Directed by Amy Heckerling
Barbican Comic Forum
00000000 / Kraken
What makes a film feminist?
I’m trying my best to be the best feminist that a guy can be – but I’m guessing most of the time I’m getting it wrong. (Maybe I ask too many questions?) I mean – shit: how about we start right with the basics and go – what’s the best way to define “feminism”? (Like you know: maybe we’re all talking about different things?)
(Hmmm: I wonder who it is who decides what words mean?)
Tai: What’s a Monet?
If pressed I guess I’d say something about how for me feminism is the belief that people shouldn’t be discriminated against on the basis of their gender. That everyone is entitled to fair and equal treatment just because – well: it’s nice and it makes things better for everyone. Also: our society is a patriarchy which means that mostly men hold all the power and are considered the default and woman are not: which is obviously pretty dumb and unhealthy for everyone involved.
(Gotta say: I actually think it’s pretty fucked up that I even have to say this because – honestly – apart from maybe a small minority of wackos – isn’t this what everyone wants? A world that’s fair and just and everyone just getting along peacefully in a fun and cool way? No?).
But I guess even if we can all agree on this calm tranquil piece of water – it doesn’t take long before we start hitting the rapids…
Murray: Okay, but, street slang is an increasingly valid form of expression. Most of the feminine pronouns do have mocking, but not necessarily in misogynistic undertones.
I mean the first definition that comes up when I googled the definition of feminism is “the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes” and you know – just reading that I can feel my mind start to itch trying to unpack what “equality” is supposed to mean and what’s the best way to implement it… I mean: sex and gender are there because there are differences (Men are like this – but women are like this“) so: what’s the best way to be equal when you’re dealing with things that are different? If (in the main) men are stronger than women then is it more equal to pretend that the difference isn’t there or more equal to acknowledge it? If (in the main) women can have babies and men can’t – then is it more equal to get men to have babies or to stop women having babies or something inbetween or what? I mean: that’s obviously crazy right? With babies – it’s just a thing we have to accept because that’s just how the world is – that’s just natural. But then erm: where does “natural” end and “society” begin? (And probably different people are going to think different things about that – right?).
Which well: brings us to the thought that actually – maybe gender is just a made-up thing anyway? A social construct that we’ve all been indoctrinated to believe in and that’s seeped through into how we see the world and ourselves.
Cher: You see how picky I am about my shoes and they only go on my feet.
But wait – I’m supposed to be talking about Clueless right? Sorry. You know: it’s just everything just gets complicated the more you look at it and like I said: I ask too many questions…
Anyways: what makes a film feminist?
Again just so we’re like totally clear: I want this Film Club to be as inclusive as possible. And I would love to be able to say that it’s feminist (or at least has a feminist streak going through it): but the thing I’m kinda confused / kinda worried about is: what’s the best way to make that happen? Because you know: there’s a whole bunch of different considerations to make – and they kinda conflict with each other (just a tad)….
1. Talking about films that people already know
I don’t think that this has got to the point where people are going to go out and watch a film they haven’t heard about before just because we’re doing it. So in order to make sure that people can all join in – it feels like it makes sense to talk about films that are already pretty well known and most people have seen (I mean shoot: even Cloverfield felt like a risk and you know: that’s not actually arthouse or anything). Altho – kinda wanna balance that with not just doing films which are all just incredibly obvious so…
2. Talking about films that actually have enough things going on to talk about
I know this might seem a little overly harsh – but basically I’m not sure that all films are created equal / that every film is equally worthy of discussion. And it’s not even about the film being “good” or “bad.” I mean: there’s lots of great films that are out there that don’t really lead themselves to in-depth conversations and there’s a few terrible terrible terrible films that I feel like I could probably talk about for days. So you know – that’s a whole thing.
3. Talking about different types of films
I mean: there’s part of me that just wants to do 80s sci-fi for everything. But that kinda seems like it wouldn’t really be the best. So you know: I wanna try and make sure we’re doing different types of films in different styles in different genres you know?
Also yes: Full disclosure: I wanna have some fun doing this. So you know – that’s also a consideration too. Altho that doesn’t mean that every film is a film that I’m a massive passionate fan of (I’m looking at you Dark Knight). And it’s also something I have to try and fight against so we’re not just doing 80s science-fiction for everything….
Cher: So I figure these grades are just a jumping off point to start negotiations.
So yeah: is it possible for us to talk about feminist films and still hit those things above? Well I mean – I guess it all depends on what makes a film feminist – no? I mean – is it just a matter of having female characters? Or what those female characters talk about? Or is that the main character should be female? Or that she should also be a positive role model? Or that she should expose feminist ideology? Or actually – is it just a matter of having a female director?
And the thing that makes it difficult is that (as mentioned before) is that we live in a patriarchy and so all of our film culture (not to mention everything else) skews really heavily male: in ways that I’m sure all of you are already completely aware of. I mean shit: so far in the Film Club we’ve done 5 films and in 4 of them pretty much the only female characters were nothing more than just “girlfriend.” Which I know doesn’t really cover me in glory for picking them but hey – in terms of mainstream films: that’s kinda how they all tend to work. Which leads me to my angsty-struggle which is basically – what’s the best way to react to this? The system and the products are profoundly lob-sided and unequal and sub-optimal. But it doesn’t seem like there’s any move to make in retaliation that will – you know – mitigate its effects. Like: if you take a stand and say: ok so we should only discuss films that aren’t steeped in patriarchal nonsense then you’re not really going to able to talk about the massive majority of all films ever made: which I don’t know (does this make me a bad feminist?) seems a little like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Yes. Our culture (and cultural history) is massively flawed and based upon unearned privilege and systematic oppression – but is the best way to deal with it by pretending it doesn’t exist? I mean: it feels a little (a lot) like there are no real good options.If you only talk about the stuff that’s ideologically pure and morally good then there’s not really all that much stuff to talk about. But – by the same token – if you do talk about the bad stuff (however critical you may be): you’re still helping to support and cement these things in people’s minds. To which I can only say: booooooo.
(Maybe there are no good options?).
Cher: What’s the point? Everywhere you go has valet.
In case it’s not already completely obvious – I choose Clueless because I wanted to make sure that the Film Club was being cool and diverse and open to all and getting some of that feminist dollar or whatever. But here’s the question that’s been bouncing around my brain like a kitten on a pogo-stick: is Clueless a feminist film?
It’s very definitely a good film. Which you know is rarer than you’d think. Like watching something like The Dark Knight there’s so many bits that don’t quite work or feel clunky or whatever: like you’re riding a car that has square wheels. But oh my god – Clueless is just effortless you know? Every part of it just works like a Rube Goldberg machine made of light. The acting. The dialogue. The plot. The camera-work. The editing. All of it. All of it is just a joy. (Is it weird if I say that actually – in terms of how it zips along with pin-sharp editing, the endlessly quotable lines, the pleasantly meandering plot, the obsession with the pleasures of the American Dream superficial / materialistic life and Alicia Silverstone’s straight to the point voiceover leading you along every step of the way that the film it most reminded me of was Goodfellas? And you know I mean that as a compliment right?)
Cher: This is where Dionne lives. She’s my friend because we both know what it’s like for people to be jealous of us.
And hey yeah: female director (Amy Heckerling!) female main character, female supporting characters and based on a book by a female author called (checks notes) Jane Austen. So yeah – you know: all to the good. 🙂
But does that make it feminist?
Because once again: I’m full of questions. Like – is a movie where the main character is pretty much only obsessed with what type of outfit to wear and finding a boyfriend something that should be lauded or rejected? Or is that like a way too harsh and serious approach for something so frothy and fun? Because yeah shit: I know I know – there’s even a problem with my whole approach / the nature of the enterprise. To wit: why am I only bringing all this stuff up now that we’re talking about Clueless? Like: we could had discussed feminism and films whilst doing the Dark Knight and got into a whole thing about why Katie Holmes Maggie Gyllenhaal was fridged by Chris Nolan or why Rob went to go and save Beth in Cloverfield instead of the other way round and etc and etc (altho hey: we did do pretty well talking about Back to the Future Part II so I guess that’s something?) but instead no – it’s the “women film” so we’re talking about “women stuff” which honestly makes me feel a little bit disappointed in myself so yeah: because – why couldn’t it just be a discussion about all the ways that Clueless works without me getting into all this stuff? Like: maybe it would be healthy and more normalising to treat Clueless just as a film on its own merits without getting into all this stuff that I’ve gotten into? And actually maybe it’s part of the problem to hold it up like this and go “ah – but does this set a good example to women?” or whatever. Because fuck – does Batman set a good example to men?
Like: maybe the most feminist films are just the films that are most fun for women to watch?
Cher: Christian had a thing for Tony Curtis so he brought over “Some Like it Hot” and “Sporadicus”.
But whoops: here’s my angst about that (and maybe the thing at root of everything I’ve written) is that – hey: maybe because Clueless is so very much Clueless and doing all the things it does – maybe it’s a film that really hard for me to write about?
Like: I’m big into philosophical science-fiction type stuff which means (looks at my DVD shelf): I’m obviously pretty well catered to. And because of the type of person I am: that’s the type of film that I love to talk about the most. You know: how did the time-travel really work in that and I wonder what kind of spaceship that was and what would life be like in that alien society and etc. But fashionable clothes and boys aren’t really things that I’m the best at discussing at length (and hmmmm: could it be that our patriarchal society has placed a value on the “man stuff” and decided it’s just more serious and worth thinking about than the “woman stuff” that is considered to be more frivolous and silly? Could be. Could be….). But now that I’ve been suckered into this way of thought: how do I get out? Or – is it just not possible?
And here’s the big question: maybe the most feminist films would be ones that I wouldn’t even want to watch / would make no sense to me? Like maybe the only reason I like the films I like it because they cater to my gender and my point of view? And a truly feminist film would be one that didn’t cater to me and one that I didn’t even understand. Which you know is a thought that makes me feel sad and exciting at the same time. 🙂
Or you know: maybe I’m just… Clueless?
What do you think?
Rewatching this it was pointed out how much Radiohead is in the film, but specifically The Bends. Obviously this is a contemporary soundtrack but I think it betrays the secret attitude of the movie – drenched in disgust for phoniness while recognising it is also part of the same horrifying pantomime.
These John Hughes movies are revered now but with all of those and 90210 and Sweet Valley High and countless other clones’ suffocating view of teenage angst, it’s easy to forget this film is fairly subversive. Of course not Sex Pistols subversive, since it’s written well enough that you can get through the whole thing siding with Cher and thinking she’s just a plucky young girl.
When I was a student my flat mates and I watched Neighbours every day, and what we longed for was a Too Many Cooks style awakening. What if Toadfish just went full Shining? Well we know what, because we also watched The Simpsons and they have an actual episode where that happens. And indeed, it’s also against California state law to talk about Clueless without mentioning Heathers, which does a similar sort of thing.
Alicia Silverstone is achingly cute in this film, but Cher is almost horror movie levels of evil. The wedding at the end was entirely orchestrated by her, and why? Because she cares about the two teachers? No, she wanted better grades, and so she had these two people dancing like puppets to her tune. And everyone knew it, and this was all fine – hahaha everything that matters to you is for the entertainment of a millionaire child, now dance for us. Her dad even compliments her on how well she manipulated people, including countless adults (she’s 16). We should also note she completely remakes one of her friends in to her own image on a whim. She is Frankenstein meets Moriarty. This film came out in the same year as Usual Suspects, which I put to the jury is the spiritual sibling to Clueless.
Of course from a feminist point of view it makes the message a little weird. If the message is that these stories are preposterous then it sort of works, but the actually story is that when Cher tries to be clever, to use her wits, to wrangle the will of her friends and teachers then she comes unstuck. It’s only when she follows her heart and lets a man take charge (it’s her brother(!) who instigates the relationship afterall not her) that she finds contentment. But would you say the same thing to MacGyver? No, you’d expect him to make a machine gun out of some soup cans and an old bra, before running down the bad guy, and leave him hanging by his ankles from a 4th floor window. He wouldn’t just surrender himself to fate. But Cher is a women and as we know calculating women are bad, bad for others and for themselves. But it would have been cool if at the end Cher had gone full Shining, is all I’m saying – although I guess that’s Carrie.
Same for her friends. The lesson we learn from Dionne is that she needed to stop telling her man what to do, and realise that men are just better at driving. Once she had accepted that simple fact of nature she found the happiness* she was looking for. (*cock – I’m not being explicit, that was the pay off from the Freeway scene)
But let’s give the film a break and get back to Radiohead. The soundtrack is pretty good. As someone who was 15 when this film came out, this was part of the 5 years where I “knew” about music (whereas Kanye West and Beyoncé could walk past right now and I wouldn’t recognise them) and whoever chose the music was worth every damn penny. At some point the intro to My Iron Lung accompanies a transition and it’s just a reminder of the bleak, lead petrol fumed, Just Say No, Thatcher/Reagan’s children hopelessness of the mid-nineties. Like all music at that time it’s almost too on the nose and so the fleeting cameo, like the references to coke, the gunpoint mugging, the attempted date rape, the white collar corruption, the teenagers going to AA, the incest! is just part of the slightly off wallpaper choices made by the movie – The slender man out-of-focus in the background. Again unlike Heathers which screams at us to wake up, Clueless just gives a conspiratorial wink and moves on.
That’s why it doesn’t need an axe-murderer, because it recognises that, just out of frame, all this other stuff is happening. The school debates are a nice nod to the script actually screaming to have a proper discussion but forced to be ventriloquised through these beautiful clueless idiots.
Joel’s long tirade got me to google feminist films which brought up this recent list from Time Out. Now I haven’t watched all 100 movies on there, but you can deffo raise question marks about some inclusions e.g. All About Eve being on there despite its explicit defence of marriage and implicit homophobia. That film has become part of the feminist canon despite itself, because Bette Davis’s charisma as Margot overcomes the fetters her character is put under. She gives the impression of freedom despite actually being constrained in her choices, and rather conservative in her preferences. Meanwhile the filmmakers do their very best to demonise women with actual ambition.
I guess the example proves the obvious point that there are many ways that a film can be described as ‘feminist’, just as there is quite a lot of disagreement between different feminists. You can’t even look at the intentions of the filmmakers. In All About Eve’s case, the audience have turns what is an anti-feminist film into a feminist one.
Clueless is tricky because it treads the line between having an assertive female character and have that character make mistakes. It also treads the line between presenting (let’s not say reinforcing) typical gendered behaviour and passing comment on it. How feminist it is depends on which side of the line you prefer to emphasise.
Another way of asking these questions is to ask whether the film condescends to Cher. I would say that other characters do, but the film doesn’t. Cher is smarter than the stereotype of the rich, white, superficial teenager she embodies. Other characters mistake her for that stereotype, but the film makes her more interesting than that.
Which leads me to wonder whether what renders a story ‘feminist’ isn’t whether the women have agency, or whether they make mistakes, or whether it addresses issues that concern feminists (reproductive rights, equality in the workplace etc.), but the more general one of whether its characters have enough depth to them to go beyond the stereotypes that we would initially use to understand them. That would make feminism in film simply a matter of good characterisation. You could go as far as to say that all good films are feminist films.
Hey there guys,
Recently, for some masochistic reason, I did a Jane Austen book club, and we re-read Emma, which Clueless is based on. When I watched Clueless this time – which was my favourite film when I was about 14 – it was pretty unsettling that the feminism in it, which is fundamentally Cher’s wilful, idiosyncratic, sparky autonomy, was exactly the same as Emma Woodhouse’s in Emma. Which is to say that yeah, the film presents a charismatic heroine with real agency (the entire film rests on Cher’s agency i.e. her ‘projects’), but that’s exactly what Austen does back in the day. There’s nothing Cher’s got that Emma hasn’t. So nothing’s changed in 180 years.
I’ve been racking my brains to think of one way in which Cher is “more feminist”, or has more agency or freedom, than Emma Woodhouse did in 1815, but can’t think of any. Austen’s Emma was just as disdainful of men and as disinterested in having a boyfriend – she wanted to be single (until she realised, at long last, that she was in love with her sister’s husband’s brother Mr. Knightley, who no doubt would have been sporting an Amnesty t-shirt, listening to Radiohead and reading Nietzsche if he were around in the ’90s. the 1990s, I mean). She’s the lynchpin at home, looking after her dad in the same way Cher fusses over hers, though the dads are very different characters – Mel Horowitz is a grumpy old man, whereas Mr. Woodhouse is a grumpy old woman, kinda. Anyway, in all her schemes, Emma’s as dominating and authoritative (and manipulative) as Cher.
Also, because Emma is rich, she’s actually sort of free – I mean, problematically so, but that’s a whole other thing – in any case, Austen shows it’s possible to be an independent(ish) woman who makes a mark on their world in 1815 if you’re a woman of means. And so what’s changed 180 years later? Fuck all. I’m even tempted to say, therefore, that Clueless is a film about white woman privilege. It’s true that we have Dionne (Stacey Dash, who just dropped out of the running for a southern California congressional seat btw) as her seemingly equally rich WOC best friend, but then again, Horowitz’s maid is from El Salvador – so if race privilege is a tiny bit more complex in Clueless, class privilege is just as present in Heckerling’s ’90s California, easing Cher’s way through life, as it was in Austen’s 1815 Highbury.
What’s more disappointing than that, though I still love the film, is that just like back in 1815, when the best you could hope for in life was a good marriage, Clueless ends up also being – as Joel said – all about finding yourself a husband. Which is first of all plain ridiculous, because Cher’s sixteen – SIXTEEN! Do not get married, dude! Even to Paul Rudd! And so it’s insane that at the end of the film everyone is matched up and talking about weddings (the boyfriends laughing, henpecked and dutiful already) – the oldest of them is maybe twenty. What about college? What about not fucking making the whole film lead up towards that scene where Cher claws and elbows everyone out of the way to catch the bouquet? Arhghghghg. As I said, we haven’t moved on from 1815. Adding insult to injury is the fact that the lesbian character, who’s already a cringe cliché, is the only one who turns up to the wedding alone, but then they have her scrambling for the bouquet along with everyone else, because no-one, not even the solitary lesbian, can transgress the film’s ultimate mind-boggling conventionality.
But maybe that’s the problem of translating a classic text. If you follow it loyally, which Amy Heckerling has done, even if you put a magnificent update on it, maybe you’re still condemned to see it through, so you can get that neat, satisfying ending Jane Austen got (i.e. everyone ends up with the ‘right’ person, closure is achieved). You can’t have Cher end up single and suddenly going to Berkeley – inspired by her dad and Josh to do a Legally Blonde – when you’re following the Austen model. And honestly, as much as I too would fall in love with Paul Rudd if he were flannel shirting it all over my mansion, I think this is pretty disappointing. Way more so than the characters’ obsession with makeovers, their terror of fat and their love of clothes (though those are shit, too, though presented in a charming way – in fact, a few months ago I was excitingly at the very spot in north Hollywood where Cher gets robbed and I just wanted to act out the whole scene in homage – “You don’t understand, this is an Alaia!” ). But all charm aside, what’s insurmountably sad about Clueless is that it tells you happiness requires some dude, and the sole point of your life – your only horizon – should be to go and chase after him. Women have been taught this forever, and it’s getting old.
All that said, I do love the update of Henry Crawford in Emma, the rake who Emma has a massive crush on and who endlessly rebuffs her, being gay Christian in Clueless – that’s a really smart spin on it and makes a lot of sense. (In Emma, Henry has a secret relationship with another woman while sort of courting Emma – Heckerling’s update works well). And Tai (RIP Brittany Murphy) is a genius update of Emma’s, er, clueless protegée, Harriet Smith, just as Travis Birkenstock (lol) is a great twist on the original love interest, Robert Martin, who’s a steady farmer type Emma feels is too plodding and basic for her Frankensteined Harriet. And yeah, Elton is the perfect Mr. Elton, too – creepy, vain, lame, gets her alone so he can jump on her – and he ends up with Amber, who is as bitchy and annoying as Mrs Elton is in the book. In fact, there’s a lot to be said for Clueless being the best Austen adaptation out there; they should have let it be a six-hour series and done it properly. It’s a joy.
I guess this means you can love a film and still find it massively disappointing. Trying to think of a really good feminist film and struggling. Maybe Lukas Moodysson’s We Are The Best? And Celine & Julie Go Boating. There’s gotta be more…
I’ve changed my mind again.
(And will probably change it again once more by the time I’ve finished writing this so yeah you know – be warned).
Like: maybe Clueless is a feminist movie because it doesn’t feel like it needs to say or do anything particular radical? Come the revolution and we’re all living in a post-gender full automated communist utopia Clueless feels like a film that it would still be ok to enjoy – no? (Like say All About Eve?)
I mean: I know that I’m the one that started us all off down this path in the first place but maybe the awful reality is that the perfect feminist film doesn’t exist and (uh oh) maybe if it did – it wouldn’t be all that fun to watch? Like maybe this is totally wrong-headed but I remember having quite a long and passionate conversation with a friend a few years back about what a proper Marxist film would look like (I know I know – we’re a right bundle of laughs) And in the end it was like: well – it’s not really possible / everything is a trap. Like: if you end with a scene of communist revolution then doesn’t that just leave the audience satisfied and docile? And if you show the triumph of Capital or whatever then isn’t that even worse? Point being: maybe films/stories aren’t the best way to espouse political ideologies? Or a better way to put it maybe: if Clueless isn’t feminist then what would a feminist Clueless look like?
Alicia Silverstone doing a Roger “Verbal” Kint as she walks away from the wedding? (“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that these shoes match this outfit” or whatever).
Also: random thought I haven’t read Emma (I’m a terrible person I know I know): but instead of it being a damning indictment that Cher’s wilful, idiosyncratic, sparky autonomy is exactly the same as Emma Woodhouse’s – isn’t it also possible that maybe the opposite is also true? That even back in time when there was so much oppression and terrible everything: that a few people could rise slightly above it to the point where they could express themselves and live a normal unencumbered life? (Altho – I guess this only gets to happen to you if you’re rich).
Given feminism isn’t homogenous, I’m not sure the act of classifying films is that useful but thinking about different conditions is.
If you’re making them, there’s some simple principles about diversity behind and in front of the camera that I think make the work more interesting, are morally right and line up with not discriminating against others. So those seem like nice wins. These are along other dimensions than gender, and I think are sensible, and not creatively limiting. You can for example write about single sex environments if you really want to, but that doesn’t mean your DP needs to be a dude. If you’re running a production, that seems to be a good practical approach outside of analysis. It gives a wider range of opportunities to more people which seems a pretty good idea. I think that’s quite political in practical terms, independent of ideology. Well, I mean its driven by ideology just in disguise.
Jessica Jones on Netfllix is pretty feminist I think.
In terms of what we see on screen: Clueless is about teenagers. What do actual teenagers have agency and power over? Relationships. That’s why we have Spider-Man (for boys. Mary Jane is of course, the gf. She might even get fridged later, which is a nice treat) To some extent their lives and future – I don’t think that’s totally precluded in this. I suspect Cher will go to college, given her wealth and intelligence.
She cares about more traditionally female-coded things but so what?. Seeing those things as fripperies/less important is really interesting – consider Twilight v Transformers. One certainly gets more critical slamming than the other. It’s OK to make films about love and marriage – I don’t think it completely excludes all those other options but maybe the source material overly constrains it.
I like it because it is so light – and damn, is it funny and tightly written. That lightness is a political choice – particularly in how her flaws are portrayed.
What do flawed women in movies do? First up, they get to be the lead. That’s a good start. Lots of lines too.
Did you know that when women speak half the time
Can she care about being beautiful? Yes. Because doing that is shitloads of work and it’s nice to acknowledge that. Making it look invisible? Oh me, oh my, how tedious, how time consuming.” I don’t mean to sound like a raging feminist but when I think about all the time we spend….but guys fall out of bed, put on a backwards baseball cap and expect us to swoon.”
Can she care about sex? Totally. Especially wanting to wait.
Is caring about sex or appearance or relationships her flaw? Or being girly? No. That’s absolutely not her flaw. All teenagers care about those things but it varies how much they’re allowed to express that. 90s me by the way wouldn’t have been able to argue this. I would have been Josh’s date.(The secret is that’s internalised misognyny)
Selfishness is a flaw. And oh, look, this is what the film is about.
Is she a horror movie monster? No. She’s a slightly flawed rich film protagonist who is a bit Clueless. Because she’s 15. So she says sorry and makes amends.
And why this movie is great, is that Josh who lies around performatively reading Nietzche! Listening to Radiohead. And the film knows he is both right and sanctimonious. Josh’s flaw is dismissing her based on appearances. It’s not about her being wrong and him being right, but them both being wrong. You know. Like all the greatest romantic comedies where both people have to grow and change to get together. Like actual love.
Now, where are the new really great romantic comedies?
And some data….
This is interesting – women aren’t seen or heard in film. This would be a fucking good place to start to make things more feminist.
It’s more TV-focused but huh, the answer seems to be “HIRE WOMEN”*
*won’t bring down capitalism**
**does giving everyone a seat at the table help if you hate the table?
This post was created by our Film Club email list.
If you’d like to join the conversation send an email marked “Film Club” to here.