Wicked Body Discourse

It’s nothing new.

People’s bodies have been the subject of discussion in the media world for decades, whether it is guessing Marilyn Monroe’s dress size now or the equating of her look to promiscuity at the time. In today’s media age, when everything is visual and inflammatory, how someone looks has become the epitome of their being, their beliefs, and their worth.

‘Wicked’ has been no exception.

**throughout this article I will be using the terms “man/en” and “woman/en”, however this is not meant to exclude anyone who does not identify with these terms, and is purely for legibility**

**this article includes mentions of eating disorders and body image**

Women in the workplace

I’m not going to focus on Cynthia Erivo or Ariana Grande specifically here, but what I am going to talk about is the treatment of women, both in Hollywood and in wider society, being made subjects of their bodies.

The demonisation of female leads in film is rife. It would not matter who was cast in ‘Wicked’; the actors playing Elphaba and Glinda in this momentous pop culture moment were always going to be highlighted online and on our TVs.

It is interesting to consider the largely feminine audience that have viewed this musical. For years, musicals have been perceived as a “female” activity, which could not be further from the truth. However, this angle does reveal something significant when considering bodily discourse, both on a specific and universal level.

Media “aimed” at women — typically characterised as consumers of rom-coms, musicals, and dance videos on TikTok — has higher proportions of negatives commentary towards the women featured in it. This applies to both their manner and their appearance. Therefore, it is intriguing to consider why, for this suggests that it is more likely for women to pass comment on other women, rather than it being rooted in gendered conflict.

Indeed, it is in part the adoption of these behaviours by women that perpetuates patriarchy. As bell hooks notes in ‘the will to change’, women are just as responsible for the continuation of gender roles as men, with internalised misogyny being particularly difficult to unravel.

It may stem from jealousy; albeit this being an oversimplification and (in its own way) a representation of female stereotypes (such as “cattiness”). That is precisely the thing though. We are so steeped in gender expectations, being brought up around them from birth, that escape is largely improbable.

Returning to Hollywood, women are often subjected to body discourse and venom within a given film when their male co-stars are not. While women actors are more highly criticised in “women aimed” film, women actors are supplementary in “men aimed” films. This is, of course, not always the case, but it is an interesting trend. Male actors are discussed in aspect of their work, their skill, while the women are framed in aesthetic.

This is a one-sided consideration, however. For in media that is aimed at women, another demon lurks.

Men in media

The objectification of male leads and celebrities is an issue that (as far as I am aware) is not discussed nearly as much as the objectification of women. This is not to say that this latter topic is to be neglected (the earlier segment of this article professes this). Using ‘Wicked’ as a launching pad, I’d like to talk about Jonathon Bailey.

As the new “it man” of Hollywood (and Instagram), Jonathon Bailey has been propelled to the forefront of a fair number of minds. To preface, my opinion is not regarding having a celebrity crush — we all have them — but rather the intensity with which people are sharing and pushing the crush agenda.

Bailey has become an object, whether through photos saved on one’s phone or video reels. Again, this all falls under the celebrity crush umbrella, however a few videos I have seen have really disturbed me. One Instagram short included a young woman, beard painted on, with a caption of the like: “pretending to be a man so Jonathon Bailey falls for me”.

This made my skin crawl. As an advocate for the LGBTQ+ community, Bailey does not deserve this kind of disrespect. Perhaps I am overreacting, but the sentiment felt incredibly wrong.

He seems to take it in good humour, and I don’t think that any of this is with malicious intent, but it makes me reflect on how we are as a society when comparing the two manners of discussion. There’s a clear line between being attracted to someone and being invasive and inappropriate.

It’s important to talk about the pressures on male celebrities too. The actors Henry Cavill and Channing Tatum have both spoken about how unnatural it is to achieve and maintain the body type they must have as an male action film protagonist, with Cavill discussing the “dehydration” stage (where the actor does not drink water for an extended period) that is enforced to make muscles pop. In order to get the biggest roles in Hollywood, men must train intensively to get this body, otherwise they’re chucked to the bottom of the interview pile. There is training once one is cast, but as Daniel Craig of James Bond fame has said; training up for each film in the franchise got harder as he went on, and this crash dieting and intense workout regime is incredibly stressful on the body.

Endorsing disorders

A primary discussion around women actors in the public eye and their bodies is that of being “too thin”. With the re-rise of heroine chic, this is certainly alarming, and our greater awareness of the false promises of these looks is essential. I would argue, however, that it is better to have conversations than place the blame at a few women’s feet, feeding the beast of body surveillance.

The video essayist Khadija Mbowe says something really important; no one is glorifying anything by just existing. When someone exists in a body, of any shape or size, that does not automatically mean that they endorse that body for everyone. Everyone’s bodies are different, accordingly needing different nourishment and activity. How one person looks on a certain amount of food or certain level of activity is highly individualised, and it is not fair to assume endorsement based on a red carpet photograph. We do not know what is going on in someone’s private life, no matter how well we think we do. Parasocial relationships have much to answer for here.

Today, Anorexia Nervosa is viewed as a badge of honour, a quick diagnosis, a buzz word, a throw away term, a disgusted remark and smudge on your influence on fans; not as a disorder, a condition, something that should be taken seriously. It disgusts me how easily people can gossip about someone’s body. An expression of concern may come from a benevolent place, but when public figures are barraged with rhetoric it undoubtedly becomes tiring and even unsettling. Pursuing a career in the arts does not necessarily mean the pursuit of fame, and so these figures did not ask to be scrutinised as they are.

If you want to attack someone, attack pro-ana sites.

People are talking about this topic when they have no idea what it’s like to be in that position. It is understandable that people are concerned when a celebrity suddenly loses a lot of weight, but none of us know what is going on in their mind. We, afterall, are not their core support network. Hankering someone with commentary is not the way to help them heal their relationship with their body, with food, with anything — it, in my experience, only makes one retreat further. Eating disorders are so intricate and personalised, and it is impossible to understand unless you have been there.

This is not a privilege.

Therefore, I do not appreciate this intense discourse surrounding anyone; be it Grande, Erivo, Bailey, or your next-door neighbour.

We need to be more careful with our platforms, and it begins with a change in attitude.