Exposure
Women urinating common in sexual movies
One scene in “Leaving Las
Vegas” struck me, both because it
was unusual and because it appar
ently had nothing to do with the plot.
: It was made in a very careful and
discrete way, but still: Elizabeth
Shue had a pee. And the scene was
just there.
You don’t often see actresses
urinating on the big screen, but
“Leaving Las Vegas” was not a
unique case. Melanie Griffith did the
same in “Something Wild.” So did
Demi Moore in “Indecent Proposal”
and Jessica Lange in “Rob Roy.”
Are these just coincidences, random
choices made by writers and
directors? Probably not.
We all know about hidden
meanings of actions, signs and
customs that symbolize something
that our subconscious responds to. If
these scenes were made on purpose,
what do they have in common?
Could they tell us about the role of
women in particular in movies and in
society in general?
What all these movies deal with,
among other themes, is sex. More
originally, they deal with sexually
active women and discuss women’s
rights to their own bodies and
decisions concerning their sexuality.
Both “Leaving Las Vegas” and
“Indecent Proposal,” for example,
tell a story of a woman who either
mustn’t or, objectively thinking,
shouldn’t have sexual feelings for a
man with whom she becomes
involved. Can Demi Moore spend a
night with a strange but sexually
attractive man for a million dollars,
or can Elizabeth Shue fall in love
with her self-destructive customer
without her pimp’s permission and
against her own better judgment?
And, for that matter, should Jessica
Lange tell her husband that she was
raped by his worst enemy?
The central role of sexuality is
most obvious in “Something Wild,”
where Melanie Griffith aggressively
makes love to a helpless handcuffed
Veera Supinen
uIs urinating a symbol of
a bad woman? It could
be, but the analogy is
not likely that simple. ”
man — and in the very next scene,
we see her taking a pee.
So what does this tell us? Is
urinating a symbol of a bad woman?
It could be, but the analogy is
probably not that simple. Does it
symbolize a “modem,” independent
woman who is not ashamed of her
body, thoughts and emotions, and in
this sense resembles men who have
openly relieved themselves in
movies for decades? Or is it maybe
that writers and directors are
confused with the concept of strong
and independent women, and, not
knowing exactly what to do with the
characters, they make them sit on the
toilet seat? Or do the filmmakers
want to hint that independent women
are as common nowadays as our
daily visits to the bathroom? Or do
strong women scare both the
filmmakers and the audience so
much that it feels safer to associate
them with concrete actions that our
society considers somehow inappro
priate for women to do publicly?
Woman’s sexuality, even in its
active forms, is widely accepted in
the movies and real life, as far as it’s
controlled by men or the norms of
society. These four ladies, however,
rebel against the norms or are
outside the society themselves. It’s
the combination of rebelliousness,
sexuality and strength that makes
these women so dangerous and
bewildering.
'A woman surely can be an active
and independent decision-maker in
other fields besides sexuality. This
has long been realized — that’s why
movies describing strong women in
their traditional and best-accepted
roles, for instance as mothers, don’t
need to emphasize their point by
showing the actresses in unconven
tional situations. It could even be
unwise considering the audience’s
reactions. The scenes in the above
mentioned movies draw our atten
tion, but they don’t insult us. We
accept seeing sexually autonomous
Demi Moore and Melanie Griffith in
the bathroom because in their
characters, there is something
questionable that justifies the sight.
A true and rare exception of
Hollywood’s way to treat sexually
active and less-normative women is
Ridley Scott’s “Thelma and Louise,”
widely known as “that feminist
movie.” Otherwise, rebellious
women are tolerated only if their
rebellion has nothing to do with
sexuality. An extreme example of
this is Sally Field, who in her latest
movie “Eye for an Eye” shoots the
murderer of her daughter and is
praised more than criticized for
doing so. But then again, who could
imagine a more motherly and
therefore asexual being than Sally
Field in her recent movies? It would
be rather disturbing to see her either
making love or having a pee.
Hollywood has reserved these
actions for strong, independent and
sexual females, knowing that they
exist, but having an ambivalent
attitude toward the fact.
Supinen Is a Junior history and
American studies major and a Dally
Nebraskan columnist
Naked redemption
TV, food, weights — the many deterrents of jail
You people may not know this,
but there used to be two Steve
Willeys.
There was and is the often sober
Steve, who loves life and is quite
content with all the belongings he
now owns.
But there used to be the severely
impaired Steve. This Steve also
loved life, but unlike the first one,
the second Steve desperately needed
to confiscate everything that was not
’ his.
The old Steve never would take
things of value, mind you, only
things that no one other than the
owner would miss. Things such as
fire-bells from the Schramm Resi
dence Hall and a total of three chairs
from Big Red Keno before it was
ravaged by flames.
I guess what I’m getting at is that
the Lancaster Correctional Facility is
not a hard place at which to spend
nine days.
For those of you who never have
been to jail and have no desire to
frequent one, I can attest firsthand
that it is really just an “odd experi
ence.”
Perhaps the most unusual part of
being incarcerated is that the guards
apparently have some unwritten
dogma that requires them to see you
naked at least 39 times per hour.
(Editor’s note: Easy stomach)
You are constantly reminded to
“remove the britches”
or show the guard your “Wompy,”
* which apparently is some slang word
the inmates made up that ALWAYS
makes the warden blush.
r While I was there, I couldn’t
quite grasp the concept of shedding
your clothes every couple of
minutes. I later learned that the
guards strio-search the inmates
because they often “smuggle” in
contraband by hiding it in an orifice
that is not their mouth.
I don’t know about you folks, but
L if I were to sneak something in using
Stove Willey
“Perhaps the most
unusual part of being
incarcerated is that the
guards apparently have
some unwritten dogma
that requires them to set
you naked at least 39
times per hour. ”
this method, chances are, I’d
probably want nothing to do with it
after “ejection.”
Many inmates, however, were
more than willing to practice this
method and oftentimes, were
successful. Needless to say, drugs,
particularly marijuana, were preva
lent in the Lancaster Correctional
Facility.
I often felt like reminding fellow
inmates where their joint had been
only a short hour ago, but opted not
to because I was what the guards
called “a scared little weenie boy.”
Happily, I can report that I never
was approached for intercourse,
although twice a man asked me to
play “backgammon” with him.
Ordinarily, one would be hard
pressed to misconstrue that state
ment, but because we both had just
exited the same shower, I was a tad
concerned.
Probably the worst part of jail,
especially for a person who usually
has three meals between breakfast
and brunch, is the food.
The portions were small, the taste
was wretched and the damn portions
were SMALL! I didn’t expect an 18
course feast by any means, but by
I God, I expected decent-sized
portions.
“Here’s yo’ bean fat boy!”
Perhaps the only benefit jail can
provide is theratmosphere and
quality of people it produces. Before
I was bused to the Correctional
Facility, I was waiting downtown
exposing my “Wompy” to a very
red-faced guard.
I noticed, in a separate cell, an
i older white-haired man pacing back
and forth like a caged lion. I asked
one of the guards why he was
, arrested. I was told (check the
records if you think I’m lying) that
he was found downtown wearing
only a Nebraska football helmet and
a blanket.
Just for the record, it was NOT
Bill Byme, but no doubt a dis
gruntled former student.
The truly upsetting thing for me is
that jail was not a deterrent, and I
can only assume it is not for others.
The severely impaired Steve lost a
long and arduous battle to maturity,
and that was the only reason he
stopped his ways.
(Editor’s Note: How can you sit
there, in all your fatness, and claim
to be mature when the word
“Wompy” appears in your column?)
As an inmate, I was released for
work and school. I basically just
slept there.
I had access to weights and all the
TV and movies I could handle. I
hardly call that severe punishment.
I suppose jail could have been
easier, though. They could have let
us cover our “Wompies.”
WUley Is a Junior ag-Journallsm major
and a Dally Nebraskan columnist
Social issues shape
Republican nominees
“We arc cursed.” That’s how a
leading Reaganitc writer summed
up the state of conservative
politics in America. Pat
Buchanan’s victory in New
Hampshire has engendered quite
as much dismay and despair
among Republicans as Buchanan
himself predicted — though he
would perhaps be surprised to
leam that some of those who arc
most distressed are his former
colleagues and comrades in arms
from the Reagan administration.
How, after the glorious victory
of 1994, did the Republican party
arrive at the point where the
choice for nominee comes down
to a lackluster legislator, a faux
conservative former governor or a
neo-protectionist with more
political/intellcctual baggage than
Imelda Marcos has shoes?
The answer is simple, the
social issues. First, Phil Gramm
backed away from the social
issues, protesting that he was not
a “preacher.” His carhpaign never
got to first base. Next, Steve
Forbes, with the most Reaganite
message in the field, surged in the
polls. But his pollster, John
McLaughlin, and campaign
advisers (one of whom had a
personal feud with Pat Robertson)
convinced him that he could win
without appealing to religious
conservatives. Forbes needlessly
and sclf-destructively attacked the
Christian Coalition and saw his
poll numbers sink like a stone in
the days before the Iowa cau
cuses. Finally, Bob Dole, feeling
Pat Buchanan’s breath on his
back in New Hampshire, decided
that Buchanan’s populist, anti
business message must be the
silver bullet and promptly
imitated it, decrying “corporate
greed.” He finished an ignomini
ous second.
Alan Keyes, a virtual unknown
with no organization and no
money, was able, purely on the
strength of his stirring speeches
about the centrality of the
“marriage-based, two-parent
family,” to get more votes than
established senators and con
gressmen. A candidate who spoke
for both economic and cultural
conservatism — a blend of
Forbes and Keyes—would have
swept all before him. There was
no such candidate in the field.
Accordingly, in Iowa, with its
strong representation of pro-life
voters, Pat Buchanan was
catapulted to the top of the pack.
In New Hampshire, with its
history of economic distress, the
mix was different. There, the
Buchanan message of muscular
nationalism and protectionism did
resonate, though only 6 percent of
voters named “foreign trade” an
important reason for their vote.
Many conservatives blanch at
the idea of a Buchananized
Republican party because his
economic message is hardly
distinguishable from David
Bonior’s (D-Mich.). But, in light
of his strong showing, it becomes
a delicate matter to express that
without alienating the Buchanan
Mona Charon
“Bob Dole, feeling Pat
Buchanan’s breath on
his back in New
Hampshire, decided
that Buchanan's
populist, anti-business
message must be the ‘'
silver bullet and
promptly imitated it."
voters — who are among the
most energized and passionate in
the Republican party. Lamar
Alexander struck the right note on
the morning after the primary,
congratulating Buchanan on his
victory but saying that Buchanan
has the wrong answers. Bob Dole
did not congratulate him, labeling
Buchanan an “extremist.” It is the
Democrats who tend to substitute
name-calling for argument. Vice
president A1 Gore never ventures
out in public without denouncing
every Republican in sight as an
“extremist.” Buchanan’s rivals
should spell out their reasons for
rejecting protectionism and
industrial planning—if they can.
Gary Bauer, head of the
Family Research Council, hints
that the rifl between the religious
right and the rest of the party may
be serious, particularly if leading
Republicans frame the issue as
Dole did. The religious right has
nursed angry feelings about the
party establishment for some
time. “I sometimes think my
people have been played for
fools,” warns Bauer.
Paul Wcyrich, founder of
National Empowerment Televi
sion, believes that Buchanan
cannot get the Republican
nomination. “The party is broadly
conservative,” he explains, “but
Buchanan is narrowly conserva
tive and, in some ways, not
conservative at all.” Even if both
Lamar Alexander and Robert
Dole remain in the race through
out the primaries, thus splitting
the non-Buchanan vote, they
could still broker an arrangement
at the convention that would keep
the nomination away from
Buchanan.
The test for the Republican
party in the weeks and months to
come is not to stop Buchanan —
but to prevent Buchananism from
creating a damaging rift between
social and economic conserva
tives. If Dole wants to be the
nominee, he must stop parroting
Buchanan about corporate greed,
start defending free trade and free
markets, and bone up on Alan
Keyes’ speeches in his spare time.
(C) 1996, Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Mite lliclf*iicli
What's my
re-election
Slcgan
Go,p3t,OG.
CJ
