Morgan Harms

Hidden Figures (2016) follows three black women, Katherine Goble (Taraji P. Henson), Mary Jackson (Janelle Monáe), and Dorothy Vaughan (Octavia Spencer), who work as human computers solving complex math problems for NASA. Because the women are black, they work in a segregated building from other employees and have little to none opportunity for advancement. The women are working for NASA during the space race when America was desperately trying to beat the Soviet Union to reach space. Although the women have little opportunity for advancement, Mary is assigned to work on the heat shield team of the space capsule, and she dreams of becoming NASA’s first woman engineer. Katherine is assigned to work on the Space Task Group working under Al Harrison (Kevin Costner), who is a commanding leader with very little empathy. It is here that Katherine helps calculate the trajectory of the space capsules return to Earth. Katherine’s exceptional math skills impress Al, who begins to demand his white followers treat Katherine equally, so she can focus on her work. While Mary and Katherine work on their new assignments, Dorothy is left working in the West Area Computers division for black women, where she acts as the supervisor of the group, but she doesn’t receive the job title or compensation for her work. Throughout the movie, Dorothy works to show her own boss that she can handle the job, and when NASA installs a new IBM computer that jeopardizes her job, she learns how to program the machine. Dorothy also teaches the other black women how to work the computer to give them all job security. The men who are in charge of getting the computer running struggle to start the machine, and through her research, Dorothy is able to get the machine up and running, which ultimately gets her a job promotion to be the supervisor of 30 workers in the programming department. During the space mission that Katherine computed the returning trajectory, she advises Al how to handle a dangerous situation, which saves the astronauts life. In the closing credits, it is revealed that Katherine calculated the trajectories for the Apollo 11 and other space missions, and she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2015. Mary achieves her dream to become an engineer by appealing a school segregation law, which allowed her to take the night classes she needed to obtain her degree. The closing credits also reveal that not only was Mary the first African-American engineer at NASA, but that she was the first woman engineer for the prestigious group.

Throughout the film, Dorothy displays servant leadership as she is more worried about the women she leads than her own promotion. Servant leaders, like Dorothy, “put followers first, empower them, and help them develop their full personal capacities” (Northouse 225). An example of Dorothy displaying this behavior is when she finds out that the new IBM computer will make the job of human computers obsolete, and she spends her free time outside of work learning how to code the machine, so she can teach the women who follow her. Even though Dorothy is not the assigned leader and has no responsibility to take care of the women, she still does, and she puts their interests above her own of becoming the official supervisor. According to Northouse, “If inequalities and social injustices exist, a servant leader tries to remove them,” which Dorothy does by addressing the inequalities she and the other women of color face at NASA (Northouse 227). Dorothy understands that because the West Area Computer division is comprised of black women, they will be the first to lose their jobs to the computer, and by teaching her followers to code the IBM, she gives them the leg up against the competition of white women. Ultimately, Dorothy is rewarded for her servant leadership. Her boss recognizes the extra work she did to learn and then teach others about the IBM, and she is given a supervisor position of the programming department. Although, Dorothy’s leadership style was that of a servant looking out for her followers, the positive community she fostered allowed her to reach a new milestone as a leader.

In the film, Katherine’s boss Al starts as a commanding leader who is disinterested in the needs of his followers. However, as Al begins to see Katherine’s extraordinary talents, he becomes a leader who addresses the prejudice and ethnocentrism Katherine faces as a black woman in an all-white work environment. Northouse defines prejudice as “ a largely fixed attitude, belief, or emotion held by an individual about another individual or group that is based on faulty or unsubstantiated data,” and as a black woman living in the 1960’s, Katherine was subject to prejudice because of the color of her skin (Northouse 429). Additionally, Katherine faced ethnocentrism or “the tendency for individuals to place their own group (ethnic, racial, or cultural) at the center of their observations of others and the world” (Northouse 428). A few examples of the prejudice and ethnocentrism Katherine faced are the “colored” coffee pot with which she was given after she used the main coffee dispenser, being forced to use a colored women’s bathroom half of a mile away, and the dress code of the department that did not take into consideration the low pay she, as a black woman, was given. Within the department Katherine worked, her coworkers held preconceived notions that black people were not as capable as their white counterparts, and it wasn’t until Katherine made an emotional appeal to her department that Al took action to be more inclusive. After Katherine gave an emotional speech to her coworkers, Al immediately took the “colored” sticker off of the coffee pot to show his followers that Katherine is their equal and should be treated as so. After he fixed the coffee situation, he ran to the West Area Computer division to tear down the colored women’s restroom sign to make all of the restrooms available to people of color, especially Katherine. Although Al started as a direct leader with no concern for the needs of his followers, he addressed his followers’ prejudice and ethnocentrism, and he developed into a culturally aware leader, who created an inclusive environment for one of his followers who came from a different racial background.

As previously stated, Katherine addressed the prejudice and ethnocentrism she faced directly through an emotional appeal to her coworkers. And like Katherine, Mary fought these same issues but from a different approach. Instead of addressing individuals, Mary fought the legal system, so she could overcome NASA’s prejudiced rules as she worked to become an engineer. When Mary, a fully qualified, competent, and successful employee applied to be an engineer at NASA, the leadership of NASA changed the qualifications for the position to include classes that were only taught at an all-white school, so they could ensure that Mary could not get the position. NASA’s change of policy was an act of prejudice that Northouse states “helps us to achieve balance for ourselves at the expense of others” (Northouse 430). NASA did not want to have a woman, especially black woman, engineer because it would change the group’s dynamic and make the white men uncomfortable. Mary was discontent with their response, and she took legal action to gain entry into the school. After appealing the law and facing a judge, Mary was granted entry to the school for only night classes, and she was able to finish her qualifications and become the first woman engineer at NASA. Mary’s actions, like Katherine’s, were of defiance as they saw the racial injustices of NASA and the legal system and worked to change them. In this way, Katherine and Mary acted as leaders against unfair racist leadership and paved a new path for black women in NASA’s labyrinth.

As a whole, Hidden Figures (2016) is a wonderful feminist film, and I would argue the film is the best example of an inclusive feminist film we have watched for this course. Previously, we have watched films only about white women’s leadership, which in all fairness, is the majority of films about women’s leadership. It was a delight for me to see women of color be so powerful in a movement against the status quo, and I found myself cheering at every one of the women’s achievements. From a leadership stand point, the film exemplified four different approaches to the same injustice. Even though there were four characters tackling the same issue, as Barnes writes for the Huffington Post, “It only takes one to be the voice, the genius, the pioneer, the advocate, the leader…the one who changes history.  One is a powerful number.  It is the catalyst that produces an addition, then a multiplication, and creates a new math” (Barnes, 2017). The four leaders of the film, who all had different types of leadership, were able to make great waves in NASA, and they were able to forever change the culture at a major agency of the United States Federal Government. Hidden Figures (2016) is a delightful example of how women of color can change the world of injustices they face, and how white allies can amplify the voices of people of color.

References:

Barnes, S. D. (2017, January 16). The power of one–leadership lessons learned from hidden figures. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-power-of-one-leadership-lessons-learned-from-hidden_b_5874891ae4b08052400ee5ee

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay—Part 1 (2014) is a dystopian film that is a continuation of Katniss Everdeen’s (Jennifer Lawrence) fight against the dictating Capitol of Panem to free all of its citizens. In this installment, Katniss is taken to District 13’s underground bunker where they are leading the revolution against the capitol. After Katniss is introduced to the district’s president, she is asked to be the mockingjay, the face of the rebellion, because she is a well-known figure from her times in the Hunger Games. Katniss only agrees to be the mockingjay after the president agrees to her terms to give free and give immunity to Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and other victors. In order to build Katniss’s brand as a rebel leader, the district attempts to film promotional videos to inspire the rebel movement. However, they quickly realize that Katniss has the greatest impact on people when she is unscripted and authentic. Because of this, Katniss is to be filmed as she meets victims of the Capitol’s attacks, shoots down an aircraft, and adventures through destroyed cities. Katniss’s display of raw emotion and impromptu speeches, especially her saying of “If we burn, you burn with us” inspires people from other districts, and their rebellion helps District 13 gain momentum. At this point in the film, Peeta is in the custody of the capitol and is being used as a weapon against Katniss as he goes on live broadcast to discourage her from continuing the rebellion. However, a livestream of Katniss interrupts Peeta’s warning, and he is able to see her and then warn her that the Capitol is coming. This saves all of the people who are living in the District 13 bunker. Eventually, the president of District 13 orders for Peeta and the other victors to be rescued, and after a seemingly doomed mission, Peeta and the others are saved. When Peeta is taken to the District 13 hospital and Katniss goes to visit him, he attempts to strangle her, and the leaders of the district realize the capitol has turned Peeta into a weapon to kill Katniss. At the close of the movie, the president of District 13 announces their plans to continue their fight against the Capitol as the privately try to deprogram Peeta.

The District 13 president and her aides lead in a transformational style as they put an “emphasis on intrinsic motivation and follower development, which fits the needs of today’s work groups, who want to be inspired and empowered to succeed in times of uncertainty” (Northouse 161). This can be seen when the leaders of the district are trying to film a promotional video of Katniss in a studio. The government leaders are trying to get Katniss to perform in a way that will inspire the members and followers of District 13’s leaders as they fight against the oppressive Capitol. The Capitol is stronger than the individual districts, and it is a dangerous task to be a member of a rebel force. Although the president of District 13 does not exemplify charisma and she lacks individual relationships with all of her followers, she does show these characteristics towards Katniss, who is arguably her most important follower. As a transformational leader, the president knows that Katniss is the one who can inspire her followers, so the president directly leads Katniss who will then impassion the general population of followers. Further, the District 13 president leads in an “elitist and antidemocratic” fashion, which is helpful to her followers because strategic military combats needs to happen in order for the district to be successful, and it is unrealistic for the district to reach their goal if democracy was a component (Northouse 179).

In contrast to the president of District 13, Katniss exemplifies an authentic leader who “promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective. . . and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development” (Northouse 201). Katniss is transparent with her followers by allowing cameras to follow her as she visits victims in a hospital and fights against the Capitol. Her followers are able to see her genuine emotional response to situations, such as when she shoots done one of the Capitol’s aircrafts and she runs to try to save the people inside. It is also in this scene that Katniss gives an inspiring speech where she says, “If we burn, you burn with us,” which is later repeated by her followers as they rebel against the Capitol. Further, Katniss, as a true authentic leader, draws from her own traumatic experience in the Hunger Games to become an even stronger leader. Katniss’s followers saw her in the Hunger Games, and she has earned their respect as they know she is an extremely ethical person, who is led by her moral compass. In this film, Katniss serves as an authentic leader to the rebels as they fight against the Capitol in the way she softens the boundaries of her leadership and is transparent with her followers as to what she is doing.

As a whole, the film is an excellent feminist film as the majority of the leaders are women, who show great competency and bravery in a place where “Panem’s inhabitants [women] have a subtle second-sex slant” (Waldmen, 2014). When Katniss is chosen as the mockingjay, the initial reaction of the leaders of District 13 is to get her performance ready by giving her a makeover. This obviously doesn’t work with Katniss, and her rejection of the makeover prevents her from becoming a symbol of a rebellion and turns her into a leader of a rebellion. The audience may view this as a “veiled feminist triumph” because Katniss is allowed to retain her individuality and authenticity, which ultimately allows her to become a strong leader (Waldemen, 2014). This send a message to the audience, especially young women, that by maintain their autonomy, they will be more successful in their pursuits. Overall, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay—Part 1 serves as an excellent example of female leadership in times of uncertainty, which qualifies it as a feminist film.

References:

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice.  Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Waldman, K. (2014, November 25). Why mockingjay is the “end of men” movie of the year. Retrieved from https://slate.com/culture/2014/11/mockingjay-and-feminism-the-new-hunger-games-movie-envisions-a-future-where-women-run-the-world.html

On the Basis of Sex (2018) is based on the life of Ruth Bader Ginsburg as she graduates from law school, becomes a professor, raises a family, and serves as council in the court case, Moritz v. Commissioner. Ginsburg, played by Felicity Jones, is first portrayed as a student at Harvard Law School. In one of the first scenes of the movie, Ginsburg attends a welcome dinner for all of the law students at which all of the women students must introduce themselves and explain why they took a spot in the college that could have gone to a man. This scene introduces the sexual discrimination that Ginsburg will face throughout the rest of the movie. After she graduates from law school, Ginsburg struggles to find a job as a lawyer because she is a woman, and she finally settles for a job as a law professor. Ginsburg, who has been discouraged about her future of making substantial legal change, is given a tax code case by her husband Martin (Armie Hammer) to review. The previously mentioned case addressed the tax code that made unmarried men unable to receive a tax break for being caregivers. Although others discourage her to take the case, Martin is supportive and urges her to advance it. Together, Martin and Ruth file the lawsuit, but it is made obvious to the audience that Ruth is the driving force. In the final court scene, the council for the government makes it obvious that this case isn’t just about providing tax breaks for male caregivers, but about protecting the status quo. The government’s council argues that if this tax code is changed, it will bring a wave of other women’s rights cases to the courts. Ruth confirms the opposing council’s statement but furthers it by explaining that this is not a recent movement, but one that has been on the rise for at least the past 100 years. At the end of the movie, the Ginsburgs when their case and the closing text reveals that Ruth goes on to be a Supreme Court justice.

Throughout the movie, Ruth is portrayed as an adaptive leader as she “focuses on the adaptations required of people in response to changing environments” (Northouse 257). In a unique situation, Ruth’s followers in the movie are not just those who support her as she prepares for the case but also the opposing council and government who want the status quo to remain. The tax code that the case revolves around is not the focus of the change Ruth aspires but the implications of civil liberties for women. The changing of the tax code signifies a mental shift of society as they are now able to recognize that men too can be caregivers. In this situation, Ruth is urging the three judges to make a shift in their beliefs in values and by arguing her client’s case, she is leading them to a new understanding. This is a sign of a skilled leader because “people naturally do not want to confront change, particularly when it is related to changing their beliefs” (Northouse 269). In this way, Ruth is exemplifying the leadership behavior, maintain disciplined attention, in which the leader encourages their followers to focus on the tough work and discourage them from engaging in avoidance behaviors. The government’s council wanted society to remain the same, so he listed ways in which law would need to be changed if the judges ruled in Ruth’s favor. The opposing council was encouraging the judges to engage in avoidance behavior by asking them to ignore the changing times and demands of society. Ruth led the judges to adaption by arguing that women at the time had been fighting for over 100 years for change, which ultimately resulted in the change of the three men’s mindset and beliefs.

Ruth also exemplified another leadership behavior, identify adaptive challenges. Although she wanted to be the lead council of the case, Ruth knew her experience in the courtroom was limited and she looked to others for guidance. When those who were helping her suggested that she allow Martin to be her co-council, Ruth was hesitant but allowed it. The moment when Ruth best showed this leadership behavior was before she gave the final rebuttal of the case, and she passed the court documents to Martin, which served as a response to her recognition that she was not the most qualified to give the closing argument. However, after listening to the opposing council, Ruth is inspired and takes the lead once again. This was a moment of Ruth identifying her adaptive challenges in that she was able to recognize when her authority was “not sufficient or appropriate to address a particular challenge” (Northouse 264).  Ultimately, Ruth was the right person to give the rebuttal, and she was able to recognize this and signal to Martin to allow her to speak. The audience is led to believe that Ruth’s closing argument was the reason they won the case, and Ruth’s decision to make that argument serves as an example of her ability to identify her leadership challenges.

As a whole, On the Basis of Sex (2018) serves as an exemplary example of a feminist film. In addition, the film is focused on a contemporary historical figure, which encourages the modern audience to continue the fight for women/femme’s civil liberties. By showing the progression of Ruth’s professional career and the prejudice she faced from being a Harvard law student to a Supreme Court justice, the audience learns how rapidly society has changed within one person’s lifetime. The film also shows a healthy romantic relationship between marital partners in which the two are equals at a time where this was uncommon. The romantic relationship was also an aside to Ruth’s challenges and accomplishments, and it served as a vehicle to advance the storyline versus one that distracted from it. On the Basis of Sex serves as a great example of how a film can tell the story of a great woman leader in both her public and private life and as an example of how to tell a story in way that it empowers its audience.  

Reference:

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Iron Jawed Angels (2004) is a historical film about Alice Paul (Hilary Swank), Lucy Burns (Frances O’Connor), and the suffragist movement in the early 1900’s. Women’s suffrage was a  political movement that was mostly lead by women and used peaceful strategies and actions as they aimed to change the American Constitution to allow women to vote, and thus, be represented in their government. The movie begins with Alice and Lucy being granted the leadership of a branch of the National American Woman’s Suffrage Association (NAWSA). The two women successfully raise a large sum of money, but the NAWSA questions their fundraising, so Alice and Lucy leave the organization and start their own suffragist group, the National Woman’s Party (NWP). As part of their activism, NWP members picket outside of the White House daily with banners adorned with statements from the then president, Woodrow Wilson. After American enters the first World War, the public sees the NWP’s actions as treasonous, and they attack the NWP picketers outside of the White House, which results in several women being arrested. Each day after this initial event, more women picket the White House and are subsequently arrested. Eventually, both Alice and Lucy are in a detentional facility where Alice begins a hunger strike. After weeks of being force fed, a female prison guard give Alice the opportunity to pass a note, which makes it way outside of the prison and is published in the news. This leads to the women’s release, and it brings national attention to the suffragist movement. At the close of the movie, the women celebrate after their bill had been ratified in enough states to make an amendment to the Constitution that grants women the right to vote.

At the beginning of the movie, Alice and Lucy must follow the leadership of the women in charge of the NAWSA. The two women lead the NAWSA in a directive style in which they set “clear standards of performance and make[s] the rules and regulations clear to followers” (Northouse 117). This can be seen when the NAWSA leaders tell Alice and Lucy that they are not to fight for a Constitutional amendment, but they are to fight at the state level. This leadership style could be effective in this situation because the task of granting women the right to vote is ambiguous, and it may be helpful to have a leader with a clear vision and strategy as they work towards their goal. However, this type of leadership was ineffective on Alice and Lucy, two NAWSA followers, because they did not see how these actions would help them obtain their desired results. According to the expectancy theory, “followers will only be motivated if they think they are capable of performing their work, if they believe their efforts will result in a certain outcome, and if they believe that the payoffs for doing their work are worthwhile” (Northouse 116). In this case, Alice and Lucy knew they were capable of doing the work and they knew the payoffs of their work would be worthwhile, but they did not believe that their current actions would lead them to the outcome they desired. Alice, Lucy, and the leaders of NAWSA could see that their leader-follower relationship would not work well, and it would not lead to any real progress, so Alice and Lucy left the group to form the NWP and become their own leaders.

In contrast to the leadership of the NAWSA, Alice Paul lead in both a supportive and achievement-oriented leadership style. As a supportive leader, Alice “treat[ed] followers as equals and [gave] them respect for their status” by fostering a community where the women banded together in the face of adversity (Northouse 118). In the film, this can be seen when Alice goes on a hunger strike. Because Alice has created a community where all of the women feel equal, they all follow Alice’s lead and begin their own hunger strikes. As Reagan Ross writes, “Solidarity is crucial for any movement, and we get this especially emphasized in this moment, that moment when the women emulate (in solidarity) Lucy’s stretched out cuffed wrists is just so important, signifying that the women support each other unconditionally” (Ross, 2016). As an achievement-oriented leader, Alice set “a high standard of excellence for followers and seek[ed] continuous improvement” by always asking what more the women could do as individuals to create a greater impact. A good example of this is Alice’s relationship to the volunteer who is the wife of a senator whose husband does not approve of the suffragist movement. At first, Alice is happy to have her help, but as time goes on, Alice confronts the woman for hiding her volunteer work from her husband, which Alice says perpetuates the lie that she, and women in general, do not want the right to vote. Unlike the leaders of the NAWSA, Alice’s leadership was effective because she was able to adapt her leadership to the needs of her individual followers.

As a whole, the film Iron Jawed Angels (2004) serves as a great example of a feminist film. However, the film did have its drawbacks like the NWA’s exclusion of women of color and the storyline of Alice’s romance. True feminism is intersectional and should include women of all races and members of the LGBTQ+ community. At the time, this was not the case and the inclusion of black women could have hurt the progress of the suffragists. Additionally, the romance storyline was unnecessary and only served for entertainment purposes. The subject matter alone puts this work in the category of a feminist film and made it easy for the filmmakers to enhance this message. Iron Jawed Angels serves a great example of how a person can adapt their leadership style to individuals as they work towards a common goal. The film also exemplifies feminism and the activism of women as they work to gain equal rights.

References:

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Ross, R. (2016, December 01). Iron Jawed Angels: Lessons From an Empowering (Feminist) Movement. Retrieved from http://www.yourfilmprofessor.com/most-important-feminist-films-iron-jawed-angels/

North Country (2005) is based on the true story of a woman who sues the coal mine she previously worked for, which changed the how people and companies all over the country address sexual assault. The film focuses on Josey Aimes (Charlize Theron) who flees her abusive husband and moves back to her hometown in search of a better life and a job that allows her to provide for her two children. Through friends, Josey finds a well-paying job at a coal mine where her father also works. Her father does not approve of Josey working at the mine and encourages her to quit at every opportunity. Soon after Josey begins, she notices that women are treated as second class citizens by the men. In one scene, a male co-worker asks a woman miner for a cigarette, and when she reaches in her shirt pocket to grab one, he stops her and fondles her breasts as he grabs a cigarette. Other instances include: a sex toy being placed in the lunchbox of a woman, feces smeared on the women’s locker room walls with sexually explicit language, and a man’s semen on the clothing of a women miner’s clothing. With each new instance of sexual harassment towards her women coworkers, Josey becomes more infuriated. She initially takes it to her direct supervisor, secondly, to her union representative, next, to the owner of the company, and then finally, she files a class action lawsuit. Throughout the film, Josey’s family, especially her father and son do not believe her, and the two actively shame her. The end of the film is centered around the court case as the defense attempts to smear Josey’s credibility based on her sexual history and the stories of a man who was her coworker, childhood friend, and witness to her rape. At the close of the film, Josey has won her lawsuit, received a hefty settlement, and has repaired her relationships with her family.

North Country is a true feminist film because it portrays a strong-willed woman fighting for what she believes in. Not only does it give the audience a positive role model, but it shows the realistic challenges a woman would face as she attempts to forever change the way sexual harassment is addressed. The film, by showing Josey joining a union and speaking at the meetings, telling her superiors her grievances, and ultimately, taking legal action, shows women who may face similar circumstances a step-by-step process of how they can address similar issues.

In the film, Josey acts as the leader of the women in their quest to gain protection against sexual harassment. In the beginning, Josey is not seen as a leader, but as the movie progresses, she addresses the situation she is in and becomes the person who urges the women to take action and join her lawsuit against the mining company. The process in which Josey handles her leadership position is that of the coaching approach, which “focuses communication on both achieving goals and meeting followers’ socioemotional needs” (Northouse, 94). Although the other women are initially hesitant, Josey recognizes the emotional and mental toll the men’s harassment is having on the women, and even though she starts the journey without followers, she stills acts as a leader who is concerned about others and has a clear goal in mind.

In contrast, Josey’s supervisor and the company’s owner lead the women in a directing style that consists of “one-way communication [of] what is to be done, how it is to be done, and who is responsible for doing it (Northouse, 94). However, the same men lead the male miners in a coaching manner and offer them with communication on how to achieve goals while also providing them support as they sexually harass the women that work in the mines.

The film simplifies the historic court case Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. and the twenty-five year struggle the plaintiff faced. In reality, all of the women were not granted the settlements as a group, but each individual woman has to demonstrate that she was a victim of the sexual harassment. However, the film and its message are very influential to its audience because it sends an important message to members of its audience who may have never “grappled with the issues of sexual harassment in any other context” (Korzec, 303). Although the film had to simplify a very complex topic and situation, it still serves as a positive retelling of events that forever changed how sexual harassment is handled in the workplace. The court case set a precedence in allowing “women [to] band together and share the financial and psychological burdens of filing a sexual harassment case” (Lara, 2005). And the film’s rendition of the case shows its audience accurate repercussions of standing up for oneself and the steps one can take to address any sexual harassment they may face, which qualifies North Country as a true feminist film.

References:

Korzec, R. (2007). Viewing North country: Sexual harassment goes to the movies. University of Baltimore Law Review,36(3), 302-328.

Lara, A. N. (2018, August 26). A case that changed the culture. Retrieved from https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2005-11-02-0511020328-story.html

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

The Intern (2015) follows Ben Whittaker (Robert De Niro), a retired widower as he searches for an activity to fill his days and to give him a sense of much needed purpose. Before retiring, Ben worked as a manager of a phonebook company that was located at the same factory at which he will soon be an employee. Seventy-year-old Ben responds to a flyer for an internship for senior citizens, and he applies for the position by creating an interview video. Ben’s video is a big hit with the staff, and he easily gets the internship and is assigned to the owner and founder of the business, Jules Ostin (Anne Hathaway), who has trouble giving up control and feels the need to fix every minute problem the company faces. At first, Jules is hesitant to give Ben any work, but when she finally does, and the two begin to form an intimate relationship, she has Ben transferred. Jules quickly regrets this, and she reverses her actions. Ben, who has bonded with Jules’s family, takes Jules’s daughter to a birthday party when her father is feeling ill one day, and he accidentally witnesses Jules’s husband kissing another woman. Ben decides to not tell Jules what he saw, but during a business trip to interview possible a candidate to take her position as CEO, Jules confides in Ben her knowledge of her husband’s affair. Initially, Jules decides to hire the candidate so she can focus on her family and fix her marriage. At the end, Jules’s husband concedes to his affair and tells Jules to keep her CEO position just to find out she has already rescinded her offer. Although Jules has decided to retain her busy lifestyle, she and her husband come to the conclusion that they will work on their marriage. As for Ben, he has found a new romantic partner in the company’s masseuse, and he is happy to have a position in the workforce.

The Intern aims to be a feminist film with its depiction of Jules as a hardworking boss who has control over every aspect of her business and still somehow is able to be a doting mother, but it falls short with its depiction of Jules relationship with her husband. From a leadership perspective, the film is a heavy contender to be a feminist film in the way that Jules exemplifies strong relationship-oriented behaviors with her employees, but in many ways she lacks the more masculine associated task-oriented behaviors, and her response to her husband’s affair reduces her to a stereotypical woman who is willing to sacrifice her promising career for a man who feels emasculated by her success.

Jules’s style of leadership is portrayed in multiple lights. Her interpersonally oriented behaviors are shown as very high, and her employees appear to be very satisfied with the environment she has created, which boasts an open-concept floor plan and a house masseuse. Jules encourages friendships and collaboration in her office, which is a trait that is associated most commonly with women, “To facilitate inclusion, they create mechanisms that get people to participate and they use a conversational style that sends signals inviting people to get involved” (Eagly & Carli, 121). However, the film shows her as a leader who is lacking in task-oriented behavior, which is inconsistent with research that has found that men and women have “equal task orientation” (Eagly & Carli, 124). Jules is able to see the larger picture, but she is unable to relinquish control over small, minute tasks such as customer service calls. In fact, Jules is consistently an hour late to her meetings so she can handle these trivial issues. Jules is not a less qualified leader because she tends to have more feminine behaviors because “the possession of feminine characteristics does not decrease an individual’s chances of emerging as a leader as long as the individual also possesses masculine characteristics” (Appelbaum, Audet, & Miller, 45). In Jules’s case, she does not need to sacrifice her interpersonally oriented behaviors, but instead increase her task-oriented behaviors to create a better balance.

Jules’s marriage and the agreement she has with her husband about childcare is an unusual one. Although most men and women agree that the work associated with raising children should be equally divided, “married women still do 2.1 hours of childcare for every hour contributed by married men” (Eagly & Carli, 51). However, this is not the case with Jules and her husband, who is a stay-at-home father.  When the two got married, Jules’s husband was the more successful partner, and he quit his job to support her as she worked towards her dream. Jules’s husband loses sight of himself and his marriage, and he begins an affair to, what the movie describes as, reclaim his masculinity. When it is revealed that Jules knows that her husband is unfaithful, she acts like it is a fact of life and that her work ethic had left him with no choice.

The Intern had real potential to be a feminist film. The movie stars a compassionate leader who has her faults but is willing to face them to improve herself. Jules knows she is new to the game as a boss and in one scene she even asks for “CEO lessons,” which exemplifies her willingness to improve herself and change her behaviors for the good of the company and her employees. If the film is to be approached from a leadership perspective, it would absolutely qualify as a feminist film. However, in order to do so, one must ignore the storyline about Jules’s husband’s affair, and mainly, her reaction to this. The film could retain its title as a feminist film if the filmmakers did not have Jules’s initial reaction to her husband’s affair to be to sacrifice her career for him. In conclusion, from a leadership perspective, The Intern is a quality feminist film, but it falls short of the general term because of the main character’s willingness to abandon her dream job for a man who cannot remain faithful to her.

References:

Appelbaum, S. H., Audet, L., & Miller, J. C. (2003). Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,24(1), 43-51. 

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2015). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

“The Devil Wears Prada” follows aspiring journalist Andy (Anne Hathaway), who dislikes the shallowness of the fashion industry, as she becomes the personal assistant to Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep), the editor-in-chief of one of the top fashion magazines. Miranda is a fierce leader with whom is not to be messed. Miranda’s employees are terrified of her because she changes her demands of her followers without telling them, does not motivate her followers, but instead punishes them for shortcomings. At first, Andy goes through the motions of being a good assistant, but she refuses to learn the ins and outs of the industry. Miranda notices this lack of effort on Andy’s part, and she gives Andy increasingly difficult tasks, such as asking Andy to get her a flight out of Miami during a hurricane and getting two copies of the unpublished Harry Potter books for her daughters. Andy understands the opportunities that being Miranda’s assistant for even a year can afford her, so she begins to dress like she belongs in the fashion industry and jeopardizes her personal life to be at Miranda’s beck and call. Miranda takes notice of Andy’s transformation into an ideal assistant and chooses her to go to Paris fashion week over the first assistant whom was promised to go. At the end of the movie, Andy detests the person working for Miranda and being in the fashion industry has made her, and she quits her job while they are still in Paris. When Andy returns to New York City, she begins to look for new jobs where she will have the opportunity to write. In the closing scene, Andy and Miranda make eye contact on the street as Miranda climbs into her car. Andy waves at Miranda when the two make eye contact, while Miranda pauses and then chooses to ignore Andy.

As a leader, Miranda exemplifies behaviors of a person who is very task oriented, a person who “facilitate[s] goal accomplishment” (Northouse 71). Miranda, specifically, qualifies as a structured task-oriented leader, who “believe[s] that they get tasks done by keeping people busy, ignoring personal issues and emotions and urging them to produce” (Ayyappan 483). This in itself is not a bad thing, but when it is combined with her other negative leadership behaviors and her mercurial temperament, she becomes an unempathetic person who is goal obsessed, and frankly, a bad leader. The behavioral approach to leadership states that an effective leader must have a balance between task-oriented behaviors and relationship-oriented behaviors. Miranda’s behavior has created a balance that is similar to the authority-compliance style of leadership that places a “heavy emphasis on task and job requirements, and less emphasis on people, except to the extent that people are tools for getting the job done” (Northouse 75). Leaders who possess relationship behaviors “help followers feel comfortable with themselves, with each other, and with the situation in which they find themselves” (Northouse 71). Miranda frequently changes the times of meetings, her demands of her followers, and she does not answer any clarifying questions her followers ask as they work to please her. This lack of relationship behaviors ultimately affects her followers’ production and hinders their ability to meet her goal.

Miranda’s volatile attitude encourages other leaders at the magazine to treat their subordinates as disposable and the work environment is dominated by callous leadership, where “Ignored or discounted are the needs, wants, and wishes of most members of the group or organization, especially subordinates” (Kellerman 43). Miranda’s cruel treatment of her followers is wide spread, and even those who are not in leadership positions treat each other harshly. This can be seen throughout the movie in how the first assistant treats Andy. Although, she is supposed to be training Andy to be successful, the first assistant wants Andy to fail, and she gossips about Andy’s clothing and lack of fashion knowledge with their coworkers, often times, when Andy is in the same room. Although Miranda is the callous leader, her actions foster an environment where her followers treat each other coldly, perhaps, as a defense mechanism. Not only does Miranda place high demands on her employees and ignore their emotional needs, she largely does not ask for their input, and when she does, she only asks a few people, but she does not ask them for their advice on how to run the company, improve profits, or improve the working conditions of her subordinates, but instead asks them for advice on how to further her career.

Overall, Miranda qualifies as a bad and a somewhat inefficient leader because her disregard for her subordinates’ well-being discourage them as they are afraid to make any wrong moves. It can be argued that the magazine could create and publish content of a higher caliber if Miranda’s followers felt free to be creative and not afraid that Miranda will berate them if their efforts were not successful. Miranda’s temperament and overall approach to leadership is hindering her magazine, and by stifling the needs and desires of her employees, she is holding them and herself from accomplishing their goals.

References:

Ayyappan, S. (2018). Analysis of the leadership style of miranda priestly in the movie “devil wears prada”. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts,6(2), 482-485. Retrieved from http://www.ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT1892579.pdf

Kellerman, Barbara. (2004) Bad leadership : What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Harvard Business Review Press.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

9 to 5, the 1980 film, starring Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, and Dolly Parton has components of a feminist film, but misses its goal of becoming a feminist manifesto. The movie follows three women office workers, Violet (Lily Tomlin), Judy (Jane Fonda), and Doralee (Dolly Parton), who become unlikely friends after being witness to how their boss, Mr. Hart, treats his female employees. After Mr. Hart finds out Violet accidentally fed him rat poison and threatens to call the police, the three women him kidnap and hold him hostage in his home. As Mr. Hart is held captive, the ladies make policy changes to make the office more worker friendly and obliging to the needs of women.

The film portrays the discrimination and harassment that women office workers were exposed to at the time, as well as how overly qualified women were skipped over for promotions in favor of men. In the film, Mr. Hart represents the patriarchy and all that the women are fighting against. His rapid promotions and incessant sexual harassment of Doralee make Mr. Hart the villainous boss and the source of the gender inequality the three feminists must fight against. An example of Mr. Hart’s hurried success can be seen when Violet, who has worked at the company for 12 years, tells the new hire, Judy, about how she trained Mr. Hart and how he received the promotion over her, “I have never seen anyone leapfrog to the top so fast in my life, and I have the bad back to prove it.” Hart’s behavior of sexual harassment is best exemplified with his treatment of Doralee. Doralee is outcasted by the other women in the office because Mr. Hart has repeatedly and untruthfully boasted about his affair with her. Hart not only regularly makes sexual advances towards Doralee, who has made it known that she is uninterested, but he also forces her into compromising positions so he can check out her body. All of this behavior makes Mr. Hart the enemy, and by bringing down their sexist boss, the women can claim gender equality for all of the women in the office.

Although the film’s intention was to shed light on issues that women in the workplace faced, it missed the boat by focusing on the hijinks the women get themselves into and not the policies and changes they make at the company. The film had the opportunity to highlight the progressive changes the women made at the office and show the positive effects the changes had. For example, the women created a job-sharing program, daycare, and implemented equal pay for all. These progressive ideas were mostly beneficial to the women in the office, but the film skimmed over this part. These advancements in the workplace are only shown when Mr. Hayden, the chairman of the board, comes to congratulate Hart on a job well done. The ladies give Hayden a brief tour and explain the policies they have implemented, which has resulted in a 20 percent increase in work efficiency. If the film were to be a true feminist manifesto, this would be one of the focal points of the story. The movie could have done this by showing a young working mother who struggled to find consistent, affordable childcare using the daycare center, and how the equal pay policy allowed her to achieve food stability for her child. The film would also need to provide details to the audience about how the women were able to make these changes, so that it could inspire others to do the same.

In order for this film to be appealing, it needed to entertain its audience with the women’s crazy antics, but the message the film attempts to send is too weak for it to be considered a feminist manifesto. The film does an excellent job of bringing the issues of sexual harassment and the inability of women to gain advancement in the workplace into the mainstream, but it provides no solid solutions, and it does not call for the audience to take action.

In a 2017 article for Vogue, Bridget Read argues that 9 to 5 was created as a way to begin the fight for equal pay for women. She writes that the movie ends with the women toasting to the beginning of their revolution instead of being smug about their accomplishments, which she writes is a lesson worth remembering, “If we consider the feminist project as a means to an end rather than the end itself, we’re more likely to move on to bigger and better places, bringing more and more people with us” (Read, 2017). Overall, 9 to 5 is a movie that brings awareness to the issues women at the time faced in the workplace, which is still relevant today. Like Read said, the movie marks the beginning of the movement, but it lacks the details that must offered to create real change. It plants the seed in one’s mind, and then leaves it up to the audience to decide if they want to take action and how they want to do it.

References:

Higgins, C. (Director). (n.d.). 9 to 5 [Video file].

Read, B. (2017, September 25). Does 9 to 5 hold up as a feminist classic? Retrieved from https://www.vogue.com/article/9-to-5-feminist-classic

9 to 5 [photograph]. Retrieved from https://boingboing.net/2018/07/29/theres-a-9-to-5-sequel-i.html