The Headless Women of Hollywood

April 25, 2016 7:12 AM

It's a truly amazing time to be a headless female body part in Hollywood! This Tumblr examines the time-honored tradition of movie posters displaying women’s bodies without their heads or faces. AVClub asks "How can gender equality ever be achieved in movies if women are being chopped up for spare parts in the ads?"
posted by Cookiebastard (41 comments total)

What if the heads are running around on their own?
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 7:28 AM on April 25, 2016 [4 favorites]

On the other hand, I'm not sure if Matt Damon has a body.
posted by lmfsilva at 7:36 AM on April 25, 2016

Or if Benedict Cumberbatch has a face.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 7:40 AM on April 25, 2016 [2 favorites]

Gentlemen, you realize there is a difference between name actors being shown either with their face so huge that text needs to be run across it or in entirety with their back to the audience, and this ...

Anonymous women shown sans face, often to highlight breasts, legs, or ass.

The former is a design fad. The latter is consistent with a longstanding, and troubling, history in the arts of representing women as characterless visual stimulus.
posted by maxsparber at 7:46 AM on April 25, 2016 [44 favorites]

Not so much headless as 'only consisting of those areas generally regarded as being stimulating to those sexually attracted to the female form'.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 7:51 AM on April 25, 2016 [2 favorites]

Not so much headless as 'only consisting of those areas generally regarded as being stimulating to those sexually attracted to the female form'.

Also known as "everything that's not that part that gives a woman an actual identity beyond 'woman'".
posted by Etrigan at 7:57 AM on April 25, 2016 [17 favorites]

Agh I thought (deluded me) this trend had died in the 90s. My god some of those are so awful it’s hilarious. Crrringe!

Or if Benedict Cumberbatch has a face.

Hmmm yeah, whatabout... a curious unique example of a peculiar male star not being shown on posters?

Seriously I must be ill today but I don’t understand what that or Matt Damon’s giant face has got to do with posters with strategically placed closeups of tits and arse and legs. Hmm let me try harder to see a connection... no, still not seeing it.
posted by bitteschoen at 8:09 AM on April 25, 2016 [10 favorites]

Women in pieces, horrible and pervasive. It absolutely reduces women to objects. And I can't help but think that - not that this is the main reason its done, of course - by making the woman unidentifiable, the actress can't be very vocal about photoshopping.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 8:18 AM on April 25, 2016 [1 favorite]

Looking at these gives such a skeezy, retro vibe, like walking past the "sex comedies" section at Blockbuster in the late 80s.
posted by emjaybee at 8:20 AM on April 25, 2016 [5 favorites]

Seriously I must be ill today but I don’t understand what that or Matt Damon’s giant face has got to do with posters with strategically placed closeups of tits and arse and legs. Hmm

That movie posters are almost frequently horrible, and designed with the mindset of "what can we print on a gigantic size that will capture the eyes quicker on a billboard, the side of bus station, a wall with other movie posters", and this is how we end up with ass and tits, and giant floating faces of the leading A-list star.

I'll be sure next time to pack out the off-hand remark kit, and load up the "explain everything every clearly so everyone gets it right away" module. Or maybe just stop commenting.
posted by lmfsilva at 8:28 AM on April 25, 2016

The women's body parts are used as literally framing objects for the posters, while the actors (mainly men) are portrayed normally with faces. This is something I was sometimes aware of when I see posters individually, but when put together it becomes completely face smackingly obvious.

Trying to come up with male counter-examples (manly chest, crotch shots, male buttocks), I can only think of this year's Deadpool. But I think that's less sexy and more an attempt to make fun of the original link's sexist movie posters.
posted by FJT at 8:34 AM on April 25, 2016 [7 favorites]

Not so much headless as 'only consisting of those areas generally regarded as being stimulating to those sexually attracted to the female form'.

Somewhat agree. Maybe I'm a perv and this is TMI, but I find the face area of another person for whom I have the hots to be very stimulating. These posters are, almost entirely, composed for titilation purposes. A few exceptions include (maybe) the Minions one (Minions!?) Gotta start indoctrinating the kiddies early to this concept so they won't be traumatized later coming across the this one, which features an extremely graphic depiction of a woman having been freshly branded (there is steam rising from the wounds) on her buttock that makes me wish I'd said NSFW in the OP. (Can this be fixed? Sorry y'all, these are posters that have been out in public but I'm thinking in the aggregate like this they're maybe NSFW?) But yeah, there are several posters featuring close-ups of women's cleavage with a vaguely (or blatantly, as in this case where a bullet is used as the prop ferchrissake) phallic object in the center. And lots and lots of legs-in-heels and butt-shots, and more crotch-shots than I would have guessed. The whole Tumbler is like if I were teaching a layman's course in Male Gaze 101 I would probably just show this slideshow and quit in despair. But none of them show the woman's face. Even when she's a superstar like

And many shots aren't headless, but show close-ups of lips, or just the back of the head (sometimes posed at crotch-level with a man on the poster.) The movie about Linda Lovelace, who claims to have been violently forced into performing in porno, has four posters, only one of which even shows part of her face. A mostly B&W picture with mainly her lips colorized, naturally, shot from the nose down.
posted by Cookiebastard at 8:35 AM on April 25, 2016

I'll be sure next time to pack out the off-hand remark kit, and load up the "explain everything every clearly so everyone gets it right away" module. Or maybe just stop commenting.

Leaving off a weird "what about the men?" comment as an early derail wouldn't be a bad thing.
posted by jeather at 8:38 AM on April 25, 2016 [42 favorites]

Maybe I'm a perv and this is TMI, but I find the face area of another person for whom I have the hots to be very stimulating.

I mean, fine, but this is about the difference between how men and women are represented. Women are literally being presented as objects and whether people find women's faces attractive or not is pretty immaterial since we don't get to see them.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:48 AM on April 25, 2016 [20 favorites]

Maybe I'm a perv and this is TMI, but I find the face area of another person for whom I have the hots to be very stimulating.

This is just another version of "but I think women look more beautiful without makeup."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:53 AM on April 25, 2016 [8 favorites]

I hope they follow with book covers in the Young Adult, Urban Fantasy, romance or just chick lit genres.
posted by sukeban at 8:53 AM on April 25, 2016 [2 favorites]

I wonder if all those woman heads are on Matt Damon's body, running around like some kind of Hollywood hydra.
posted by sexyrobot at 9:03 AM on April 25, 2016 [4 favorites]

I wonder if all those woman heads are on Matt Damon's body, running around like some kind of Hollywood hydra.

I wish I had the photoshop skills to make this movie poster.
posted by mstokes650 at 9:04 AM on April 25, 2016

Books are the same way. Go into the nearest bookstore or library and check out how many covers of books (even those aimed at women) consist of half of a woman's face.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:06 AM on April 25, 2016

Or, you know, what sukeban said.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:06 AM on April 25, 2016

People keep calling this a trend. It's not a trend. It's a permanent, baked-in standard operating procedure.

It's like, bell bottoms were a trend. Pants are not a trend.

It's one more example of how a shitty industry is extra-shitty if you're a woman.

Hollywood needs to metaphorically burn to the ground.
posted by under_petticoat_rule at 9:08 AM on April 25, 2016 [13 favorites]

"This is just another version of "but I think women look more beautiful without makeup."

So, yeah, probly TMI. Sorry y'all.
posted by Cookiebastard at 9:25 AM on April 25, 2016

No... TMI isn't why it's a problem. Reinforcing the male gaze is why it's a problem. Like, it sounds like your complaint is that these women aren't being presented for your specific sexual consumption, when the point is that they are presented for consumption at all.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:30 AM on April 25, 2016 [24 favorites]

That, plus it makes the conversation about the good men vs. the bad ones who do stuff like this. Like how guys love to come into threads about women feeling neglected by their sexual partners and brag about how they love to eat pussy. I usually assume until proven otherwise that our lovely Metafilter men are not the bad ones, so there's no need to beat your chest about it - this stuff is about social systems, not pointing fingers at individuals.

The whole Tumbler is like if I were teaching a layman's course in Male Gaze 101 I would probably just show this slideshow and quit in despair. But none of them show the woman's face. Even when she's a superstar like

It really is striking when pulled together like this, which makes the early derails that much more baffling to me.
posted by sunset in snow country at 9:41 AM on April 25, 2016 [11 favorites]

It anyone else struck by how the seeming majority of the recent ones have a weapon in hand?

I don't have a theory about why, but it definitely is a pattern.
posted by poe at 9:45 AM on April 25, 2016

poe:

"It anyone else struck by how the seeming majority of the recent ones have a weapon in hand?

I don't have a theory about why, but it definitely is a pattern."

It's to let you know they're strong female characters.
posted by charred husk at 9:47 AM on April 25, 2016 [4 favorites]

It was in response to areas "generally regarded as being stimulating" and my POV was isn't it interesting that Hollywood doesn't count "the face" in that category.

I completely understand that these posters are shown as an example of reducing women to their body parts, which is why I found the tumbler interesting and postworthy. I wish the things I wrote after that sentence explained that better. I actually referenced the posters as an example of Male Gaze in that same comment, as noted above. MeMail me I suppose if you want to keep discussing my sexism, rather than the Tumbler and concept that are the basis of the post.

Despite that sentence, which, yeah, I admit, ick, I think I made some valid points in the post and my comment anyway.
posted by Cookiebastard at 9:51 AM on April 25, 2016

Sorry if my comment came off as harsh, Cookiebastard. Yours was a good comment, and I'm glad you posted this - it's just that that particular line is a very common type of low-level annoyance in sexism threads, and the people who say it usually think they're being helpful, so I don't think it hurts to gently correct that.
posted by sunset in snow country at 10:02 AM on April 25, 2016

I was waiting for this to be posted! Marcia (the comic who created it) went to my alma mater and I can attest that she has been hilarious and on point for years. I submitted the Lolita examples. She also addresses the What About The Men? question quite well.
posted by rabbitbookworm at 10:14 AM on April 25, 2016 [3 favorites]

It's cool, sunset in snow country, clearly I needed the correction. Thank you.
posted by Cookiebastard at 10:29 AM on April 25, 2016

The poster for Youth is weird. It shows naked Michael Caine and naked Harvey Keitel sitting in a swimming pool with the water up to their chests, and they're looked at a headless naked presumably Rachel Weisz. They're old and she's representing sex and youth.

What's weirdest about it is that if you watch the trailer, Rachel Weisz plays Michael Caine's daughter, which makes the poster creepier and a completely different tone.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:38 AM on April 25, 2016

And speaking of Michael Caine and creepy movies about sexy faceless daughters, Blame it on Rio, which also features a faceless woman poster, fits the bill.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:39 AM on April 25, 2016

and they're looked at a headless naked presumably Rachel Weisz

Actually that's (meant to be) Romanian actor Madalina Diana Ghenea who plays "Miss Universe" in the film.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 10:54 AM on April 25, 2016

Angelina Jolie is the incredibly rare exception that proves the rule.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:58 AM on April 25, 2016 [1 favorite]

Glad to see this. Headless female bodies in advertising drive me insane, it is SO offensive to me. And disgusting.
posted by agregoli at 11:22 AM on April 25, 2016

Maybe it's like the "cilantro tastes like soap" thing, but these kinds of advertisements always tend to strike me as body horror. Not advocating it as a counterattack or coping mechanism, but in the extreme, it probably reminds me of things like the mannequins from Silent Hill, or some ridiculous Cronenberg monstrosity consisting solely of these "attractive" parts of the body in a bid to highlight absurdity of sexualization.

You can't force a realization, of course, but maybe ad campaigns featuring the latter would force a different level of conversation. Like, if you're still aroused by these spare parts, you clearly have problems. And if you're not? Great! Now we can have a discussion about how there's more to attraction and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And then maybe we can have a discussion about how we never really need to use physical attraction to sell anything in the first place.

Idea for a new horror movie: all the faceless, headless, and otherwise disfigured bodies from advertisements free themselves and roam society, assaulting anyone foolish or ignorant enough to cast a lascivious gaze.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 2:43 PM on April 25, 2016

Seeing so many of those posters together makes a powerful statement. I was vaguely aware of the trope, but hadn't realized how pervasive it is.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:49 PM on April 25, 2016

"How to make your movie with an A-list actress look as sleazy as an internet ad." It was the number of movies with bankable female stars that got this treatment that surprised me.

I'm personally inclined to give Minions a pass, since it seems to me more "child's gaze" (scary adult way taller than you are) than "male gaze" but I understand YMMV. Most of the others are way creepy to begin with and worse in this context.

On the plus side, the actual number of local-to-me movies now playing that have this trope (based on googling local showtimes and looking at the cover image) is just one out of 25-30, The Witch with Meryl Streep (again, A-list star!) and it's not primarily titillation. I realize the summer movie batch will be worse.
posted by mark k at 8:33 PM on April 25, 2016

I'm so sick of seeing headless women and sexy legs.

Though I was looking at a tacky man picture calendar last week and there was a fair amount of headless torsos or just a man's back or near crotch shots going on there too.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:23 PM on April 25, 2016

It does feel like male gaze in action.

The branded woman is from This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Which is a documentary, and the headless naked woman isn't any particular person, she's a stand-in for sex itself. But of course the reason a naked woman is the representation of sex is because of male gaze. And her head is removed to eliminate anything that would identify her as an individual person and distract from being a symbol.

That's probably the purest example. A lot of the others are for fiction films, so the headless woman is also a specific character, (see above about Youth) but they still hide her face so nobody accidentally thinks her character is too important. We promise there's a sexy woman in this movie, but we also promise the men are still the main characters. In the Youth example, we're supposed to think of what Michael Caine's and Harvey Keitel's characters are feeling at this moment, we're not supposed to consider how Madalina Diana Ghenea's Miss Universe feels.
posted by RobotHero at 8:30 AM on April 26, 2016 [3 favorites]

While we're at it, can we talk about the creepy frequency of dead or seemingly catatonic women in advertising? This is more an issue in fashion ads than movie ads, but ever since it was pointed out to me I can't stop seeing it everywhere and it's really unsettling.
posted by gloriouslyincandescent at 12:29 AM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]