Adventure #23: You've Been Sexed!

This past year, I have been informally studying the differences between art created by men and women. And honestly, there is a difference significant enough that I have been able to blindly tell the sex of the screenwriter or playwright when I’m watching a film or play.

In general, the male focus deals with the actual problem or the intellect behind the problem, rather than the feelings about the problem or rather than having the main complication being the feelings behind a problem, as is the common focus for females. Also, the male presentation of a story to an audience is directly presented, rather than indirectly or passively as with a female storyteller. Males present what is happening, while females project feelings. So, personally, this is a bit of a disconnect for me, since I tend to be drawn to the emotions of female art, though I am still male in the manner of my own writings.

Consequently, I feel that stories are best created by the sex of the story’s protagonist. My first awakening to the gendering behind the creation of art came winter of last year when I watched the 1995 film adaption of Sense and Sensibility. I was completely taken by the story and this production particularly and realized that perhaps it was so good—held true to itself and stable in its own right of portrayal; we often see art as “good” when we recognize its truth or, at least, the truth we understand—because the script was written by a woman (actress/screenwriter Emma Thompson won the Academy Award and Golden Globe for the screenplay). Further, the original story was penned by romance novelist Jane Austen. Both of these mediums, the script and novel, are written by women about women. Who better than a woman to know what it’s like to be a woman?

Try as some men do, they can never really know enough to best capture the female experience. Such experience cannot be envisioned through observation. Men and women’s biology are completely different, making their life experience and bodily reactions and functions separate from each other. There are too many hormonal, physiological, etc. differences that make it impossible for someone of the opposite sex to completely know what it is like to be that sex, whether socially, emotionally, or whatnot. Hence, I conclude that men are best suited making male stories and women female stories (and then we all should enjoy and respect them).

Granted, occasionally, stories of an opposite sex protagonist than its creator can come across well, but never do they completely escape the lens of their own sex. This appears the case with the Harry Potter series. At first, I was stumped at how the portrayal of the boy wizard was so catching when it was created by Jo Rowling, a woman, but then I thought back on the narration and realized a motherly attitude towards the protagonist. The narration comes from the perspective of a mother. The motherliness, of course, is not forward, but I can sense the care and concern of a mother behind the way the story is told. Perhaps, this is one reason why the books have been so endearing to the masses. They can subconsciously sense that motherly concern for the character, his friends, and his story and adopt that view and care, or they may find a comfort in the motherly sensory that is there. It makes sense, though. Rowling is a mother herself and was a poverty-stricken single mother concerned about her child’s welfare when the story came to her. Had the books been written by a man, the story would have been laid out with more ego: Harry would have been made to appear more heroic, wowza-boy, which may have been accepted, but can you see it being accepted much if that attitude came from a woman? The reason for this: a female would have been feigning masculine ego towards a boy. She would have more luck passing a feminine ego, like that of a mother. This may be bothersome to many feminists, but think about it. Would you have really accepted a story portrayal that does not come from truth? Harry Potter would have lost its charm. It works with its given narration of motherly concern and appreciation.

Other exploration I’ve had was watching 13 Going on 30 for the first time a year ago. The story is honest to a womanly experience, but I recognized humor that seemed male originated. After the movie, I discovered it was written by a woman and a man, Cathy Yuspa and Josh Goldsmith. My guess is that a woman came up with much of the storyline/situation and a man came along to add humor.

The Other Guys’ script ran like two males bantering. Yes, the entire movie is two males bantering, but the script apparently was written the same, since it is by two males, Adam McKay and Chris Henchy. Even further, the humor is very male, especially with the masculinity-questioning aspects of the police captain working a second job at Bed, Bath, & Beyond and naïvely quoting lyrics from female R&B group TLC.

TV series Downton Abbey (written by Julian Fellowes) comes across as male with much of the story’s concern being about what is the problem and what they are going to do about it. Had it been written by a woman, the characters’ feelings and emotions about the problems and situations would be explored deeper and would become the show’s focus. As it is, for me, the show is very cut-and-dry and hard to get into for a while. Seemingly, the feelings aroused from the show are for the audience to impose and to fill-in-the-blank where feeling is not provided in the script.

When I watched Eat Pray Love, I could feel the story events running well and accurate in portrayal. Of course, the film is based on a woman’s autobiographical book. However, with this adapted script I felt everything presented to me directly. It was all laid out flat to me. It felt masculine but was done with sympathy towards the femininity of the story. My guess was that a feminine male wrote the script. Interestingly, it was directed and mostly written by Ryan Murphy, a homosexual male, and co-written by Jennifer Salt. I have not studied an occurrence like this beyond this example, but it suggests an idea that sexual orientation does not alter the sexed focus of the art, understandably, since the person is already male or female and are subject to that biological experience and function.

In the play Holiday by Philip Barry there are possible hints of Johnny being in love with Linda though he is engaged to her sister Julia, but these hints can all be passed as common decencies and are not enough to really catch the audience’s attention. It is not clear until Johnny and Linda are left alone and are led to a kiss. A female creator would have made the focus Johnny’s feelings behind the complication of where he puts his love, while the actual story is the struggle of where he puts his love, making the hints escapable. The female is more indirect, while the male is more defined.

I am sure many of these kind of qualities cross over into other artful creations. There are definitely many more aspects and personality that go into the creation of a story besides one’s sex, especially modernly when gender lines are blurred. But it is certainly telling if it can be deciphered from just perusing the manner in which something is written. It is something for artists to consider when they are creating and probably for audiences to look for in art and in their own lives of sex identity and gender identity.