close



Itty Bitty Titty Committee



cast :

Melonie Diaz, Nicole Vicius, Melanie Mayron, Deak Evgenikos, Jenny Shimizu, Guinevere Turner, Carly Pope, Daniela Sea, Leslie Grossman, Jimmi Simpson

crew :

Directed by: Jamie Babbit
Written by: Tina mabry, Abigail Shafran
Produced by: Andrea Sperling, Lisa Thrasher, Stacy Codikow
DOP: Christine A. Maier
Editor: Jane Pia Abramowitz
Music Score by: Radio Sloan

release date :

2007

Jamie Babbit’s 2007 ‘Itty Bitty Titty Committee’ is considered by many feminist film fans to be a much more accomplished film than its predecessor, the award winning ‘But I’m a cheerleader’ (1999). While this may well be the case in terms of the manner in which characters are developed or gender discourses are voiced, a close viewing of ‘Itty Bitty Titty Committee’ reveals it to be not only rather flawed thematically but superficial in the way it voices those discourses. It is these thematic flaws which I believe actually belittle and undermine its credibility as a bona fide member of a feminist film fraternity. Initially, as we are introduced to the characters it seems that the women are intelligent and socially engaged (as well as politically aware). However, as the film gathers pace the viewer feels that it is all done in a rather trivial way. The radical feminist discourse which one may expect to be at the heart of the narrative is in fact simply plunked into the dialogue between the characters. It would perhaps be believable enough if was explored further but this is not the case. In today’s celebrity obsessed media culture, their belief about the media’s body fascism of women is a cause worth standing up for, but it feels unsatisfying when we do not see them fully embrace these ideas and take them to the expected socio-political level (rather simply a soap opera one). We hear a small number of enlightening words come from some of their mouths and yet there is no real development. Dare I say it, it seems almost vapid.


The film also does not engage the audience on any real intellectual level. We briefly see copies of books by Susan Faludi, Naomi Wolf, and other notable feminist writers, perhaps intended to give the film and the characters a certain level of authenticity. However, we do not see them have believable discussions which refer to any individual gender ideologies in any real detail. This results in the words of the women, most notably Anna (Melanie Diaz) and Sadie (Nicole Vicius), sounding like stock phrases which have no real weight. At times Anna simply sounds like an eager and newly indoctrinated first year student of feminist literature rather than an educated woman who is cognisant of the wider debates around women in society’s history. For instance, she is very quick to berate her sister for getting married as she believes marriage is ultimately a patriarchal social construct, designed to oppress women. This scene is presented in a way which does not make the audience think about the ideas she’s espousing, rather it makes her seem incredibly selfish and unsupportive of what is clearly an important event in her sister’s life. Significantly Anna does not think of how her new ideas contextualise within her life and family. She does not agree with marriage and yet the most functional relationship we see onscreen is that of her married parents and certainly there is no indication of unhappiness or infidelity on either part. In contrast she does not seem to absorb just how dysfunctional her on/off relationship with Sadie really is. She takes what she says so seriously and yet does not fully grasp that her own behaviour does not correlate with her new ideas (involving herself in not one but two love triangles is hardly an act of political feminism). Babbit may well have wished to avoid making the film too preachy or dogmatic in regard to ideology but one cannot help but feel that it would have been perfectly acceptable and indeed desirable, to have the characters engage themselves and the audience on an intellectual level.


The behaviour of the characters also makes the film’s messages seem a little disingenuous. On the one hand Babbit attempts to discuss the political discourses of feminism and yet the central characters who are bringing these ideas to us are unappealing, shallow and to an extent, unlikeable. Anna seems to be incapable of formulating her own ideas, Sadie is irritating and Shulie (Carly Pope) is simply rude and obnoxious. In contrast the less central characters, Aggie (Lauren Mollica) and Meat (Deak Evgenikos), seem far more likeable. It is also interesting that these two women, who are perhaps the most appealing characters, are the most masculine looking, both having their own individual reasons for being so. One can be forgiven for wondering if Babbit was subconsciously making a scathing and almost misogynistic comment on the nature of the way women sometimes behave towards each other. Many internet bloggers and commentators on various film sites have noted that although the characters claim to endorse and celebrate the mantra that women do not and should not conform to one body shape and size, it is difficult to ignore that all the main characters are attractive and more significantly, thin if not altogether skinny. To top it all, in a film which strongly criticises the phenomena of female cosmetic surgery for purely aesthetic reasons, it seems almost paradoxical that the chosen mouthpiece of this significant and timely rhetoric is Nicole Vicius, an actress who seems to have had a rather obvious and unfortunate looking rhinoplasty surgery. The relationship between Sadie and Courtney (Melanie Mayron) is problematic also. It is difficult for the audience to reconcile how leaving one’s partner for someone younger and more attractive fits with the ideas of sisterhood and political feminism. As pointed out by several people on afterellen.com, despite her talk of society’s obsession with looks etc, Sadie is actually a rather vacuous and unappealing character. She merely churns out stock phrases (which Anna in turn later regurgitates even less believably) and it is hard to understand why several characters find her attractive, aside from her physical appearance.


The opening credits of the film may also be viewed as problematic by followers of the older tomes of feminist politics. While some may argue that the exposure of the female body in a female environment suggests a liberation of sorts, the fact that many young men would happily watch this film simply for the flesh on show at the start and during the love scenes evokes connotations of soft-core pornography. It is all very well suggesting the credits are not shot for the gratification of the heterosexual male viewer but if there is an audience of heterosexual male viewers then it is impossible to ignore the specificities that come with that male gaze of the female form. Quite simply, there are male viewers who will be titillated by what they see on screen. I for one find it contradictory that a film which constantly reminds us that women should not be viewed by men merely as objects of sexual desire, perpetuates Hollywood’s depiction of the disrobed female form onscreen.


It is perhaps worth noting one technical aspect of the film which I believe is a successful decision by the design team and Babbit. That is the decision to have filmed on Super 8 and Super 16, which give the film a grainy, faux documentary feel at times (certainly in the opening credits). This aesthetic fits rather seamlessly with the imagery that surrounded ‘Riot Grrrl’, the feminist punk movement of early ‘90s North West of America as well as its artistic and social subculture of DIY (zines, concerts etc). The subculture’s fondness for self-publishing and publicising of concerts, talks and political meetings is explicitly nodded to in the film. On a simple level it is present through homemade posters that the girls put up but more significantly through their initiative in having meetings, joining protests and of course in the audacious (and completely ridiculous and unrealistic) ending. Babbit subtly references the nuances of Riot Grrrl in a very credible way and it is a shame that she does not do more of the same with the dialogue. The viewer would respond and react far more accommodatingly if one were to see the characters just speak a bit more lucidly about the ideas they are drawn to.


Despite these problems the film successfully deviates from ethno-centric stereotypes regarding sexuality. Anna’s family are open minded and comfortable with their daughter’s life and she herself is not tied to any connotations of race which often emerge in representations of a non-white American women. This part of Anna’s characterization fits with Molly Haskell and Marjorie Rosen’s work regarding ‘reflection theory’, that is to say they assume that filmic depictions of women reflect their actual real-life status within society. In this respect Anna is depicted as a regular young American woman dealing with complex relationship issues and this is refreshing.


Anneke Smelik, a researcher with the Department of Women’s studies at Utrecht University has written that the “feminist movement and the gay and lesbian movement share a concern with questions of gender and sexuality, and both are committed to the linking of the personal and political.” This film should have managed to do both. Babbit could have created a much stronger role for Aggie and the personal journey she was on as this would have been a more insightful foray into the types of questions raised above. Regrettably, this viewer feels that the film has not managed to achieve either aspect successfully.


Watch


Country: USA
Budget: £10,460- £11,709
Length: 87mins


Bibliography:
Haskell, Molly (1987). From Reverence to Rape: the Treatment of Women in the Movies. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press)
Rosen, Marjorie (1973) Popcorn Venus: Women, Movies, and the American Dream, (New York: McCann and Geoghegan)
Smelik, Anneke (1998) ‘Gay And Lesbian Criticism’ in The Oxford Guide To Film Studies, (Oxford: Oxford University Press)


Filmography:
‘But I’m a cheerleader’, 1999, Jamie Babbit, Lion’s Gate Entertainment


Pub/2009


More like this:
'Chuecatown (Boystown)', 2007, directed by Juan Flahn
'Another Gay Sequel', 2008, directed by Todd Stephens
'Living In Oblivion' 1995, directed by Tom DiCillo