
accurate portrayal of the cold war.
The
second category of The Hunt for the Red
October is men. This is the only other category that the film scores
points. Red October receives points
for not glorifying violent men and for not perpetuating an unhealthy body ideal
for men. It also receives points for having men of color in non-stereotypical
roles. I gave the film a little slack for the not glorifying violent men category.
The main character of the movie, Marko Ramius, murders his first mate because
he knows of the true mission of the submarine. However, Ramius defects from the
soviet side to avoid further violence so I gave the film a point for not
glorifying violence in men. However, the film portrays a very stereotypical
view of Russians by showing them in big fur coats and hats in the cold. Even
the way they conduct their military is stereotypical. While this view is
stereotypical, it is accurate for cold war era Russia. I don’t think a film
should be attacked for showing a stereotype, especially if it is accurate. This
adds to the authenticity of the film, and there is no reason to water down a
historically accurate portrayal so that people don’t have their feelings hurt.
This detracts from the potency of the film.
The
third and fourth categories of the Representation Test are LGBT people and
people with disabilities. The Hunt for
Red October did not receive a single point in either of these two
categories. In the cold war, there would not have been any openly LGBT in a
high ranking government office, and there definitely would not have been any in
a submarine crew. It is unlikely that a person with disabilities would have
been in either of these positions. Although I admit that it would have been
possible for them to have been in the government office, but there is no way
that they could have served in the military as they would not have passed the
physical test. Again my question is this: why should a movie go out of its way
to include people if it might detract from the story line?
In
the test, a film can receive bonus points if it is written or directed by a
woman, person of color, LGBT person, or a person with disabilities. However, I
don’t understand what is wrong with a film written or directed by a straight,
white male. It seems like the test is discriminating against straight, white
males, and punishing films for using their material. The Hunt for Red October did not receive any bonus points.
I
support the equality of all people. Growing up, several of my best friends have
been people of color, and I have several family members that are gay, but it doesn’t
make sense that a movie should water down its product just to include people so
others are not upset. This movement of inclusion has gone so far as to say that
a film directed or written by a white male is not as good those done by women,
people of color, or LGBT people. The Hunt
for Red October received a “C” on the Representation test with only 4
points. I give the film five slurpees for giving the message of doing what is
right even when others are against you. However, I give the Representation Test
only one slurpee. It forces films to water down their product to include others
even when it doesn’t make sense. Let’s focus on the quality of a movie and the
message it gives, not punish it for its failure to unnecessarily include people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C2tE7vjdHk
No comments:
Post a Comment