MovieChat Forums > Fatal Attraction (1987) Discussion > An awful representation of women.

An awful representation of women.

posted 10 years ago by RyanCShowers
20 replies | jump to latest

https://feelthefilms.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/analytical-essay-fatal-a ttraction/

Knowing the reputation and cultural buzz for Fatal Attraction when I saw it in high school, I bought into the fun of it. But recently I analyzed the film and wrote an essay on it. It's not subtle in attempts to undermine feminism and support the conservative family dynamic. It's kind of awful, and as my feminist sensibility grows the more I dislike the film. The directing holds the picture together and the acting from the three leads is very strong, but I can't stand it and its popularity. It's interesting that I was asked to write this over the past two weeks of award season because Gone Girl, the movie I'm most prominently supporting this year, is the antithesis to Fatal Attraction. While Fatal Attraction said the problem is maintaining a traditional family is outside the marriage, Gone Girl says the problems lie inside the marriage (which is so correct). Fatal Attraction is very iconic, but it's iconic for the wrong reasons. I'm sure I'll get a dozen replies from people outraged by my allegations of the film based on my liberal agenda, but I don't care. Glenn Close and the competency of the directing only take this movie so far after looking it with modern, progressive glasses.

Feel the Films: A Blog by RyanCShowers - http://feelthefilms.wordpress.com/

[–] rmoriarty97 10 years ago

I think this outlook is pretty simplistic - it was very clear that in this film the biggest problem WAS outside the marriage - not to say there weren't problems within the marriage (which is likely, to make someone want to cheat) but that wasn't the focus of the film so of course we didn't see that. Gone Girl obviously had a different focus but I don't think either film was consciously trying to send a message about women and marriage and their places in society.

It's a Hollywood blockbuster, purely for entertainment. Hardly likely to hold up under feminist or any other ideological critique. Is there more to this film? The answer is no - there's less.

[–] cathy-creswell 10 years ago

Not every film or book has to take feminism into account. Both films characters have mental issues and revenge fantasies they act out. It doesn't take one film to undermine the entire feminist history. If every film tried to make it's characters satisfy feminists, it would get pretty boring quickly.

[–] ck1-5 10 years ago

This film undermines feminism how? By portraying Close's character as mentally unstable? Women like her DO exist. By Dan's wife taking him back?

[–] cathy-creswell 10 years ago

Agreed. Some people defend feminism so hard they see anti feminist intents everywhere. There are real world issues to improve, but ignoring the fact that not all women are stable or moral is living in a fantasy. It's as bad as Disney.

[–] InherentlyYours 8 years ago

The (pseudo)feminism is taken account by the women who wouldn't make mention if the roles were reversed., or they would then say the film exploits women. This film must be enjoyable for those women so they can say "see, see, how men are"? With the roles reversed, the cheating aspect would nary get a mention.

The OP: new-age silly pretentious anal-ysis for her ambitious film-review career, or college paper. See what essays you can come up with for Friday the 13th.

[–] homogenik 10 years ago

You're right, the film is mostly iconic of the anti-women backlash of the 80s conservative ideology. It displaces the responsibility from the man to the woman by making her a monster. The two women are set up against each other. Even the places they live in are meant to signify this opposition. The Gallagers live in a cozy apartment packed with family pictures (every telephone has a bunch of family portraits next to it), the lighting is soft light, the colors are warm. Alex lives in a kind of industrial, almost empty flat with white bricks, dirty windows and pipes garnishing the ceilings. That space is mostly lit in harder lighting, more dramatic (more shadows and contrast). To get there, you must first go through the "alley", dark and brooding with workers transporting big pieces of dead animals and big metal cans burning. The interior of the building is dilapidated and dark. Yet she's supposedly an important editor (with money). The character is set up as a working, single woman (a figure vilified in the 80s), yet we never see her actually working, she has no social life or friends. Even the producers and the writer admitted the changes that were imposed upon them from the studio meant sacrificing the nuances that could have made the film less misogynistic. But alas people wanted to see the "bitch" get killed (suicide wasn't a sufficient punishment apparently). So they made it a monster-character basically, akin to other monster movies. There's even a shot at the end (in the bathtub) where Close is wearing strange eye lenses that made her look like a demon.

[–] marigoldchurchill 10 years ago

The notion that women cannot do bad things is both stupid and dangerous.

Remember Melissa Huckaby who kidnapped a 5 year old girl, raped the little girl with a rolling pin and then killed her?

The notions of "sisterhood" and "solidarity" are not good.

[–] Boricanator 10 years ago

I am a guy and I never had the impression that Dan is a good guy and a hero. He cheated on a good wife and almost got her killed.

If anything, this is a cautionary tale for men not to jump at every sexy girl that shows interest. It encourages men to be monogamous and respect their family.

As for Alex, she is just a person with mental issues. She is not meant to be a representation of single working women. If anything, she represents people that are lonely and want human connection but can't have it.

[–] highpriestess32 10 years ago

I agree with you here, Boricanator.

Far too much focus is directed at the females in this movie. This is chiefly a film about a man with no morals. He claims to love his wife and daughter yet he was happy to risk it all for a fling with Alex Forest. Upon its first release the focus was all on character Dan and a warning to men who cheat. There is no feministic slant because we see two women in perfectly acceptable roles. One, Beth, is a homemaker and Alex is supposedly a career woman when she is not obsessing over a married man. Yet Beth was the stronger of the two women without a doubt.

In fact it is quite strange that they made Alex's character a career woman because one could argue that as a strong, independent woman, she was represented as a desperate, clingy and insecure one. Beth was far stronger, emotionally.

Has anyone seen my wife? - Columbo

[–] rmoriarty97 9 years ago

I don't think it was that strange, actually. There are people out there (sociopaths are a good example) who can hold it together very well on the surface but have a lot more going on underneath. She did seem to go on a downward spiral over the course of the movie though, if she hadn't been killed she probably would at least have had to give up her job and be institutionalised lol ;)

[–] highpriestess32 9 years ago

Indeed! I sometimes wonder about her past. Maybe she was the one doing the dumping prior to Dan. She may even have killed her lovers if they in fact spurned her which may explain her being new to her job (and possibly the area) Only the year before she had a miscarriage she claimed so we know of at least one relationship. I can't be;ieve as an editor how she found the time to stalk Dan lol.

"These days you have to boil someone before you can sleep with them"

[–] GiaJake 10 years ago

I agree completely with your post. In fact, I distinctly remember when this movie first came out. I was at the hairdresser with my young daughter. Another customer had seen the movie, but the rest of us had not. Her first comment, "This is a movie that shows men what can happen when they cheat ".

[–] travischar 10 years ago

It's not subtle in attempts to undermine feminism

How the hell does it "undermine feminism" to point out that women can also be awful human beings?

Feminism should never be about claiming that women are all perfect.

Hannibal Lecter doesn't reflect badly on men, he reflects badly on psychopaths. Alex Forrest doesn't reflect badly on feminism, she reflects badly on psychopaths who happen to be women.

I find it very interesting that you conflate the two.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ck1-5 9 years ago

...so, I guess that "The Silence of the Lambs" is anti-psychiatrist, since the one in the film is quite a twisted individual.

[–] crypticanomaly73 9 years ago

Firstly films and movies exist to explore an idea, in the case of Fatal Attraction it is nothing more than a twist on the slasher movie theme, the Slasher/Villain is Glenn Close the woman who is unbalanced and doesn't quite get that she was never intended to be a permanent fixture in the life of Michael Douglas' character even if he was single.

So you get a very serious male fear right there, the woman who can't handle rejection. You may not like hearing that but women suck at handling rejection.

So we get this cat and mouse game where Douglas is trying to keep his marriage and family intact and alive while trying to keep Close at bay. He has made a huge mistake and now it is coming back 10 fold.

You mention Gone Girl as the movie you are backing for 2014. Interesting choice, may I ask what the difference is? In GG you still have a very unbalanced and evil female character, she manipulates and is rather calculating. If that is the idea of what a woman should be then I think we are in serious trouble.

At least with Fatal Attraction no one was seeing any character in the film as a role model!

I also find it amusing you are threatened by the traditional family dynamic. Perhaps you wrote your essay with a pre-concieved outcome in mind.

[–] millsyooksy 9 years ago

I'm a feminist too, I love how crazy Glenn Close is right now though and I've known men and women who've been this nuts with people of the opposite sex so it kinda makes me LOL.

I like your analysis though :)