10 Years of Bitter Posts - I'm gonna keep talking about sexism and misogyny until you stop writing it

There are some topics that I've covered from the start of this blog and have kept returning to over the years. You'd think I'd have run out of things to say about it, or at least that an issue of such magnitude would have seen some progress over the years, which only makes a lack of progress even more disheartening. I'm speaking, of course, about misogyny and sexism in scripts.

There are a lot of things I've seen recur in bad scripts. When you've read a lot of these, you almost start to get desensitized to it because you notice there are certain mistakes that every first-time writer is going to make. Dialogue will be too on the nose, scenes will take too long to play out, characters will give long speeches about meaningless pop culture because the writer really wants to pontificate about Bob Dylan... and every female character will have ample breasts.

Let's say I was reading 10 scripts a week. I would bet that AT LEAST two of those scripts described the size, shape and/or condition of the breasts of a female character. It's almost always gratuitous too. Even if the script organically got to a moment where the female character strips down to a bikini or lingerie, there's rarely a need for leering scene description. (Too few writers think about the fact that the actresses are going to READ that description too.)

You might be inclined to consider this as benign sexism, but it's dangerous to objectify your characters like this - and when it's systemic across a lot of scripts, you start to realize the problem is bigger and uglier than a screenwriter who is typing while horny.

I don't think this casual sexism is unrelated to an uglier brand of misogyny I often encountered in scripts. Rape and sexual assault are often badly mishandled and one of the biggest red flags is when the writer objectifies the victim of sexual assault. A rape scene should not feel sexual - it should feel like a violation. It is not a power fantasy - it is an act of violence and degradation. Emotionally, we should NOT be relating to the perpetrator (unless the entire point of the script is to implicate the audience along with your assailant, but that's a rare situation and a tricky needle to thread to boot.)

Just over a month into the life of this blog, I wrote "Misogynistic Violence against women."

After more than five years as a reader, I now know far too many ways to mutilate, subjugate and sexually degrade a woman. I’m by no means a feminist, and there are plenty of instances where I’ve read an act of violence committed upon a female character and haven’t raised an eyebrow at it. Don’t misunderstand me – I’m not saying you should never hurt, injure or kill your female characters. That would be equally sexist. The problem sets in when it feels like the victimizer in the scene is a stand-in for the writer’s own sick desires.

This is one of those subliminal things that’s hard to point out without using specific examples, and unfortunately, to show the worst/best examples of such writing would likely get me sued. As blurry as the line gets, it most frequently gets crossed when some sort of sexual element is added to it. A scene where a woman is stabbed and her throat is slashed probably wouldn’t set of any alarms – but a scene where a woman is stabbed, then raped as the attacker takes obvious glee in her pain is going to be more repulsive.

I returned to the topic in a later post, "The script that made me want to recommend psychiatric help for the writer."

And then there was one of the most vile, misogynistic pieces of violent writing I had ever read.  It was perverted, disgusting and disturbing to such a level that the only reason I ended up with the script was that the (female) reader who had to cover the first submission of this script refused to read it again due to being the product of a sick mind.

She was right. I googled the writer.  He was a studio exec.

As much as that deserved a rimshot THAT WAS NOT A JOKE!

The coverage that script provoked was some of the most unvarnished coverage I ever had submitted to these bosses.  Some of my employers enjoy it when I take a more Simon Cowell-like approach to shredding the truly terrible scripts, others have preferred a more measured, even take on it.  The bosses for this submission were among the more buttoned-up, but in my write-up, I only barely restrained myself from suggesting psychiatric help for the submitter.

A few months later, the script was resubmitted.  I had to read it again.  The fucker barely had changed anything - and he certainly hadn't toned down the misogyny or the violence.  Or the misogynistic violence.  I made sure when I wrote the synopsis that I included every last instance of such.

I'll put it this way.  He made I Spit on Your Grave look like Mary Poppins.  So I tore him a new one, then emailed my boss's assistant and said, "Look, this concept is NEVER ever going to get a Consider from anyone.  If we take it again, we're wasting our time and the company's money."  As I understand it, the message was conveyed.  In spades.

A few weeks later, the writer attempted to submit again.  He was unsuccessful.

I've probably written other scripts that were just as bad or worse, but few made me as violently angry at the writer as that.  Rarely have I ever felt I was looking into the mind of such a sick individual.

I'm still angry about this one. I felt violated just having been forced to read it and spend three hours of my day immersed in this and then writing it up.

Granted, that's an extreme example. And almost every time I get going on this topic, there'll usually be at least one person responding with an attitude about how I shouldn't tell writers what to write, or that I'm advocating censorship, or listing rape scenes in acclaimed films as if that disproves my argument.

So here's my concession right here - YES, it's possible to write a rape scene that is integral to the story, makes a point, isn't exploitative and doesn't objectify the victim. I'm not saying never write about sexual violence. Hell, I think 13 Reasons Why did a very solid job of depicting sexual violence and doing it in a way that wasn't sleazy or crass. (I hasten to add that I'm speaking of Season 1 here, NOT the controversial sexual assault in Season 2.)

So if your takeaway here is that I'm saying "NEVER write about rape," you're misunderstanding me. All I'm asking for is some responsibility. A checklist like this wouldn't hurt:

• Is it essential to the story?
• If yes, are steps taken to depict the victim as more than just a victim?
• If yes, are you writing the scene in a way that isn't designed to excite and arouse?
• If you had to remove the rape from the story, how much would it change? Is it substantial?
• Whose arc is altered the greatest by the inclusion of the rape: The male character's or the female characters?

Many of these questions relate to issues I raised in this post, "Let's talk about rape scenes." Though it's more than five years old, it's worth a read. At one point it was one of my most popular posts. It also lead to one of my favorite reader emails, where a reader named Diana really hit the nail on the head:

I remember a foreign film way back when about the brutality of the civil war in the former Yugoslavia and its affects on women. (can't remember the title). It showed the lawlessness during that time, and the resulting roaming gangs of men. And the violence that was regularly perpetrated against women. It showed a brutal gang rape scene (that must have lasted at least a full 5 minutes of film time!) of two women in their home. It included the act of anal rape. It was riveting. Horrifying. Visceral. And realistic. It was not sexy in the least. And it was not done for shock value, though it most certainly left most of us in the audience in shock. 

And as it turns out, no superhero guy (or hubby/boyfriend) appeared in a fit of rage in that film to avenge the violence against these two women. After the rapists left, the women were simply left alone with their physical injuries and their shattered psyches. And their own rage. Of which they had plenty. 

And I think therein touches on another part (I think actually it's the crux) of the (inherent) problem with these many rape scenes of women penned by men: It is that the man (boyfriend/husband/superhero guy) gets to feel the resulting rage for the violation. And to act on that rage. Not the woman who was violated. 

Rape happens to women. A lot. So not ever showing rape of women would be sort of a denial of this horrible reality. And aside from the reality that some male writers might write such scenes a little too (disturbingly) gleefully,i t's not even (just) the fact that the aftermath of the rape on the female victim is never really shown-- such as, say, the woman/girl sobbing and stuff. Or being an emotional/psychological wreck. Or even being terrified in the aftermath--maybe of men, maybe of just going outside. Whatever. No, it's not even just about those things. What's it's also about, maybe even more so about, is THE RAGE. And who gets to have it. 

THE RAGE. It would be a great term for the last year and a half, as sexual harassment and misogyny have been called out with much greater frequency and we have seen women push back against abuse, saying "No more!"

Feel that rage - and understand that rage belongs to every female character abused and mistreated. If your writing isn't reflecting that, you need to go back to the drawing board.

Dare I hope that the next five years of rape in spec scripts will look and feel different from the five or ten years that proceeded it?

A reader letter regarding my post on rape scenes

I wrote a piece earlier this week on rape scenes.  I know this is a theme that we return to at least once or twice a year on this blog, but given how often I see this abuse in stories, I think it's warrented to keep addressing this ground.  For one thing, I can tell that each new post reaches people who had not seen the earlier posts.  At the very least, it makes some writers give particular scenes a little more consideration, I feel it's worth it.

After that post, I got a very nice note from a reader named Diana.  With her permission, I'm sharing it with you in its entirety:


Two Giant Thumbs Up on this blog entry/topic and your comments. Really important conversation that I hope will be an on-going one. Especially appreciate your pointing out the all too unfortunate occurrence of male writers "writing rape scenes that feel like they were getting excited while writing it." I'll tell you, as a woman, reading those kind of scenes (in books or scripts) freaks my shit out. And what is equally disturbing is that those scenes can come out of the nicest guys! 

I remember a foreign film way back when about the brutality of the civil war in the former Yugoslavia and its affects on women. (can't remember the title). It showed the lawlessness during that time, and the resulting roaming gangs of men. And the violence that was regularly perpetrated against women. It showed a brutal gang rape scene (that must have lasted at least a full 5 minutes of film time!) of two women in their home. It included the act of anal rape. It was riveting. Horrifying. Visceral. And realistic. It was not sexy in the least. And it was not done for shock value, though it most certainly left most of us in the audience in shock. 

And as it turns out, no superhero guy (or hubby/boyfriend) appeared in a fit of rage in that film to avenge the violence against these two women. After the rapists left, the women were simply left alone with their physical injuries and their shattered psyches. And their own rage. Of which they had plenty. 

And I think therein touches on another part (I think actually it's the crux) of the (inherent) problem with these many rape scenes of women penned by men: It is that the man (boyfriend/husband/superhero guy) gets to feel the resulting rage for the violation. And to act on that rage. Not the woman who was violated. 

Rape happens to women. A lot. So not ever showing rape of women would be sort of a denial of this horrible reality. And aside from the reality that some male writers might write such scenes a little too (disturbingly) gleefully,it's not even (just) the fact that the aftermath of the rape on the female victim is never really shown-- such as, say, the woman/girl sobbing and stuff. Or being an emotional/psychological wreck. Or even being terrified in the aftermath--maybe of men, maybe of just going outside. Whatever. No, it's not even just about those things. What's it's also about, maybe even more so about, is THE RAGE. And who gets to have it. 

Rage-- the feeling of rage-- is damn powerful. It can act as a driving force--- to address/counter feelings of powerlessness-- which a lot of male writers know, as they use it to drive the superhero protagonist (and yes to get us, the audience, all engaged, and to let us feel along, too, that something is being done to avenge this wrong). Unfortunately, the women (the victims) of these rape scenarios almost never get to benefit from this powerful feeling of rage-- and the possibility of acting on it-- either during, or in the aftermath, of their own violation and powerlessness. Nope, that all still goes to men. So they are left not only victims. But doubly so. 

As as you point out in your post "Let's talk about rape scenes", these scenes of rape/beatings of woman aren't being used as spring-boards for a female character's development. They are used so that-- I'm taking the liberty of loosely paraphrasing here a little-- the male protags gain strength from it (so they can dig down deep) and take (effective) action. Pretty f**ked up if you think about it. 

I wonder what would happen, if only as an experiment (maybe a year?), men (and yes, it's predominately men who write these scenes) took it upon themselves (as in required of themselves) that every time they penned a rape scene of a woman, the script would necessarily include the victim/woman herself getting to feel the resulting rage of that violation, along with getting to be the one to act on that rage. I can't be sure, but I'd say it's a safe bet you'd see a hell of a lot less rape scenes being written. 

So back to the Yugoslavia film. And how that brutal/shocking gang rape scene was eventually dealt with in it. As it turned out, at the end of the movie one of the two women who had been brutally raped comes across the 'leader rapist' in a refuge camp. Before he notices her, she slowly creeps/stalks up behind him and slits his throat (with a knife she'd just been using to cut an apple). It was plain and simple revenge. It wasn't particularly sexy. But it was very gratifying, I must admit. 

Anyway, thanks again for broaching this issue, and for your comments.

Let's talk about rape scenes

We've talked before about misogyny in film.  If you want a refresher in perhaps one of the worst scripts I ever read, check out the depravity I discussed in this entry.  It's not a topic I enjoy wading into, and yet the scripts I read often keep provoking the topic.

Most recently, KICK-ASS creator Mark Millar was interviewed about his work and the topic eventually turned to his depiction of violence against women, which many consider offensive and misogynistic.  I'm going to encourage you to check out the entire article, but these next few passages are what got the most notice:


Take some of his portrayals of women, for example. Millar has spoken out against the underrepresentation of female characters in comics, but his depictions of rape have alienated some readers. In Wanted, the sadistic protagonist gleefully commits rape over and over again, at one time bragging that he “raped an A-list celebrity and it didn’t even make the news.” In The Authority, a Captain America analog rapes two unconscious women. In issue four of Kick-Ass 2, a group of bad guys finds the young hero’s love interest, a teenaged girl named Katie, and brutally gang-rapes her. 

“You’re done banging superheroes, baby,” the ringleader says, punching her and unzipping his fly, “it’s time to see what evil dick tastes like.” 

Laura Hudson, the former editor-in-chief of the popular blog Comics Alliance and a senior editor at Wired, thought that scene was deplorable, but typical of Millar. “There's one and only one reason that happens, and it's to piss off the male character,” she said. “It's using a trauma you don't understand in a way whose implications you can't understand, and then talking about it as though you're doing the same thing as having someone's head explode. You're not. Those two things are not equivalent, and if you don't understand, you shouldn't be writing rape scenes.”

Millar is of the exact opposite opinion, saying they are equivalent, and that his depictions of sexual violence are all part of his ongoing quest to push boundaries. “The ultimate [act] that would be the taboo, to show how bad some villain is, was to have somebody being raped, you know?” he told me. “I don't really think it matters. It's the same as, like, a decapitation. It's just a horrible act to show that somebody's a bad guy.”

 Ho-boy.

I've railed in the past at people who are quick to toss around the "misogyny" label.  There's a distinction between something being sexist and something being misogynist.  The definition of misogyny is "the hatred or dislike of women or girls."  So when, say, Michael Bay reduces his female characters to one dimension, has them strut around in revealing outfits and then focuses the camera on their ass, is that misogynist?  

No.  Definite display of sexism, but it's not misogyny.  But Mark Millar's work?  That's getting really damn close to misogyny.  Does it make HIM a misogynist? I don't know.  It depends on if he really believes his own defense of that rape scene.

The sort of scene described above is part of a trope known in comic circles as Women in Refrigerators. It has to do with the disproportionate degree that female characters in comics are beaten, depowered, raped and killed solely to get a reaction out of the male lead character.  When you look at the list, it's hard to deny that it is a common issue.  But let's examine why this happens.

Most headlining comic book heroes are male.  Going back to the Golden Age of comics, a surefire way to get the hero emotionally invested in the story was to kidnap someone close to him.  In most cases, that meant his girlfriend.  Poor Lois Lane was probably tied up more frequently than a bondage enthusiast.  Now, there are exceptions - Batman's closest relationship was with his boy sidekick Robin and Wonder Woman's boyfriend Steve Trevor often filled the "Lois Lane" role in her stories - but when you're dealing with male heroes, most often you're going to have a lot of kidnapped girlfriends and wives.

Comics got grittier, and soon it was no longer enough to just kidnap the hero's loved one.  Now it was necessary to prove just how evil the bad guy was by having him do something horrible.  The trick is that the writers wanted to provoke the audience as well as the lead character.  Obviously you can't kill or maim the lead character because the story's over.  So it would fall to someone else close to the lead to become the punching bag.

And that's how we get The Killing Joke - where in order to prove that we're dealing with a new kind of Joker, he paralyzes the former Batgirl and possibly performs other unspeakable acts upon her.  Commissioner Gordon is also put through the ringer too, though not as badly.  The point is - the Joker is doing this JUST to piss off Batman.

If this was an isolated story, it wouldn't be so bad.  However, it would be a shame that the script barely deals with the impact of this attack on Batgirl herself.  If it was motivating something in her character, it wouldn't be a gratuitous display of violence crafted only for the purpose of getting a rise out of the male lead.

And that's where the problem lies. I totally get needing to show the bad guy is... well, bad.  And it's not like you're gonna provoke the audience if the bad guy does something to the lead's paperboy.  I get how a writer might arrive at writing a violent scene towards a female character and not have any sexist or misogynistic motivations behind it.  There is a dramatic purpose to be served.

I even get how one might arrive at rape.  If you want to do something horrible to a female character, but you don't want to kill her off, it's an obvious option to land on.  It's a violent act that shows evil, but it has the "virtue" of not maiming the character so she can still bounce back.  We rough her up, but she'll recover, good as new.

Ah.

Here's what Laura Hudson is talking about above.  Writers who write about rape don't always understand the implications of that trauma.  For the writer, the horror of the act ends when the rape is over.  The scene has served its purpose, the lines drawn and so on.  For the character, that's just the beginning.

I've seen this in a lot of scripts, in a lot of comics and a lot of TV shows. It's rare that an assault like that is used as springboard for a female character's development in the same way it's used to provoke the male character.  I find the KICK-ASS example above so repugnant that the only way to redeem it from being shock value would be if Katie was the main character and the rest of the story was about her journey. I've used a lot of comics examples, but don't think that doesn't mean the trope is isolated there. 

I also don't understand how most writers stand writing rape scenes, let alone end up writing rape scenes that feel like they were getting excited while writing it.  (I debated a lot about if I should write that last sentence, but I absolutely have read sequences like that where the writer took a perverse glee in inflicting that violence.  And if it horrifies you to be told about that, it should.)  Even so, I will concede that a story might call for that.  Don't take the message of this post as "never write rape."  But really, use some restraint.

I've made an effort here to try to understand how someone might "logically" arrive at a rape as their big plot twist without the motivation being misogynist in nature.  I'm doing my part to extend an olive branch to those writers.  Calling them "misogynist pigs" would have been a good way to ensure none of my message was heard.  In return, I'd hope that those who write such scenes would reach out and attempt to understand the position of Laura Hudson.  Those violent actions carry an impact that goes beyond their intent.  Meet us halfway, guys.

A challenge to the producers of V/H/S and S-VHS

If you've been following the news out of Sundance, you probably heard that the found-footage horror sequel S-VHS debuted to strong reviews.  Many proclaimed the sequel to be stronger than the original V/H/S. One reviewer told me via Twitter that it felt like all the filmmakers involved with this installment had watched the Radio Silence segment in the first movie and went, "Got it." 

(In the interest of full disclosure, I'll state outright that I'm good friends with the team Radio Silence, who were responsible for the final segment in the original film. In fact, I interviewed most of them back when they were still called "Chad, Matt & Rob.")

Another viewer echoed that sentiment and said that in addition to S-VHS starting at the level of the Radio Silence short and building on that, there was no "accidental misogyny."  This got my attention, as a frequent topic on this blog is the sexualization of violence in horror films and the often-gratuitous nudity that accompanies that. I have to admit, when I saw V/H/S, I couldn’t help but notice the frequent uses of those tropes to a sometimes exploitative degree.

For those who haven't seen it, the original V/H/S is an anthology found-footage horror film made up of six segments by different directors. Pretty much everything good and bad about found footage can be found here.  Some segments are excellent, others range from terrible to pointless.  Out of those six segments, three feature female nudity – more than one instance of such in two of those segments. Of the remaining three shorts, two of those star male characters behind the camera who attempt to use it to leer at their female targets.

An aside to the teenage boys watching this who now have a reason to get the film on VOD – You’re welcome.

Look, I like boobs. Who doesn’t? I don’t see anything wrong with adding a little visual appeal to a film, and I’m well aware that topless shots add marketability to a project. I’d be lying if I said I never rented a movie to see boobs. When I was a teenager, I didn’t exactly watch Fast Times to see the riveting work of Judge Reinhold and Taylor Negron.

But there’s a certain point where a film contains so much leering it can’t help but feel excessively gratuitous. When two or three consecutive segments indulge in getting their female leads topless it’s not a huge leap to think that the filmmakers are taking as much advantage as their characters are.

Also of note, in all of the segments with female nudity also feature male protagonists whose attitudes range from “douchebag” to outright villainous. The Radio Silence segment is the only one that doesn’t deal with such male leads. In most of the other films, the men are presented as predators who get what’s coming to them. (But they were totally asking for it, amiright ladies?)

We’ve come a long way. It used to be that horror movies would punish the slutty girl for being sexually active. Now, it seems that the men get killed for their hormones, but not before they get an eyeful. (Or in some cases, a handful.)

I’ve seen interviews where the directors defend themselves against the accusation that the female nudity is gratuitous. Their position is that the point of the film is to punish these guys for their sleazy ways, not to celebrate them. Yeah, sure. You guys buy that, right? Maybe if it was a theme in one of the movies, but for five directors to arrive at that exact same message simultaneously? What’s more logical – that a quartet came up with the exact same feminist theme? Or that at least a few of these guys really just wanted some boobies in their short?

Oddly, if these works came from a female director, we could buy that as an intentional statement. But when men put forth that sort of feminist argument, it seems disingenuous. It sounds like some bullshit justification for the nudity. And if it’s not bull, then the message comes across as guys punishing themselves for their own sexual urges, as if they’re ashamed of or embarrassed by them.

Maybe I’m being unfair to some of these guys, many of whom were responsible for entertaining segments in the film. But when five out of six segments all tread on the same theme or very close to the same theme, what conclusion would you draw?

I'm glad to hear that S-VHS seemingly doesn't make this same mistake.  Since the reaction to this sequel almost certainly means that the producers are working on assembling their teams for a third installment, I'd like to issue a challenge to the V/H/S team.  For part three try to involve as many female directors as possible. Seeing six shorts from a group of male directors showcased some of the themes uppermost in their minds. It’d be interesting to see if there was a similar symmetry if the gender politics were completely skewed.

The script that made me want to recommend psychiatric help for the writer

Lence asks:

What's the best script you've ever read? 

I'm truly at a loss for this one.  It's one of those cases where I read so much that a lot of it tends to bleed together.  I don't know if you can really put a "best script ever" label on anything because there are a lot of different ways to write a GREAT script. Indeed, I've read a lot of scripts that I really liked, many that I was passionate about for different reasons - and yet, asked to single out one... I just can't.

And have you ever read a script so bad it almost made you angry to read? 

Frequently.  I recall one instance where the development VP I was reading for at the time kicked a script down to me and it was one of the most generic pieces of violent drek I'd seen in a while.  The writing style was trying WAY too hard to be cool.  (I'm pretty sure there was a lot of Shane Black-type "talking to the reader.")  It was very low-brow and B-movie like.  In fact, you could have almost convinced me it came in from a non-pro query.  I struggled to find anything original or inspiring about the script.  On top of that, most of the characters didn't even have proper names.

I hated it, and told the VP so.  Turns out, she'd read ten pages and hated it so much she kicked it down to me so she wouldn't have to read it.  After I explained my reaction to the script, she apparently called up the exec who sent it to her and in so many words said, "Dude! What the fuck?!"

The exec said that this script was about to go into production and that the writers were going to be "huge!"  VP and I roared with disbelief over that one.  But in the end, the writers had the last laugh as they've gone on to work steadily, working on at least one franchise.

In our defense, I know of some A-listers who weren't especially impressed with their writing either and had some of the same issues we did.

And then there was one of the most vile, misogynistic pieces of violent writing I had ever read.  It was perverted, disgusting and disturbing to such a level that the only reason I ended up with the script was that the (female) reader who had to cover the first submission of this script refused to read it again due to being the product of a sick mind.

She was right. I googled the writer.  He was a studio exec.

As much as that deserved a rimshot THAT WAS NOT A JOKE!

The coverage that script provoked was some of the most unvarnished coverage I ever had submitted to these bosses.  Some of my employers enjoy it when I take a more Simon Cowell-like approach to shredding the truly terrible scripts, others have preferred a more measured, even take on it.  The bosses for this submission were among the more buttoned-up, but in my write-up, I only barely restrained myself from suggesting psychiatric help for the submitter.

A few months later, the script was resubmitted.  I had to read it again.  The fucker barely had changed anything - and he certainly hadn't toned down the misogyny or the violence.  Or the misogynistic violence.  I made sure when I wrote the synopsis that I included every last instance of such.

I'll put it this way.  He made I Spit on Your Grave look like Mary Poppins.  So I tore him a new one, then emailed my boss's assistant and said, "Look, this concept is NEVER ever going to get a Consider from anyone.  If we take it again, we're wasting our time and the company's money."  As I understand it, the message was conveyed.  In spades.

A few weeks later, the writer attempted to submit again.  He was unsuccessful.

I've probably written other scripts that were just as bad or worse, but few made me as violently angry at the writer as that.  Rarely have I ever felt I was looking into the mind of such a sick individual.

What do actresses want to see less of in the scripts they get?

I was out with some friends this past weekend and as it happened, the group included a couple of actresses who've done a fair number of supporting roles and guest roles between them.  So I asked, "What is it you'd like to see in scripts that you get?"

The answer: "Less victimization of women."  I know we've talked about this before on the blog - a lot - but it was interesting to see how immediately that response came from an actual working actress.  I knkow a small handful of actresses who get a decent amount of work in TV and it seems like they're perpetually cast as victims.  (For example, a few seasons ago, I had a friend get raped on two different shows.  And no, NEITHER of those shows was Law & Order: SVU.)

As the conversation continued, we discussed how the issue wasn't just writing women as victims, but that there's nothing to those roles beyond being victims.  It's not always an avoidable problem - on a procedural, most of the characters are going to end up defined by their function in the plot.  Still, if possible, one should try to put oneself in the shoes of the actor who's eventually going to have to say those lines.


If you're writing SVU, the formula demands that at least one rape victim a week - there's no way around that.  But how many different ways can you write that victim?  What's their backstory?  How do they react to the attack - do they fight back ferociously or do they try to bargain with their attacker?  Afterwards, when they talk to the cops, what's the underlying emotion as they tell their story - terror? bloodthirst to see the guy punished? Do they deny what happened?  If so, why? Where does that motivation come from?  Do they gloss over details that they think makes them look culpable?  Do they emphasize certain details because they are mad at the detectives for making them relive it?

There are so many different options and layers to play in a scene like that beyond "generic weeping rape victim who barely gets through her story before breaking down in tears."

See, for an SVU writer, that scene is just there to give Mariska Hargitay and her partner something to play against before they're off and running against the bad guy/Special Guest Star.  For the working actor who gets that part, it's a part they had to fight against a few dozen other actors to get and it might be the only work that they have for months.  They might only have a three-page scene (or possibly less), but they're going to stare at those words - your words - and struggle to find a way to make them real.  Even if the character's job is to blend in, the actor can't do that if there's no sense of reality.

So think about it from their side of things and give them something to play.  And hey, if that means you can make your female victims more multidimensional, so much the better.

Psych 101 with scripts

I'm cheating a bit here, but there was a comment that came up in the discussion of the rape scene in The Last House on the Left. I responded there, but realized that given the age of the post, it's likely to go unnoticed.

Mr. Main Event asks:

I wonder if you, Bitter, have ever encountered a script where you seriously questioned the mental capacity of the writer? Have you ever read a script and thought, "this could be the next Eric Red" (http://www.hollywoodinterrupted.com/archives/seeing_red.phtml). I recently had an experience like that reading a script about (I'm not sure what the rules are on here, so I won't say the name) a hospital for the criminally insane where the power goes out and the inmates brutalize the staff in the most grotesque ways possible. I checked the address on the cover page and was relieved to see that the writer didn't live anywhere near me . . .

Oh yes, there have been several scripts where I seriously questioned the mental capacity of the writer. One in particular sticks in my mind and it was one of the most vile, reprehensible pieces of writing I had ever been subjected to. There are plenty of times I'm reading a disturbing scene and think "This guy has issues," but this is one of the few times I legitimately felt like I was getting a glimpse into the psyche of a truly sick individual.

And when we readers get something that loathsome, do you think we Google the writer and the script? You bet your ass we do!

Imagine my shock when this script - which makes the collective works of Eli Roth look like Care Bears: The Movie and was full of so much misogyny that it made female circumcision look like a bikini wax by comparison - was a Nicholl Fellowship Quarterfinalist!

This why when someone counters a bad review of mine by saying their script was a finalist in a contest, I don't give a shit. There's a reason that few Nicholls-winning scripts have actually been produced.Now maybe the year in question happened to be a pretty weak year for Nicholls submissions... but still, this was such utter sleaze that the script deserved to be burned after the first read and the ashes returned to the writer as a warning not to put pen to paper ever again.

Am I being too harsh?

(Yeah, it might be bad form to recycle comments as a new post, but I'm sure most of you have a half day, so consider this a half-post.)

Misogynistic violence against women

This is one of those things that is hard to describe, but you definitely know it when you see it. My “best” example of such a scene was one scene where a woman met her end by being sliced in half lengthwise, starting at her genitals. If it wouldn’t get me sued, I’d describe that whole sequence in detail just to put in context how truly nasty some scenes can be. Rape scenes are also walking a fine line. It’s possible to handle them tastefully, but I’ve read a few where it’s felt like the rapist is standing in for the writer’s own fantasies – the kind of scene that after you read, you need to take a shower to wash the dirt away.

After more than five years as a reader, I now know far too many ways to mutilate, subjugate and sexually degrade a woman. I’m by no means a feminist, and there are plenty of instances where I’ve read an act of violence committed upon a female character and haven’t raised an eyebrow at it. Don’t misunderstand me – I’m not saying you should never hurt, injure or kill your female characters. That would be equally sexist. The problem sets in when it feels like the victimizer in the scene is a stand-in for the writer’s own sick desires.

This is one of those subliminal things that’s hard to point out without using specific examples, and unfortunately, to show the worst/best examples of such writing would likely get me sued. As blurry as the line gets, it most frequently gets crossed when some sort of sexual element is added to it. A scene where a woman is stabbed and her throat is slashed probably wouldn’t set of any alarms – but a scene where a woman is stabbed, then raped as the attacker takes obvious glee in her pain is going to be more repulsive.

Any creative attacks upon the vagina are also likely to trigger this response. Rape is a hot button for a lot of people, and doubtlessly there will be stories where such an act will serve the plot. (The Accused and A Time To Kill immediately spring to mind.) If you’re just trying to write a “fun” slasher film, I’d be careful about adding rape in there. If you’re writing torture porn, then you’re just a sick son of a bitch and there’s probably no saving you.

Yeah, I said it. I get the impression that torture porn gets bought less on the strength of its script and more on the cynical view of, “Well, this can probably make money in this market.” It seems like that genre is on its way out, and I for one couldn’t be happier. I don’t recommend writing it, but I don’t think too many readers like those scripts either, so you really don’t have anything to lose.

And don’t take it personally if agents, producers and managers who read the script think that there’s something strange about it. Readers often fancy themselves dimestore analysts, and we tend to think that a sick script is the product of a sick mind.