MovieChat Forums > Slap Shot (1977) Discussion > Sneaky Feminist Flick

Sneaky Feminist Flick

posted 13 years ago by rpm1122
47 replies | jump to latest

Slapshot was written by a woman; Nancy Dowd. At almost every turn, women have the upper hand, especially wen it comes to Reg.

First, Reg's wife is leaving him. She looks classy and smart, moving out of shoddy and failing Charleston, for upwardly mobile Long Island. The final scene of the film illustrates just how pathetic Reg is. Francine, his ex, is portrayed more as an adult than Reg pursuing the prolonged dreams of his long faded adolescence. She shoots him a glance at the end that is part pity, part condesencion.

The Chiefs mystery owner is also a woman--a rich woman at that. She's amused by Reg and his antics, and she even gives him a bit of a sexy look. But he is clearly out of her league and it becomes obvious when she states, that she can sell the team, but won't because she can make more off of the depreciation of the team on her taxes. Again, a woman in a superior position and one that thwarts his dream of saving the team and his lost boys has power over Reg.

Hanrahan's wife, played by Melinda Dillion confides to Reg in bed that she had a lesbian affair while drunk, but then she did it sober and she kissed a girl and liked it. Reg uses the news against her goalie husband and here is yet another example of a man being humiliated by woman, this time it's not Reg, but he's an accomplice.

At the end of the film while the two teams are mauling each other on the ice, the one "guy" that comes off looking halfway human is "Ned" played by Michael Ontkean. Instead of brawling and mauling, he decides to do a striptease on ice, which in many ways is incredibly emasculating, given the context of the film and the times. Ontkean is the most "feminine" man in the film and is the one that Dowd rewards. At the end, it's Ned skating off the ice with the trophy cup, not Reg. Even in wining, Reg is trumped by a "girlie-man."

The men on the team are all caricatures. Moe is a gloating and disgusting horn dog. Killer is a lost boy and Reg is his Captain Hook. Even the beloved Hanson Brothers are portrayed as a case of arrested development with their race cars in the locker room and brainless violence.

Lastly, even Strother Martin, the team's publicist gets outed by Reg for being a bra-wearing "fag" according to Reg.

Nancy Dowd took a slap shot at men in this film and I think that was her goal.

[–] tigerbos 11 years ago

lol wot a load of misogynistic nonsense....another insecure male attempting to blame a female for a film that he dislikes therefore makes her into a nazi trying to cut down men. I mean really....how many more stupid posts must we read from men like you who LOATHE WOMEN and LOATHE the fact that they can actually read, write and direct and/or write screenplays? I think you need to get out and mow the lawn or perhaps do us all a favor and join the military...do something, anything to get away from females because you hate them so much.
THIS WAS A BLOODY COMEDY. IT WAS FUNNY. THERE WAS NO PLOT TO UNDERMINE MEN OR MAKE THEM LOOK STUPID. MEN LIKE YOU ARE THE ONES WHO MAKE MEN LOOK STUPID.

That was all rather thrilling. Anything more cinematographic could scarcely be imagined.

[–] Chopperbubba 11 years ago

Very interesting.

[–] Walls Of Jericho 11 years ago

Can you really blame Francine? It's pretty clear she sat on her hands for ages following Reg around and only now is she ready to pack up and leave a crap town and get on with her life. It's doubtful the other wives will do the same.

"Do I look to be in a gaming mood?"

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stevicus-2 10 years ago

Nancy Dowd took a slap shot at men in this film and I think that was her goal.

Interesting commentary, although I'm not sure I would see it exactly the same way. I think the economic aspects are also interesting, since the mill closing is what causes the Chiefs to fold and drives the majority of the entire plot. The economy was in dismal shape back then, so that theme would have been apt for the time period.

As for Ned being rewarded, that may be so, although there was another scene where the players were in the diner impressing the women with all their injuries from fights. When Moe was saying "That is a very deep cut," and the lady pharmacist being quite taken with the goalie. And then there were all the Boosters, like those blonde twins. With the exception of Francine, all the other women in the film were enjoying the violence - and the female owner was making money on it. The team was finally showing a profit.

I don't think I would characterize this as a "feminist flick," since feminists back in those days actually had a wide variety of different views across the spectrum. Back in the 70s, feminists actually cared about other issues, such as the plight of working people and so forth. Nowadays, they only care about rich white feminists and have alienated just about everyone else, all the while wondering why they get so much negative criticism these days.

[–] matt605 9 years ago

I was surprised by the LGBT content in the film. The presence of so much gay content in the script suggests that it is in fact about more than hockey. Your observation about the differences between the male and female characters may provide part of the answer.

However even if you believe that the writer thinks gays are okay, the film still doesn't portray males positively.

When he is introduced on screen, the character "Ned" waves hello to someone in a Benz who he then denies knowing. A few minutes later in the film Reg openly questions whether Ned is gay by beginning with a question about whether Ned is "nice" to his wife. So Ned, who is the hero of the film, who will not goon it up and whose antics win the trophy for the team, is a man who is living a lie.

The film is subtly hostile to all men as shown in the bar scene where Ned walks out on his wife. It's wrong to attack any man's sexuality simply because he's acting like a jerk. The film implies that if a fellow is going through a tough time privately but fails to act nice to his woman for any reason, then it's okay for others to question if he's gay. That's unfair, it dehumanizes males as sex machines, not people, and incentivizes adultery, which destroys families.

The LGBT content in the script was distracting and I didn't understand why it was there. The feminist smear you suggest is a possible explanation.

The film failed to connect the hockey violence to the surge in fan support like it could have. The fate of the team as the townsfolk lose their jobs is reverse what you might initially expect, but isn't shown. The fan base loved the violence, but why they loved it wasn't shown.

People experiencing the frustration of economic hardship rally in support of a team that vents its frustrations on visiting hockey teams. Displaced workers may have no income, but they won't miss a chance to enjoy the vicarious pummelings seen at the games. That biting social commentary was missed.

Some years later, a voice of non-violent helplessness would hit it big with a film not titled "Reggie and Me," but "Roger and Me."

[–] rpm1122 9 years ago

It's funny. I wrote this post four years ago and if I had written it today, my grammar and punctuation would be cleaner and tighter. LOL. I still stand behind my observations of this film even though I've been called a misogynist and ignorant of feminism. If I were a misogynist, I would have invoked invective when describing Francine or Nancy Dowd for that matter. I didn't. As far as me calling this a sneaky feminist flick, if I were a feminist, I'd actually revel and be proud of Dowd's bait and switch as this film is lionized by men as a classic sports movie, winding up on a lot of top tens and while men love the small town and gritty vibe of a minor league hockey team, those crazy Hanson's and the manly leading man portrayed by Paul Newman, they're really being skewered through the gonads. If I were a feminist, which I'm not (now here comes the invective), I'd say, "You're *beep* A Right It Is!" But most feminists and some women who have read this post can't admit to it and deal with it. Why not wear it as a badge of honor? A truly subversive moment in cinema. But nope, feminism must regard a film with some truly bonafide pedigree, like "Bound" or "Julia" or "High Art" as representing their sociological projection onto celluloid.

It reminds of when Mitt Romney was running for president and everyone was talking about how stinking rich he was and he acted like he was some hard working, middle class rube that got lucky. It was a joke and nobody bought his act. Unlike Romney, Trump embraces his wealth and uses it as a plank of authenticity, whether you like Trump or not, he doesn't shirk his relationship to money.

As far as the LGBT thing, that's a new layer and here's another wrinkle. Paul Newman was rumored to be bisexual for many years, so again, whether or not Dowd was in on the casting, it's secondary or even tertiary layer.

Now you can call me a Homophobe or if you want to widen the aperture, I can be upgraded to a misanthrope, and not merely a misogynist.

I'm glad that this thread has sparked a lot of conversation at the very least.

[–] matt605 9 years ago

Your analysis of the film is at best unconventional. Most are looking at a film's story, the character development, and the acting and directing skills. You seem focused on how the film will impact the audience in more subtle ways.

Like the team owner in Slap Shot, you too believe that what people see influences how they will act. She believed the violence of the hockey game was shaping young people to act violently.

You seem concerned that the misandry of the film might encourage its audience members to become knowing or unknowing misandrists. And of course, the fictional team owner cannot have an idea that her creator, the film's writer, Dowd, does not have.

That said, equality is never the problem. The team's owner acted reasonably in her conversations with Reg, although she did hold all the cards, as team owners do.

The careful construction of people in the script suggests that nothing in the film is just thrown in. It's thoroughly designed from the ground up to influence the audience.

Even as it attempts to shape the audience on feminist and LGBT issues, it fails to address how the townsfolk might contend with the loss of 10,000 jobs. A decade later, Michael Moore taught displaced workers to wander about foolishly and ask for a company's CEO. Now Michael Moore is worth millions.

And that stuff about Paul Newman being bisexual is just rumor begun after the photographs of him and Clint Eastwood appeared online.

[–] LionInWinter 9 years ago

That's not being a feminist film, that's being a film where your heroes have actual flaws and your women are more than just cardboard boxes. It's about as feminist as Aliens.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Not only are the women more than cardboard boxes, they get the better of the men every time.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]