Movie Posters Love Showing Off An Actress From Behind

Have you noticed that movie studios love to objectify an attractive actress by showing off her assets from behind on movie posters? Emily Asher-Perrin of Tor certainly spotted the trend and put together a convincing case about how awfully cliched it is.

Here's how Asher-Perrin describes the mystery adding pose and why movies love to use it for actresses:

Well, it typically does a good job of showing off all of a lady's assets for one. And I'm sure if an actress isn't quite so curvy, showing off her posterior sounds like a good way of ramping up sex appeal. It's also a pose that tells you, in no uncertain terms, "I'm here for you to objectify me. It's OK, you don't have to feel bad about it."

Another design cliche to add to the one-trick pony that is Hollywood movie posters. See the whole body of evidence here. [Tor via Neatorama]


    Butt + sideboob = cha-ching!

      I came here to post exactly this.

      Butt and side-boob = accetpable use of sex for public consumption.

    Kind makes me sad that, Kotaku AU wins a Journalism award yet we still get this garbage. Glad they only look at the AU articles.


      However, the guy dose have a point.....

      Take a chill pill gill! That comment is a bit old too, really...

    Does this issue apply to game box art? Wonder if the same trend applies there. Can someone plz mashup some images for comparison? Bonus credit as the article will then have some relevance to Kotaku.

      Here you go!

    It is also a staple model pose in womens magazines aswell... so... old news is old

    In other news, movie posters also frequently feature good looking men. Shocking I know.

    I guess showing a slender woman on the cover objectifies women regardless of whether they're showing the front or the back. Any different than showing off Brad Pitt? Paul Walker? Tobin Bell?

      Yes, because any of these attractive men will be shown in a powerful or dominant pose. Look at any action hero and he will be depicted as being in control, an actor. The women are all in passive or objectifying poses. It is very difficult to take someone seriously as a subject/actor where they are so clearly a sexual object. Hence, why many female led action movies fail to succeed. You can see in Alien or Hunger Games or by the looks of it Prometheus and Haywire that when a female action lead is not sexualised or objectified, they can be taken more seriously as the heroes of their own stories.

    This was the funniest part of the Avengers poster where every character had a 'hero' pose except Black Widow who inexplicably had her butt pointed at the viewer. I'm not complaining though, it works both ways.

      She was clearly checking out their arses. Sly wench!

    And in fine movie poster tradition, the main colors are blue amd orange.

    DAT ASS :)

    It's definetly a cliche. Same as the *hero walks away from explosion without looking back.

      Cool guys don't look at explosions!

    Wah, wah, let's burn some bras!

    Cliches and stereotypes are ok! And they don't just apply to women.

    Sex sells, deal with it.

    Although it would be nice if they investigated some more interesting forms for their future posters, I do understand why bodies are objectified, sex sells, we like it, they give it and bait us.

    Particularly telling that the examples include two Whedon franchises, given the man is a self-confessed feminist!

    It's not just women that this pose is used for, it's used for men too. It's the whole "the back + weapons looks really awesome" thing. The only real difference is that for men it's usually used to show off weapons, whereas with women it shows off their weapons AND their bodies. With men here:

    I don't see why "objectification" (more correctly, "highlighting the appeal of a subject's appearance") is necessarily a bad thing in the first place. Plenty of people like to look at hot women, and plenty of people like to look at hot men.

    No, I don't think that seeing posters like this somehow makes men think of women as nothing but objects (i.e. not actual persons, just means to sexual stimulation). The vast majority of men actually know some real life women (including but not limited to their mothers, sisters, daughters, wives, girlfriends and gal-pals) and are therefore quite aware of the fact that (gasp) these women are people with goals/hopes/desires/dreams/aims/opinions/etc.

    Sure, the amount of fanservicey depictions of men is currently less than the amount of fanservicey depictions of women. This is changing as women become a far more lucrative demographic (its often called the Xbox Effect, "guy movies" are making less money on average because many males are playing video games as a substitute for going to movies, therefore the movie business has decided to go more aggressively for the female market... also, as gaming has attracted more women, games have been more likely to cater for female audiences at least some of the time). And in my opinion, catering to the female demographic is a positive development.

    Yes, the pose is overused. But it is scarcely a giant insult against women as a class. There's nothing wrong with fanservicey females. That said, I do agree that works of fiction should try and include fanservice for as wide an audience as possible, and thus I would have nothing against more fanservicey males.

      Most men, even while enjoying this objectification, are able to understand that women are people, not sexual objects. However, for those that don't, and they do exist, it contributes to the dehumanisation of women, which in turn makes it excusable to treat them as less than human. It is because of these people that the objectification and dehumanisation of women needs to stop. If these women were in powerful poses, ones that did not sexualise them, but they still looked sexy, then this would be less of an issue, then their depictions would match that of male heros - sexy but strong and powerful and in control. Sexualised does not equal sexy, and this is only a problem with one of them.

    Get off your horse and admit it, most of you only read this article because of the words " Showing Off An Actress From Behind" and saw pictures of butts ;)

    Its pleasent but not ultra provocative. I think some woman have serious complexes

    What in fucks name has this got to do with anything that this site supposedly focuses on.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now