What I don’t want this paper to become is a list of reasons why Hollywood and it’s directors are misogynist, it would be unfair to say. However when Hollywood is criticised for what ever reason, the public tend to focus on the treatment or rather mistreatment of it’s leading ladies. Being a woman does not mean the abuse is solely on your shoulders in the industry of golden globes and Oscar nominations, there are many men, although they appear to be a minority in contrast, that also suffer the constraints and abuse that the Hollywood system has under wraps.
In Robert Hofler’s book “The Man Who Invented Rock Hudson: The Pretty Boys and Dirty Deals of Henry Willson,” there are many accounts of Wilson using his power to manipulate young men, who seeking fame or recognition, fall into his clutches. The book describes him as being a “casting couch agent”, again sex is being traded or forcible taken from young people to give them access to opportunities they should have
…show more content…
While most of the literature I have read or come across paints Hitchcock and subsequently many other men, who treat woman and men in the same manner, as a misogynist there are those who believe he was a feminist. There are those who believe Hitchcock recognised the strength that each of his leading ladies had, but rather than appreciate their strength, he used his films and his film-making to control them. This yet again, especially for me brings up the question what price is Art worth? After all he is considered the master of suspense and has gained great acclaim since his death in ….., but does that make it right for Hitchcock to mistreat people the way in which he did? To me, b seems to be a separation between art and method, I firmly believe, and I know many may disagree with me, that a piece of art that in anyway is created with a process that dehumanises and punishes it’s actors should not be revered or viewed as a