Old hag

• 04.11.2022 08:18 UTC+01:00
• [ perma(?)link ]
• < previous | next >

For those of you unaware of the existence of the hagsploitation film genre, it's apparently a thing. Inspired by 1962's What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?—itself inspired by Sunset Boulevard, twelve years earlier—a plethora of films was released during the '60s and '70s starring ageing actresses at a point in their careers where work was harder to come by.

Thomas Hobbs mithers along with a professor in media and inclusivity at Bournemouth University. I'm not sure what's funnier, the concept of a professorship in Media and Inclusivity, or Bournemouth University. (LMAO)

…I can't imagine that either of them prepare their students for much of a career beyond burger-flipping or prostitution. But ne'ermind. (shrug)

According to the learned professor in media and inclusivity at Bournemouth University: Hagsploitation is a misogynist and ageist term applied to fading female movie stars that were reinvented as these grotesque spectres. But he and Hobbs introduce the term to a largely-unknowing readership, without any alternative more acceptable to their sensibilities. If they find it so offensive, why bring it to our attention in such a manner? The largely-unknowing readership would've been unaware that it's a genre in the first place, let alone one with a pejorative epithet, and is just as likely to forget it exists within minutes. Or perhaps I'm just projecting here.

Anyhow, I read How What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? demonised older women largely because I find the golden age of Hollywood to be more compelling than the current age of Hollwoke. And, hand-wringing aside, it was reasonably interesting; the stories behind the sociopolitical lecturing more so than Hobbs' treatise.

Petty points are available for the taking

Either way, Hobbs slips up among the backstories; affording me the opportunity to easily claim petty points:

Take 1964's Dead Ringer, where Bette Davis plays twin sisters, Margaret and Edith Phillips. The latter is rich and glamorous, the former weathered and penniless, running a bar that's an obvious dive. Edith makes the decision to murder her twin, assuming her identity and riches in a Machiavellian chess move.

Thomas Hobbs, How What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? demonised older women, BBC Culture

That clearly makes no sense. Actually, it's the former who's wealthy, and the latter who's impoverished and embittered. Do keep up, Tom.

Furthermore, when the learned professor in media and inclusivity at Bournemouth University referred to …fading female movie stars that [my empahsis] were reinvented…, he objectified them. It's who, professor in media and inclusivity, who. They were people, with agency; thoughts; and feelings, not objects, you misogynistic, patronising, patriarchal bastard! (angry)