spacer Seems Legit: Authenticity, Performativity, and Sex
spacer Sex History: A Response To Rashida Jones And Her Critics
spacer Anti-Sex Worker Activists Are Behind #50DollarsNot50Shades
spacer Have We Reached Peak Super Bowl Sex Worker Hysteria?
spacer Naked Music Monday: Ciara’s “Ride” as a Sex Work Anthem
spacer Big Mother Is Watching You: Mistresses of the Universe

Misérable Politics: Why Anne Hathaway Should Go-Away

by Johanna on February 21, 2013 · 58 comments

in Movies, Prostitution, Silly Media Coverage

spacer

Image from LesMeanGirls

In last year’s Les Miserables, a movie with a lot of famous people in it that will probably win some Oscars, Anne Hathaway plays Fantine, a single mother struggling to provide for her child. Fantine turns to prostitution in a moment of ultimate desperation, having already sold her hair and teeth—I know I’m not the only hooker whose first response to that was “Wrong order, girl”, but whatever—and she and the audience feel very sad. Then she’s saved, and we feel happy, but then she dies of tuberculosis, and we are sad again. At least she’s not a hooker now though. Phew!

No one is more concerned about Hathaway’s Fantine, however, than Hathaway herself, as evidenced by her various comments during the lead-up to the film’s release. One of the most circulated quotes has Hathaway outlining her research “into the lives of sex slaves, which are just unspeakably harrowing,” and her attempts to “honor” the experiences of women who are “forced to sell sex”:

 I came to the realization that I had been thinking about Fantine as someone who lived in the past, but she doesn’t. She’s living in New York City right now, probably less than a block away.  This injustice exists in our world.  So every day that I was her, I just thought ‘This isn’t an invention. This isn’t me acting. This is me honoring that this pain lives in this world.’ I hope that in all our lifetimes, we see it end.”

Bold, patronizing words. In this quote and others (see “I’m so happy, it was hard to play a miserable whore…” ), Hathaway emphasizes how the role allowed her to channel the suffering of hapless prostitutes everywhere. When a non-consensual upskirt shot elicited a skeezy jibe from Matt Lauer, Hathaway used her retort to critique “a culture that commodifies sexuality of unwilling participants.” She threw her lot in with One Billion Rising, and declared her commitment to ending sex slavery. Lady bloggers cheered, abolitionist feminists nodded approvingly, and sex workers everywhere threw up in their mouths a little bit.

This response might surprise Hathaway and fans; after all, the only thing more upsetting than a woman trapped in prostitution is one who doesn’t want to be rescued. And yet Hathaway has had her own brush with the unapologetic whore as well, in her other big role of 2012 as Selina Kyle (aka Catwoman) in The Dark Knight Rises.

Hathway’s turn as Catwoman arguably tells us more about sex work than her own comments on prostitution do. Catwoman is a complex character, who has been handled and mishandled across a variety of texts. In her most recent filmic incarnation, she’s a woman defined and restricted by her circumstances, using her looks and her wits to do what she can. “I started out doing what I had to,” says Hathaway’s Selina. “Once you’ve done what you had to, they’ll never let you do what you want to.” It’s not hard to see the sex work connection there. Hathaway, however, likes Catwoman. She admires her. When she was little, she wanted to be her. “I think a lot of women feel that way….she’s totally independent. And let’s face it, she’s badass.”  Selina’s story is different from Fantine’s, but not categorically so. Like Fantine, she’s someone working out of necessity, using what power she has available to her to get a break. Like Fantine, she’s doing what she has to with what she can. So why is she admirable while Fantine is representative of the worst depths of exploitation? Is it because Selina’s life turns out better? Is it because she still has teeth?

Hathaway’s comments on prostitution aren’t the only ones that are relevant here. Much media attention has also been given to the work on her own body Hathaway did to prepare for the role of Fantine. Accounts of hair-cutting and drastic weight loss (achieved via a diet of lettuce leaves and squares of oatmeal paste) are accompanied by expressions of concern from director Tom Hooper, and Hathaway’s insistence that it was all necessary for the role. Emphasizing her own dedication to the authenticity of her performance, Hathaway tells us that “since I play a tubercular, impoverished prostitute, my weight-loss regimen was to make me look incredibly sick and near death. I lost 25 pounds. It was very hard.” She’s not bragging though: “I never thought about what I was doing as a sacrifice, because there are people that really do it.” In this way, she resists ‘undeserved’ admiration, while simultaneously drawing attention to her labor as an actor and her own desire to be good at her job.

spacer

(Image via Feminspire)

The line between seeking recognition and performing humility is one we see female celebrities walk all the time in regard to work and their bodies, particularly when they seek to define themselves as a real-deal actor, not ‘just’ a star. What seems strange to me though, is that Hathaway and the lady bloggers who love her apparently can’t see any similarities between her use of her body in work and performance, and the experiences of sex workers. Like sex workers, Hathaway’s physicality is central to her job. Like sex workers, Hathaway has to make decisions about how to deploy her body in order to get the most out of an obviously flawed system. Like sex workers, Hathaway is making these decisions based on needs and circumstances, some of which are sexist and unfair. But somehow, when she diets to the point of frailness (her words), we call that work; when women in a film give hand jobs, we call it “the darkest place imaginable.” Fantine cuts off her hair for money and we cry. Hathaway cuts off her hair (also for money) and we nod admiringly. What a brave performance, what a dedicated actor, what a good feminist. Okay.

Les Miserables’ particular brand of poverty porn presents Fantine as the ultimate object of pity. Hathaway’s comments not only support this reading, they also treat one fictional character as universally representative of the lives of real people. Contrary to Hathaway’s feelings on the matter, Fantine isn’t “living in the world right now”. That is because she’s not actually real, Anne. She’s the fictional product of one dead white guy’s perception of sex workers written over a hundred years ago (not a very representative one either, if this 19th century letter is anything to go by). Celebrities seeking to provide “a voice for the voiceless” would do well to remember that sex workers aren’t voiceless, just consistently ignored. There may well be women out there who relate to Fantine, but in reducing the experiences of all sex workers to one tale of tragic misery, Hathaway’s comments silence and dehumanize the same women she seeks to ‘help.’

Tagged as: Anne Hathaway, Catwoman, Fantine, Johanna, Les Miserables, movies, Prostitution, sex trafficking

Tweet

{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }

spacer Jesse February 21, 2013 at 11:36 am

Not too long ago, actors & sex workers enjoyed roughly the same status in society – something for both to remember when considering the other’s current social standing!

Reply

spacer proserpine February 21, 2013 at 7:58 pm

Agreed, and very glad the similarities were drawn. I’ve done sexy things for money in a hotel room with men I’ll never seen again; I’ve done sexy things on film (and for a lot less money!) on a set filled with strangers. I’m a whore either way. Roles is roles.

Reply

spacer Aln February 21, 2013 at 12:38 pm

I think the problem here is trying to apply one kind of story about prostitution to all prostitutes everywhere. Some women are hookers by necessity, in the same way that a fast food worker is forced into flipping burgers out of necessity. Some are hookers because they want to be, and some are forced into it. Using the motivations and circumstances of one woman to understand or explain the circumstances of another will only end up being offensive and simplistic and nowhere near what reality is.
Like… Fantine isn’t a worker, she doesn’t choose a profession by weighing her options and going for the best one, her only choice is prostitution or death for her and her daughter and that’s not a real choice. She’s a slave in practice, even if she is legally free. Trying to use the stories of women who fall into the first or second type of people I mentioned above to understand or critique Fantine’s portrayal or story doesn’t work, because it’s just not the same thing. She’s a victim, and her life really is terrible and damaging to her body and soul and saying otherwise is diminishing actual suffering suffered by non-fictional people both today and in the past. What Anne Hathaway is talking about isn’t sex workers, she’s talking about slaves and there’s a big difference even if there are also superficial similarities. I think her problem is not making that distinction out loud, not that she’s actually trying to run into a content hooker’s house guns ablazing to save her.

Reply

spacer Charlotte Shane February 21, 2013 at 4:30 pm

You’re right that the one story impulse is a serious problem. But I disagree with you that Fantine isn’t a worker; her unhappiness/suffering in her work doesn’t change the fact that she is laboring. We don’t do anyone any favors by eliminating the work aspect when talking about women who are in the sex trade because they have no better options for generating income. Erasing the monetary exchange from the equation severely limits how much we can help those doing work they don’t want to do.

And I wish everyone who likes the “slave” framing of the issue were more careful to distinguish “wage slavery” as different from pre-Civil War slavery, and (as you noted) as not encountered exclusively in prostitution but rather something that impacts many, many people who work.

Reply

spacer Judy February 21, 2013 at 8:21 pm

Thanks for this thoughtful comment. While I agree with the spirit of the piece these nuanced distinctions are really important.

Reply

spacer Caty Simon February 22, 2013 at 11:54 pm

There’s a difference between wage slavery and slavery that is not superficial. Survival sex workers like Fantine are in a terrible position, but they are not sex slaves, and the abolitionist feminist discourse Anne Hathaway supports makes their lives harder by furthering their criminalization (just read accounts from our movement about what’s going on in Sweden under the Swedish model for sex workers, to see what happens under this abolitionist feminist agenda) and exposing them to rescue industry practices which lead to deportation and police abuse. “Save us from our saviors. We’re tired of being saved” is the slogan of VAMP, a sex workers’ collective in India, many of whom are survival sex workers, and our movement sees that reflected globally from EMPOWER in Thailand to the African Sex Workers’ Alliance when survival sex workers are asked about what THEY want.

Reply

spacer Mish March 15, 2013 at 1:59 am

Survival sex work is a ridiculous term. All work is survival work. Why does nobody talk about survival retail workers, or survival cleaners? Because they are nonsense terms just like survival sex work.

Reply

spacer Kitty Carr September 4, 2013 at 11:05 am

Absolutely, but this is the case for suvsistance workers in all industries. Only when it’s sex – which is stigmatised for women, partly by way of the patriarchal fiction embraced by both radscum and mainstream thought of sex perma tainting women but empowering men – is the exploitation that runs right thru the capitalust economy used as a reason to deny rights to all workers industry-wide.

Reply

spacer Derrick Kardos February 21, 2013 at 2:24 pm

This is absolutely fucking brilliant.

Reply

spacer Brett February 22, 2013 at 10:40 am

I agree, we should be careful not to generalize the experiences of prostitutes (or anyone), but this piece does the same, but opposite, as Hathaway. “There may well be women out there who relate to Fantine”? I would have to say, yes. Like when Fantine was nearly arrested for attacking a man who intended to force sex on her? When, with absolutely no where else to turn, she chooses (but this is a much different choice than freely choosing to do what she wants) to sell herself? These are real experiences (certainly not universal, but real), and should not be undermined because they don’t fit into a certain empowered image of prostitution. Hathaway’s comments speak to a very real experience, particularly of those in “sex tourism” nations, such as the Philippines, who can hardly be called anything other than sex slaves. Like Hathaway, I do not intend to paint all women in prostitution with this brush, but I see no specific harm in acknowledging its reality. Many people would be shocked to see the conditions that some prostitutes face; what in god’s name is wrong with Hathaway drawing attention to this particular story?

Reply

spacer Caty Simon February 22, 2013 at 11:57 pm

titsandsass.com/miserable-politics-why-anne-hathaway-should-go-away/#comment-5594

Reply

spacer Nine February 23, 2013 at 12:28 am

I get your point, but how do you get straight from “who can hardly be called anything other than sex slaves” to “I do not intend to paint all women in prostitution with this brush”? I would venture that the realities of sex work in ‘sex tourism’ nations, as in other nations, are in fact rather nuanced; here are some sex workers in the Philippines who would not appreciate being called sex slaves.

Reply

spacer Brett February 24, 2013 at 11:43 am

Good point, my statement needed a qualifier: “many of whom can hardly be called anything other than sex slaves”

However, the fact that 175 filipino prostitutes (A small number, when considering the magnitude of the sex industry in this country, or perhaps a large number when you consider how many filipino sex workers have access to facebook/computers. Who knows.) are empowered and fulfilled by their work does not discount the legacy of prostitution in this nation. Selling Sex in Heaven presents a pretty harrowing look at the lives of some of these young women. Those who wish to be prostitutes need to be protected with effective legislation and provided with safe working conditions, etc. Those who do not (and there are plenty. Majority or not, there are plenty, and they seem to have been pushed to the margins in these discussions), but find themselves engaged in it, need help getting out.

Reply

spacer Nine February 24, 2013 at 9:11 pm

Those who wish to be prostitutes need to be protected with effective legislation and provided with safe working conditions, etc. Those who do not (and there are plenty. Majority or not, there are plenty, and they seem to have been pushed to the margins in these discussions), but find themselves engaged in it, need help getting out.

Yes they need help getting out, but they also need to be protected with effective legislation and safe working conditions, because that help getting out isn’t going to materialise or be effective overnight. Abolitionist strategies fail to prioritise harm reduction, least of all for those who are already more vulnerable. I want to echo Caty Simon’s comment that she linked above.

Reply

spacer Brett February 26, 2013 at 12:10 pm

Some pretty major mischaracterizations of what I’m trying to say. Obviously I don’t believe that only those who WANT to be prostitutes need protection, and those who don’t should be left to figure it out for themselves. Efforts to deal with the dangerous world of prostitution must be two pronged: Safety and harm reduction, so that I can stop turning on the news to hear someone callously dismiss the murder of a prostitute; and training, counselling, and special services for those who, regardless of safety concerns, are not fulfilled, satisfied or comfortable with working in the sex trade, and would like a hand getting out. I reiterate this because most of the comments posted here are unwilling to acknowledge this reality as anything other than the “creation” of the evil abolitionist scholars and feminists.
And Caty, I feel that women who are bought, sold, controlled, and paid a penance would disagree with your characterization of their “superficial slavery” Who cares that there is a minor wage involved if a woman’s agency is taken away, and she is engaged in something against her will? Its tragic to see that the suffering of some women is increased by misguided saviour effects, but not entirely helpful for anyone to insist that “things are just find, leave it alone.” I’d simply like an acknowledment that more than one narrative of prostitution exists, and if we assume (incorrectly) that the only significant one is one in which sex workers are empowered, free, and safe, we overlook a population that doesn’t need us to stop helping, they simply need us to learn how to help in a way that doesn’t impose our repressive values on them.

spacer Kitty Carr September 4, 2013 at 11:09 am

Point is if you aren’t a sex worker, what right have you to dehumanise us by making us your tragedy porn barbies? One dimensional

gipoco.com is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.