MovieChat Forums > Hysteria (2011) Discussion > Misogyny becomes a 'Romantic comedy'

Misogyny becomes a 'Romantic comedy'

posted 13 years ago by keykeyx100000
33 replies | jump to latest

This was also a time when women were told to strive to be thin and beautiful, demure, obedient wives and virginal daughters. They were told they couldn't enjoy sex, but must offer themselves to their husband's pleasure. It was a fairly miserable and confusing time for women. In fact, centuries later women still haven't recovered completely from that era.

Suffragettes had to work their butts off just to be able to work and vote. The rise of feminism hasn't changed the fact that most men will screw anyone (guilt free!), but only marry a "Respectable" (otherwise likely 'innocent' virginal) woman, and that woman are trapped in that "lady in the street-freak in bed" syndrome.

Now movies and plays are being written in a way that women somehow benefited from the Victorian Era. If anyone benefited, it was men.

Women are still conflicted and guilt-ridden keeping count of lovers and boyfriends trying to remain innocent and maintain their reputations, like bargaining their bodies will make them more marketable for a husband. It's pathetic.

The fact that this is a romantic comedy makes me feel frustrated. This satire used to be the source of guilt and depression for so many woman.

I'm glad hysteria has been discredited.

Sorry for the mini-rant, and thank you for reading it.

[–] ArlingtonMiles 13 years ago

Here's a crazy idea: Why don't you wait until you see the movie before you pre-judge what is being satirized.

[–] keykeyx100000 13 years ago

It's hollywood we're talking about. It's genre is under "romantic comedy". If you have seen the trailer, I think you would agree that I'm not prejudging but making a fairly accurate assessment based on the history of romantic COMEDIES.

[–] orangaboom 13 years ago

I'm not sure that you can announce your making a 'fairly accurate assessment' unless you've seen the film? Because how else would you know it to be accurate?
And I don't believe it is Hollywood we're talking about as this is not a studio picture it's an independent production.

[–] Flexi 13 years ago

Jesus Christ, you haven't seen the movie yet. Get off that high horse of yours and make me a sandwich.

[–] TeaBunny 13 years ago

>> It's genre is under "romantic comedy". >>

Well, on imdb it is. Not sure if there is some Official Title that a movie gets, genre-wise.

------------------------
"Love means never having to say you're ugly." - the Abominable Dr. Phibes

[–] ciocio-2 13 years ago

You are probably correct about much of what you write; I've often thought how miserable it must have been to be constrained, or at least influenced, by the mandates that 'proper ladies' must not engage in sex other than to dutifully, but not enthusiastically, submit to their husbands 'needs.' No wonder many men would use services provided by prostitutes, who, by profession, broke and trampled those rules (at least, I presume the more successful ones did). I'm sure there were many women and couples who, one way and another, came to reject those rules, to varying degrees. There have always been the rebels, 'free thinkers,' and rational people, who would not mindlessly go along with something as stupid as those constraints.

When you state "This satire used to be the source of guilt and depression for so many woman [sic]," do you mean that the subject matter of this particular movie/satire used to be the source of guilt and depression? Just getting clarity, to understand.

When you write "I'm glad hysteria has been discredited," are you referring to the concept of women's sexuality amounting to 'hysteria' (which has certainly been discredited in most societies), or do you mean that the movie HYSTERIA has been discredited? If you mean the movie, what is the basis for that statement?

In another post, you write "It's Hollywood we're talking about." You may be talking about Hollywood, but HYSTERIA is not a Hollywood movie. If you look at the credits of all the production companies involved, not one of them is a 'big Hollywood' company (many are not even USA companies). The movie's country of origin is the UK, it was filmed entirely in Europe (I think just in England, though I'm not positive), and none of the writers are 'Hollywood players.' At least two of them live far from Hollywood, and none of them has any big 'Hollywood movie' credits--or many movie credits at all, for that matter. I believe this was very much a writer-driven movie and has no 'Hollywood' pedigree of the kind you seem to be referencing.

I agree that women had a lot of adversity back then, much of which is no longer in force (though new kinds have developed), but will wait to see the movie before condemning this movie because of that history.

[–] keykeyx100000 13 years ago

Thanks for taking what I said in, instead of rejecting it immediately. I'm not a hardcore feminist. I'm glad I can have a career and procreate with my practical female functions lol.

It's just, doctors used to use the same diagnosis for anything a woman was feeling other than "pretty and poised". They performed Hysterectomies for cramps and legal molestation for anger. When were girls considered women in the 1900's? 15 ? Possibly younger. Just because it was a societal norm doesn't mean we have to glorify it or be ok with it.

Thanks to queen victoria, we have "girls gone wild" the polarizing counter culture as well as victoria's secret (ironic and sad) dictating all of the eating disorders, low self esteem, and high promiscuity rate. Not to mention the level of teenage pregnancy and abortion is ridiculously high.

Sure, was it a time of beauty and high moral? Sure, but also decided the fate for women generations to come. Even the gay community suffers. Even minorities suffer.

I'm not just talking about this movie I'm talking about the domino effect of telling women to wait until marriage to have sex, don't enjoy it, and don't get a job because it's a man's place. We still suffer from that bs.

I wrote that specifically about this movie, so to answer your first question, yes I was talking about the subject of the movie once being a source of guilt and depression. Imagine being told that if you're not happy something is PHYSICALLY wrong with you, what that would do to you psychologically.

To your second question, I was referring to the diagnosis of hysteria (it's not even in the DSM anymore) being totally discredited (in the 60's, I think).

Thanks for checking out the credits. I stand corrected. I hope I'm proven wrong and they also show how screwed up that age was for women, not just the cute outfits and a dumb love story.

It's almost 2012 and we're just getting around to seeing movies about vibrators. It might be another couple century or so before seeing a flash of vagina is as hilarious as a guy flashing his penis in moves. Thanks Victoria! ;p

[–] ArlingtonMiles 13 years ago

From the Reuters article:

And Tanya Wexler's crowd-pleasing Victorian vibrator comedy "Hysteria" rounded out the top-billed female films at Toronto.

Wexler, returning to the director's seat after taking a few years off to focus on her family, said the goal with "Hysteria" was to make a romantic comedy that women would want to see, but that also had a message.

"This movie peeks at the idea of having the opportunity to choose," said Wexler. "It's really about being in charge of yourself, your life and your body."

She added that despite all the advances women have made since the Victorian era, inequality and lack of choice remain issues for many women in all parts of the world.

[–] luli832 13 years ago

I agree that many women are still suffering as a result of some of the same misogynistic behaviour/attitudes that were rife in Victorian society. However, Tanya Wexler's comments, as ArlingtonMiles kindly posted, please me. I hope the film will be taken lightly and enjoyed -the trailer certainly looks fun - whilst drawing attention to the issues.

I think it can sometimes be difficult to discuss the great struggles women faced then and that many face now without people getting scared off by the 'feminism' flag (that word seems to have a different meaning to each individual!). Attempting to draw attention to it through a light-hearted film seems as good a way as any.

On a slightly separate note, I like to think the film is implying that men were only able to gratify women sexually once technology was advanced enough for them to invent a device ;)

I think Maggie Gyllenhaal will be great in this role.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] clinton-50 13 years ago

You couldn't be more wrong. I have seen this film and it's a pro feminist delight. They parody the myopic patriarchal medical establishment in a cheeky British way and Maggie Gyllenhaal's character is a head strong, politically motivated charity worker that lends a little 'gravitas' to the risque comedy.
The women in the audience at the T.I.F.F premiere were roaring with approval and laughing throughout.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Browningdiva 12 years ago

That is total BS. You can buy whatever you want here, those laws are from centuries ago. Are we slow to take them out of the law books? Yes. Are they actually enforced? Hell no.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] e_swmc 13 years ago

So, have you seen the movie yet? I think you'd love it. Because it brings to light almost everything you described in your first post.

[–] keykeyx100000 13 years ago

Not yet, I'll try to watch it soon and let you know though. Thanks for asking :D

[–] OJTheViking 13 years ago

I just saw it. You have nothing to worry about. The men are made to look like complete idiots, showing how narrow-minded and stereotypical they were back then. And it's directed by a woman, so I'd say - without being an expert - that she added a feminist angle to it.

In the theater today there were almost only women watching the film, and they laughed themselves silly. There were just a few other men than myself, haha. I enjoyed it too.

Follow me on Twitter! www.twitter.com/OJTheViking

[–] mimosveta 13 years ago

I've just seen the movie, and loved it. I loved your post as well. It's not very common to read a comment online that is written in educated way, and as someone who knows nothing about history (not my forte), you made me interested in it, so good for you.
However, I think this movie is pretty much on the same wave length as you, and primarily makes fun of man prejudice and ignorance about female sexuality.
Also, cool moment is how some characters are obsessed with new technologies, almost as today's folk are, except instead of buying new iPhones each year, they are buying new electrical generators

As for woman's freedoms, really, we have no one else to blame in this day and age. Us girls are first to hate on other girls over most stupid things, like chipped nail polish. Until we start to recognize qualities in other girls rather than imaginary or/and insignificant faults, we will never get (social) liberties that man have.

___
Do Ape descendants have no pride any more?

[–] pale_livingdoll 13 years ago

omg, are these people for real in these boards? you're so *beep* annoying, you haven't seen the movie yet and you write dumb *beep* in here. This... just make me lose my cool

[–] keykeyx100000 13 years ago

I've just watched it, and I still feel very strongly against it. Not exactly for the same reasons as in my original post.

Everyone plays fairly typical roles, which becomes a problem to me as the story unfolds.

The maid is a whore (she highlights the members of society who fulfill man's needs to have a freak in bed, while they keep their women "proper" at home). It's the world's oldest profession, but we still have no respect for it. She just does what she's asked and happens to enjoy it in this movie.

Maggie plays the modern feminist (We're supposed to like her, because she is fighting the status quo.). She is empathetic to the women which will in time become the sufferagette movement, but lacks remorse for how she treats those who she disagrees with. The flaw in this in the movie (and life) is men don't want less intimacy, they want more. The problem men have with expressing themselves is that they are told that weakness is emotional.

Falicity's character plays the woman trapped in the chains of societie's expectations. We're supposed to half admire and half feel sorry for her. "It took so long to get it up there", is her reply to a compliment on her hair, but the director's ideas of how simple she was, in spite of how well learned she was. I'm not ok with that. That's as bad as CNN commentators saying "housewifes have no understanding to the economic problems".

Rupert as many have mentioned plays the genius. He doesn't subscribe to social norms, meanwhile he obsesses with the newest technology and closley observes his friend's ideas. He's like Steve Jobs. What's not to like (except for the mini-feminist jab at men: he's a stereotypical man who engages in debauchery) ?

I am a feminist in the sufferagette sense (I'mnot into man-bashing or demanding government subsidies for abortions), but I also recognize we've made men the enemy imprisoning them in hunter-gatherer silence. Feminism originally stood for equality, not exalting one gender over another!

So, in conclusion I think the movie does a good job focusing on women's issues in a man's world, but is written in favor of modern prejudice-feminism and against all else, especially men.

It glorifies the Victorian Era as I predicted, as women speak in the film more freely than they were likely to be "allowed" to. It treats institutionalization and hysterectomies as somewhat of a joke, as the trial was more than bearable to watch. Many women suffered hysterectomies as well as labotomies due to men's ignorance throughout the late 19th and early 20th century.. Their voices are pretty much silent in this film.

I'd like to see a version of this story that focuses on the more common women at the time, not daughters of doctors inserting themselves into lower-class problems. I'd also like to see one made where men aren't presented as the enemy, but truly ignorant therefore dangerous. Finally, I'd like to see the gradual enlightenment and movment towards women's liberation, instead of aiming to make clear heroes and villians.

I apologize if my post is too long.

[–] frederiksens 13 years ago

dude you should totally write that movie you would have wanted to see.
At the same time you should perhaps realize that you were wrong and that you dislike this movie only because it makes you look stupid for having written that diatribe in your first post.

"It treats institutionalization and hysterectomies as somewhat of a joke, as the trial was more than bearable to watch" like wtf... the theme was not the poor state mental health institutes were back in the day. Ever seen one flew over the cuckoos nest? Lobotomy in the 60's yet you wouldn't go around screaming how every movie set in the 60's must show a scene about how horrific lobotomies are. Or maybe you would maybe you are that kind of person.

[–] films42 12 years ago

SPOILER ALERT!!!

No way! In Mortimer's opening scene, it becomes perfectly clear that the woman with the injured leg is going to die (due to the poor state of public medicine in that era). So when Charlotte is on trial at the end, it is quite literally her life that is at stake. Should she have surgery while institutionalized, her health is certainly in danger as is survival itself.

The marvel of this film (which I have seen three times & absolutely love) is that the filmmakers keep us laughing so that they can tell us very serious stuff. If they'd played the story as serious as it really is, no one would sit in their seats. But playing it "loose/tight" means [most of us] can watch AND learn.

Jan Lisa Huttner
www.TheHotPinkPen.com

[–] Mamabadger56 11 years ago

The marvel of this film (which I have seen three times & absolutely love) is that the filmmakers keep us laughing so that they can tell us very serious stuff.

I agree. The film laughs at some of the less disturbing examples of both medical ignorance and institutionalized misogyny, as a way of introducing the concept in a palatable way. The newly developing practice of gynecology had a very dark side, as well. Women diagnosed with "hysteria" due to unacceptable behaviour or attitudes were treated not just with so-called massage, but in many cases with surgical removal of the ovaries or uterus, excision of the clitoris (popular with some doctors well into the twentieth century), or as the film suggests, being committed to an asylum.
It's also worth noting that making the vibrator available to private individuals went against a strongly defended rule among doctors who treated hysteria: women were sternly warned not, under any circumstances, to attempt to provide treatment for themselves. Only a trained physician could safely manage it. It was yet another way of controlling women's sexuality. Even their pleasure was the property of the medical system. This is just part of the attitude toward women that characterized women's medicine in its early days, and on which modern gynecology is based, to its detriment.
The worst aspects of this approach to women's health has been dealt with in writing (see Ann Daly's excellent book Women Under the Knife, for example) and could make for an interesting documentary, but it's too gruesome a subject for entertainment. Hysteria manages to introduce the topic in a lighthearted and enjoyable way while hinting at some of the more serious aspects. The short documentary included in the bonus material on the DVD expands on the subject as well. It might encourage some people to look into this part of women's history in more detail.

[–] films42 11 years ago

Sometimes I feel like I live on some other planet, but your message, appearing after all these months, just made my day :-)

[–] Mamabadger56 11 years ago

I'm glad to hear it. The attitude toward women by the medical profession, and what results from it, is a subject I've been interested in for some time. The history behind it needs to be better known, and this film helps.

By the way, I checked out the web site you listed, The Hot Pink Pen. Very interesting, and the early reviews for Hysteria by male reviewers was worth mentioning. Thanks for that.

[–] ella_leona 13 years ago

This movie is polished and smart, I hate romcoms generally - too stereotyped in my opinion.

No way does this movie imply women benefited from the Victorian era, rather it draws attention to the ridiculousness of it. The protagonist is a strong, passionate, intelligent woman, an uncompromising suffragette whom Maggie G plays excellently.

The menfolk through most of the movie seem to be the butt of the joke - taking themselves far too seriously while in fact being unbelievably naive.

It's not your usual romcom (Julia Roberts/Kate Hudson genre) so give it a chance!

[–] KaileyLady 11 years ago

The whole "hysteria" concept was ridiculous. I agree with "ella_leona" that this movie makes men out to be absurd because they were; however, if you look carefully at works such as "The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, you may feel sorry for men as well. The husband in "The Yellow Wallpaper" is like Granville in a way because he is taking orders from a "specialist." I think this movie points out that not all men are to blame for these situations. The problem always lies within those with power that lack true knowledge and then others without any independent knowledge following them. After all, the women are having orgasms, but the men don't realize it? It's ridiculous and silly.

I also agree that women having vibrators sends a message of independence.

[–] sebhelyesfarku 13 years ago

Feminazis should pass this movie.