Molly Ringwald – she’s the actress we all know and love thanks to those ginger locks, that peaches and cream skin, and those iconic 1980s films that made her a household name.
These fame-inducing movies were written and directed by Ringwald’s long-time friend and collaborator, John Hughes.
They were flicks that created a new genre unto themselves, crafted a lasting cultural legacy, and captured what it was like to be a teenager in America.
They were also responsible for Ringwald’s career.
As Hughes’s muse, Ringwald starred in a number of films penned by the famous scribe and director, including The Breakfast Club, Sixteen Candles, and Pretty In Pink.
So, it seems safe to say, there’s no one more qualified to critically analyse these movies more than three decades after they were first released.
While some of Hughes’s films have already received criticism for their portrayal of race (just look at the Long Duk Dong character in Sixteen Candles, need we say more), there’s been a lack of commentary around the gender and misogyny issues sprinkled throughout each film.
In a new essay for The New Yorker, Ringwald writes about coming to terms with the sexism and chauvinistic behaviour in Hughes’s films, as well as the fact that these movies are still completely accepted in their entirety without question by today’s society and culture.
Ringwald writes beautifully, fairly, and carefully when broaching the subject.
Of course, the Internet (more specifically Twitter) jumped all over Ringwald the second the story was published, chastising her for criticising the man that made her famous.
In other words, they told her to shut up and be grateful.
Lovely, no?
Today, Molly Ringwald insulted John Hughes, the man who made her career, saying he'd made "problematic films." Yawn.
I think the words she was looking for are, "Thank you."
— C. A. Smith (@BrainMashup) April 7, 2018
Oh come on, #MollyRingwald. If we're gonna do that, you may as well go back and criticize silent films for tying women up onto train tracks. https://t.co/xPh5qpdtZF
— Lesley Abravanel (@lesleyabravanel) April 6, 2018
I'll have more later, but my initial reaction to the Molly Ringwald / John Hughes think piece is that we need to stop putting everything & everyone under a microscope. Under a microscope, it is impossible to escape even the most minute flaws, as they are blown out of proportion
— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) April 6, 2018
The issues Ringwald raised during her article weren’t small tidbits or anecdotes worthy of brushing over.
They were legitimate concerns about the way female characters were treated and represented in these films.
These matters included inappropriate touching and issues of consent.
Considering Ringwald noticed many of these problematic scenes while re-watching the films with her young daughter, it seems more important than ever that she speak out about the treatment of women in Hughes’s movies.
“As I can see now, Bender sexually harasses Claire throughout the film. When he’s not sexualizing her, he takes out his rage on her with vicious contempt, calling her ‘pathetic,’ mocking her as ‘Queenie.’ It’s rejection that inspires his vitriol . . . He never apologizes for any of it, but, nevertheless, he gets the girl in the end.”
Ringwald also writes about the famous scene where Bender hides under a desk during their detention session, and positions his head between Claire’s legs.
Ringwald noted the embarrassment she felt when Hughes had to hire another actress for that particular on-screen moment.
“Having another person pretend to be me was embarrassing to me and upsetting to my mother, and she said so,” she says. “That scene stayed, though.”
During her extended essay, Ringwald used plenty of examples to back up her arguments, but admitted that talking about Hughes in this light was particular is hard.
“Whether that’s enough to make up for the impropriety of the films is hard to say—even criticizing them makes me feel like I’m divesting a generation of some of its fondest memories, or being ungrateful since they helped to establish my career. And yet embracing them entirely feels hypocritical. And yet, and yet . . .”
Her end point is not to tell readers to throw their copies of The Breakfast Club into the fire, but she urges us to educate ourselves and view these movies through what we know now – through the lense of the #metoo movement.
It’s a dual perspective approach that is welcomed and needed.
“The conversations about them will change, and they should. It’s up to the following generations to figure out how to continue those conversations and make them their own—to keep talking, in schools, in activism and art—and trust that we care.”
The fact that there are so many men and women eager to defend Hughes in an instant, yet demonise Ringwald for speaking out about her own personal experiences while shining light on the context these films were created in, is an example of the exact problem Ringwald is trying to eradicate.
Silencing women, victim shaming, victim blaming – this seems to be par for the course when women dare to speak out and verbalise their truth, and it needs to be stopped.
Ringwald is doing her bit.
As frustrating as the Twitter backlash has been, thankfully common sense still prevails in some parts of this topsy-turvy world.
There have been a number of Ringwald defenders happy to explain the article and Ringwald’s intentions to those who have either not read it, or completely missed the point.
https://twitter.com/jennyhan/status/982363972086120449
https://twitter.com/jennyhan/status/982398959984443397
.@MollyRingwald's brilliant essay about John Hughes is a superb exploration of what it means to love "problematic" art. https://t.co/DoSDB3GiJu pic.twitter.com/Oc1Lo9nTlf
— Boing Boing (@BoingBoing) April 8, 2018
Ringwald’s essay is a timely reminder that misogyny, homophobia, and racism can’t be overlooked or tolerated anymore, no matter how much something means to our adolesence.
Considering these particular movies are still being shown at school and taught in film class, she couldn’t be more right.
Keep writing Molly, we’re listening.