Question Regarding Movies' Changing Attitudes Towards Women

charles19 · Mar 17, 2019

Hi Everyone:

About 15 years ago I wrote a comedy screenplay which features a mild-mannered fellow and his loud-mouthed companion. I decided to try and send it out to studios in the hope that it may be picked up. But it occurred to me that the obnoxious fellow may now seem offensive to audiences given that he is somewhat lewd in his commentary. In this Me Too era, perhaps such characters are shunned by movie makers, to avoid the wrath of audiences and sponsors. Political correctness seems to be a given. So, should I alter the play or perhaps scrap it given the potentially offensive content? Any thoughts?

Thanks,

-Charles

Chris P · Mar 17, 2019

I think the answer lies in what happens to the guy in the story. Stories have bad guys, and some stories have good guys with flaws who are mostly good, and good guys with flaws that are mostly flawed. It's all in the execution.

You are right that society's perceptions about gender roles have changed rapidly. Even Friends, Mad About You, and other TV shows from just 20 years ago are laughably dated. It's always good to have a beta reader or two give it a look-see, especially if you know of one who has a keen eye for sensativity matters.

charles19 · Mar 17, 2019

Thanks. That idea about having beta-readers is an excellent one.

cornflake · Mar 17, 2019

You can post an excerpt in the screenwriting Share Your Work section as soon as you've got 50 posts, and see how people perceive the character.

charles19 · Mar 17, 2019

Thanks Cornflake.

mccardey · Mar 17, 2019

I would think anything written 15 years ago would be worth a second look by now, but perhaps particularly a screenplay. So many things have changed - starting with language.

charles19 · Mar 18, 2019

I agree. I wouldn't have given the possibly offending dialogue a second thought 15 years ago, but now I am very sensitive to this issue. There is a part of me that thinks we have taken this PC thing a bit too far, but there is another part that applauds how civilized our society has become. However, that is only a veneer on the surface. There is an underground web teaming with all kinds of darkness. This character in my screenplay represents the id of society. The question is, should we allow the id free expression or sweep it into the darker recesses of our media?

And believe it or not, this is a comedy! perhaps that is the saving grace for this screenplay. And no, this id is not reformed at the end. It becomes clear it is an intractable part of every psyche.

-Charles

Stytch · Mar 18, 2019

Given the success of "raunchy" female comedies lately (I'm not mocking that, I love em.) have you considered flipping the genders on your characters? And yeah, probably updating the slang and whatnot. But, some stuff that was borderline offensive for a guy to say 15 years ago... might be the perfect thing for a woman to say now? The best way to write women is to... just write them like you would a person, right? Good luck!

charles19 · Mar 18, 2019

Interesting suggestion Stytch. But I don't think it would work. There are still certain stereotypes that haven't been shattered yet when it comes to male-female behavior.

frimble3 · Mar 18, 2019

If you took the lewdness out of the obnoxiousness, would that help the character? Or is his whole characterization 'lewd, sexist jerk'? Because loud-mouthed, obnoxious jerks have been a feature of comedy, probably since man first laughed. Well, the absolute beginning was probably some variation of 'man falls flat on face', but LMOJ was the guy who laughed at him.
But, John Belushi, Jack Black, Adam Sandler parts are always with us.

Is it clear that the LMOJ is a foil for the mild-mannered MC? That he's meant as a counterpoint, and not the central figure?

Although, I kind of like the gender-swap thing. Rosie O'Donnell and Jennifer Aniston?

mccardey · Mar 18, 2019

charles19 said:
There is a part of me that thinks we have taken this PC thing a bit too far,

There's a part of me that says we're making a start.A very late start.

lizmonster · Mar 18, 2019

mccardey said:
There's a part of me that says we're making a start.A very late start.

This.

Also, until recently I'd have said there was a fair amount of backsliding over the last 15 years, so your script might be less objectionable than you fear.

That, and misogynistic films have hardly gone out of style; they just have some company now.

dpaterso · Mar 18, 2019

I'd keep him as is. A memorable character is better than a bland character, even if he's memorable for all the wrong reasons.

-Derek

Helix · Mar 19, 2019

charles19 said:
Interesting suggestion Stytch. But I don't think it would work. There are still certain stereotypes that haven't been shattered yet when it comes to male-female behavior.

Maybe this is the time to shatter these certain stereotypes, rather than reinforcing them?

charles19 · Mar 19, 2019

I was about to tone down on the lewdness, but I like Derek's input that a memorable character is better than a bland one! So true. The question is whether studios still have the gonads to feature such characters. The screenplay takes place in 1988, and it is so interesting that there are no computers or cell phones to be seen. In terms of the topic at hand, it is not just lewdness. There are non-PC terms used, for instance, midgets instead of little people. There is also a scene where they watch porn and enjoy it. The obnoxious fellow objectifies women, but he meets his match later in the script when confronted by an even more brash-talking woman who insults him to the point of rendering him speechless.

-Charles

cornflake · Mar 19, 2019

charles19 said:
I was about to tone down on the lewdness, but I like Derek's input that a memorable character is better than a bland one! So true. The question is whether studios still have the gonads to feature such characters. The screenplay takes place in 1988, and it is so interesting that there are no computers or cell phones to be seen. In terms of the topic at hand, it is not just lewdness. There are non-PC terms used, for instance, midgets instead of little people. There is also a scene where they watch porn and enjoy it. The obnoxious fellow objectifies women, but he meets his match later in the script when confronted by an even more brash-talking woman who insults him to the point of rendering him speechless.

-Charles

I can't with the 'meets his match in a gross woman and can't process it,' so I'll just ask why there are no computers or cell phones?

Also -- please stop with the PC/not PC thing. I've known 'midget' wasn't ok since I was a kid, and I'm not 20.

PyriteFool · Mar 19, 2019

cornflake said:
I can't with the 'meets his match in a gross woman and can't process it,' so I'll just ask why there are no computers or cell phones?

Also -- please stop with the PC/not PC thing. I've known 'midget' wasn't ok since I was a kid, and I'm not 20.

Seriously, +1000000 to all this.

Also, has it occurred to anyone that studios not wanting more “offensive” comedies might not have anything to do with the number of “gonads” they possess, but more to do with the fact that these kinds of comedies aren’t actually funny? Like at all? Or at least they aren’t funny to the more than half the population being stereotyped. Because the stereotypes 1) will not reflect lived experience, and this can’t work as a joke, and 2) are coming at the expense of people who are sick of this crap.

Look, raunchy comedy will never go away. It is safe, don’t worry. Complaining about “PC culture” is a red herring. And pretty ironic, since comedy that relies of people in privileged groups making fun of people with less power than them is literally the safest, least transgressive comedy out there. But, at the end of the day, if you’ve written something genuinely funny, people will respond to it. If not, blaming marginalized people for not laughing at jokes at their expense won’t help.

lizmonster · Mar 19, 2019

As others have said, content has nothing to do with "gonads" and everything to do with what the studio believes will net them a profit.

Also, both cell phones and personal computers were around in the 80s. They looked very different. Don't have much authority about cell phones, but as far as PCs are concerned, by mid-decade they were common in most office settings (apart from lawfirms; for whatever reason, lawfirms lagged way behind on technology at the time).

I'm sure your character is perfectly charming in context. I will agree with the others and say that sexism was just as out of fashion then as it is now, regardless of how people choose to remember it.

mccardey · Mar 19, 2019

charles19 said:
There are non-PC terms

-Charles

Here's a helpful little thing you might like to try. Replace the descriptor non-PC with hurtful and see if that affects your outlook.

shadowsminder · Mar 19, 2019

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought "no computers to be seen" is anachronistic. This screenplay so far sounds like it would be better set in the 1960s, if that's the level of technology you as the writer are hoping the director will portray. Even the viewers who aren't old enough to remember computers in the late '80s might've previously watched series and movies set in that time, and the old monitors are visually interesting enough to show up at least in the background.

My general thought about any completed screenplay (or story) is that it should go through a critique workshop before it's deemed unusable. More than one character will likely need alterations whether the play was written 15 days ago or 15 years. Editing based on reader feedback is an expected part of the writing process.

Alessandra Kelley · Mar 19, 2019

Nothin' wrong with watching porn and enjoying it.

charles19 · Mar 20, 2019

Maybe I should make some clarifications:

The screenplay i am referring to does not stand or fall on lewd comments. They are actually fairly sparse. I am just bringing up the point that even a few comments might seem offensive in today's climate. It is also worth pointing out that a few of them happen on the first page of the screenplay, and my concern is that they might turn off the reader and therefore prevent some potentially important contact from reading further. I am considering diluting these remarks.

Regarding computers, there are 3-4 main scenes in an apartment. I don't think it would be misleading if no computer was present there. Perhaps I was exaggerating that there were no computers to be seen. There are also a couple of office scenes, and it would make perfect sense to have a couple of them there. Computers were just beginning to proliferate in the mid-80s, at least here in Canada.

Moreover, it seems that there is a general impression that the screenplay is generally crass. It isn't. In fact there are many subtle and satiric scenes, particularly in a psychiatrist office, in an ashram, and in a Chassidic Jewish household, etc.

The conflict between the two main characters (... I don't want to give it away... but they are really the same character), is what drives the play. That one is sensitive and kind and the other loud-mouthed and provocative gives the play its mojo. But again, the boundaries in this play between provocative and offensive are definitely tricky to navigate.

-Charles

cornflake · Mar 20, 2019

There were laptops in '88. Obviously there were homes without computers, so I'm not suggesting I think you can't have a house without one, but plenty of homes had desktops by then, as laptops were coming into their own.

Helix · Mar 21, 2019

charles19 said:
The conflict between the two main characters (... I don't want to give it away... but they are really the same character), is what drives the play. That one is sensitive and kind and the other loud-mouthed and provocative gives the play its mojo. But again, the boundaries in this play between provocative and offensive are definitely tricky to navigate.

-Charles

So is this a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde theme updated for contemporary audiences?

charles19 · Mar 21, 2019

Helix, yes it is. There are also certain qualities related to human nature which transcend a specific time or place. Aside from the issue of who would find a small part of the dialogue offensive, there is also the question of to what extent this is an adult comedy versus appealing to audiences in their teens. I am really not clear about this. I definitely need a reader at this stage, an objective reviewer. I have been so into this play that i am not seeing the forest from the trees.

Cornflake, you are right of course. There could have been a computer in the apartment in question. My reluctance to include one is that the focus of the characters is on a television and on newspapers. It seems more fitting that in 1988 these were the major instruments for entertainment and obtaining information.

-Charles

Question Regarding Movies' Changing Attitudes Towards Women

charles19

Chris P

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred

charles19

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

charles19

mccardey

charles19

Stytch

charles19

frimble3

Heckuva good sport

mccardey

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen

dpaterso

Also in our Discord and IRC chat channels

Helix

socially distancing

charles19

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

PyriteFool

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen

mccardey

shadowsminder

writing in the shadows

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian

charles19

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

Helix

socially distancing

charles19