The Headless Women of Hollywood

[GwenRaiden]

[article via A.V. CLUB]

If there is one seemingly iron-clad rule in movie marketing it’s this: Whenever possible, avoid showing a woman’s entire face on a movie poster. It’s okay to reduce her to legs, lips, or a torso. But if a woman’s eyes, nose, and mouth are all visible simultaneously, people might get the impression that that she’s an individual and not an interchangeable sex object.

New York comic Marcia Belsky started noticing this disturbing trend appearing in way, way too many movie posters, so about a month ago, she started an entire Tumblr about the topic called The Headless Women Of Hollywood. She also has a companion Twitter account about the same thing. The message of the project, says Belsky, is simple: “WE WANT HEADS!” How can gender equality ever be achieved in movies if women are being chopped up for spare parts in the ads? The cliché of decapitating and therefore dehumanizing women in movie marketing is so common that people may not even notice it, so Belsky has plenty of ammunition for her Tumblr account, for which she also takes reader submissions.

The trend is nothing new. As far back as 1967, The Graduate was memorably advertised with a picture of (presumably) Anne Bancroft’s right leg (it was actually Linda Gray’s):



Viewers might associate the “headless women” trope with more recent sex comedies, and that happens a lot, too:



But the cliché is so common, so all-pervasive, it even turns up in the marketing campaigns for CGI animated films aimed at young children:



Belsky recently discussed the project with writer Kathryn Lindsay in a Hello Gigglesarticle. “What mostly inspired the project was a combination of things I learned in school about the consistent fragmentation and objectification of women’s bodies,” Belksy told Lindsay, “and then the frustration of still seeing these images of headless women everywhere.” Maybe by drawing the public’s attention to this cliché, Belsky can put a stop to it. For now, though, it’s such a pervasive advertising meme that even Hollywood’s most famous, recognizable actresses are not immune. Sorry, Scarlett Johansson.



Tumblr account to have a look for yourself: The Headless Women of Hollywood​

Ew, gross. Once you see it you can't unsee it.

 

[white avenger]

Maye

New York comic Marcia Belsky started noticing this disturbing trend appearing in way, way too many movie posters,

Maybe she was just looking at the wrong movie posters.

There are a whole lot more, but I think that the point is made.

 

[Buffy Summers]

 

[Athena]

I read that article too, but I think movie posters are different depending on the country. I don't know if the examples listed above are US posters, or UK posters, but marketing is very country specific.

That's not to say I agree with it. I think it's disgraceful, but I don't think it's a consistent problem, as @white avenger has shown, there are plenty of examples where women are featured fully....

I also think it depends on the role of the woman in the movie. I doubt any of those headless women poster movies have passed the Bechdel test....

 

[Skanky Vamp]

 

[Blaze]

I just love taking all of those posters, and picturing guys instead. I want guys to take all of those poses.

 

[Fuffy Baith]

I think it depends on what the marketers are trying to sell. If the movie is about sex then that's what they try to sell on the posters and sadly is not necessary to show full faces. There are plenty of posters with full body or full face women, but those movies have little or nothing to do with sex.

 

[Xin Rong]

Show me a poster from the last 2 years that has a female lead without her face and I might be convinced? Personally, I'd argue about the lack of female leads not their representation in posters that have male leads.
 

I just love taking all of those posters, and picturing guys instead. I want guys to take all of those poses.

I agree with the sentiment, but aren't males more objectified by their fronts, i.e. crotch and chest?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Show me a poster from the last 2 years that has a female lead without her face and I might be convinced?

http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/gravity-poster.jpg

 

[Xin Rong]

http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/gravity-poster.jpg

On a technical level yes, but that's not demoting females in anyway, it's purely to emphasise the theme of the film, she's not been sexualised in anyway - that poster just shows the plot of the film.

In fact, given SB's general role in films, you could argue that by not showcasing her face, they are promoting the plot and point of the film rather than attracting the rom-com lovers of Bullock - there's no sexist ulterior motive in my opinion
 
Y

On a technical level yes, but that's not demoting females in anyway, it's purely to emphasise the theme of the film, she's not been sexualised in anyway - that poster just shows the plot of the film.

In fact, given SB's general role in films, you could argue that by not showcasing her face, they are promoting the plot and point of the film rather than attracting the rom-com lovers of Bullock - there's no sexist ulterior motive in my opinion

p.s. Where's George Clooney?

 

[GwenRaiden]

All recent. With female leads.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Kristen Stewart?

 

[ILLYRIAN]

Well lets see, a lot of photographers that do the photographs for film posters are thick. They don't have the understanding of how to make a photograph seem effective. If you take a photograph of a persons head face on, a lot of lighting of various strengths needs to be used, otherwise the image can appear very flat and the actress becomes unrecognisable. A photograph from the side gives dimensions plus you can recognise people.
So many film posters don't show a person head.
IE the film posters for The Last Song (reply #2), or One Million Years BC (reply #2) are crap.
If the photographer understands how to complete a head on photograph effectively you get Maleficent (reply #2).
Buffy The Vampire Slayer the whole marketing department just seemed a bit thick. Buffy was said to know a vampire was near when she got a pain similar to a period pain, at least that why I think such a stupid poster was made. But it is a pathetic poster.
Why would Hollywood want to do film posters that make women as sex objects, given they are made in America I'm surprised not to see big black lines across a woman's chest and hips.
Then there is the other problem, the people who okay those posters were blessed with an over-abundance of intelligence, but not common sense related to decency.

 

[Blaze]

I agree with the sentiment, but aren't males more objectified by their fronts, i.e. crotch and chest?

I've never really seen male leads be objectified for their crotch area (unless there's nudity in the movie). I do think males get objectified, but in a different way. Sure, you get movies like Twilight where Jacob prances around shirtless for 90% of the screen time he gets, but as a whole, if you have a male poster they will usually show his whole body and essentially display how "strong" they are. Men are made out to be really cool and badass, women are usually made out to be sex objects. Essentially girls have to be those little fragile things with a nice butt and a big chest.

Although I agree with you, the bigger problem is about female leads in general, or the lack of. And the sexism that comes along with having a female lead (you just have to go see the imdb forum for Rogue One, you wouldn't believe the amount of sexism there).

 

[Skanky Vamp]

(you just have to go see the imdb forum for Rogue One, you wouldn't believe the amount of sexism there).

I agree, but in fairness the sexism only came after Lucas left the company in charge of a woman. The last two movies the women have been the leads because they are wanting to prove a point. As Kennedy said: we need more powerful women in the stories. So yeah, it is sexism. They are discriminating against men. It's not fair. The roles should be written for the best actor not automatically given to a woman.

 

[Blaze]

I agree, but in fairness the sexism only came after Lucas left the company in charge of a woman. The last two movies the women have been the leads because they are wanting to prove a point. As Kennedy said: we need more powerful women in the stories. So yeah, it is sexism. They are discriminating against men. It's not fair. The roles should be written for the best actor not automatically given to a woman.

I'm not sure I see the problem? When they wrote the role of Luke, and the role of Han, and Lea, all those roles were written for a specific gender. And no one complained about it. But now because they are writing a female lead it's a problem? I love when people get butt hurt over having two action movies in a row with female leads, then they love to pull out the card of "oh it just makes more sense to have a guy in the role" or "it's being sexist towards guys now". I don't think it's discriminatory to want to have a female lead. Simply because of the fact that women in action movie leads are a minority, and that is why there is the need to have roles specifically written for them. Everyone likes to say "this person was the most suited for the role, so clearly it's fine" if males are cast (or for that matter white actors are cast when it should be a POC). No it's not fine, with all of the actors out there, you can find your "best actor" and still have a POC, or a woman, that is suited for the role. Yes, sexism can affect all genders, but when it comes to movie, there really isn't a whole lot of discrimination against men when it comes to casting. Not only that, but people are going crazy over having a woman lead saying it should be a man, when in reality, yes, maybe the women WAS the most suited for the role. The movie hasn't even been out yet, and it's getting all this backlash. A backlash that is never present when a male is in the lead (note that this is said about all movies with strong female leads, people complained that Mad Max was just some feminist agenda movie too).