Let me interrupt the flow of our discussion to mention a movie that was apparently popular and yet is an utter fail. It is amazing to me that this film was directed by, co-produced by, and acted in by womans.
Warning for anybody reading-- there are SPOILERS ahead because I don't car, because this movie was spoiled when it was made.
At the beginning we are introduced to Sandra Bullock's character who is an unrepentent and loathed bitch at a publishing company. She is awfully awful, and she is most awful to her assistant Ryan Reynolds, who hates her. It's important to note that this section of film is convincing, and that their mutual disregard contains no hint of romantic tension or anything like it.It is possible that the movie wants to make a complete and utter surprise out of what everybody knows is coming, that is in fact the reason that everybody bought tickets, BUT this belongs to a special family of movie "surprises" that are surprising because they make no sense. Yes, it would have been surprising if Peter Jackson had had the One Ring turn into a gold-plated fax machine, but that's not a good thing.
But I get ahead of myself.
She's going to be deported to Canada, so she blackmails Reynolds into marrying her, and they have to leave immediately for a weekend with his family in Alaska. He also forces her to propose on her knees in the street, because now that we know she's a hig-powered successful bitch, the humiliations can safely begin.
They travel to Alaska. Turns out his family is loaded and he's shlepping in NHYC because of daddy issues. And his grandmother is Betty White. Let the hilarity ensue.
Now after three years of mutual distaste, they must fake, for his family, engagement. A party awaits them so that all the home town folks can meet her, and thy are forced to kiss. It's awkward but the music cue tells us that BANG they are now somehow interested in each other.
More hilarious interaction ensues. No, I'm lying. But the movie does contrive to throw them together naked on top of each other on the floor, and BANG, they are more interested in each other.
Then, as they are lying in different parts of the room they share that night, Bullock just starts sharing personal stuff. Is there a reason? Has her character turned into someone else? Do Reynolds ripped abs have some magic power? (That last one seems most plausible)
More wackiness. Bullock performs a drum ceremony with White in the woods which devolves into her dancing and singing-ish a rap about sweat running down her balls. The family decides the wedding will be held there. The women (including the obligatory sweet former girlfriend) take Bullock to see a bad stripper.
Bullocks character disintegrates. She's worked her way up to the top in publishing, but a pay-computer at an internet cafe flusters her. She has shmoozed at the highest levels of business, but she is socially awkward. And she regularly abuses her employees without a second thought, but she is now wracked with guilt for lying to these adorable total strangers.
She runs off to think about it in a boat with Reynolds and then, wackily, falls out. He rescues her (she can't swim, though she is a heck of good non-swimmer, or at least a bad drowner) and we can see that, wrapped up in a towel and his big strong man-arms, she finally feels okay.
She confesses in the middle of the wedding ceremony and runs off. Reynolds (boggle) wants to follow her. At the height of an argument with his father, Betty White has a heart attack. We curse the movie for using the oldest, cheapest trick in the book, but then in the ambu-plane, White reveals she was faking to force a reconciliation. At first I was going to givethe movie back a half-point for that, but no-- it doesn't even have the balls to hurt an old lady to get dowwn its obvious and contrived path.
Reynolds misses her plane, but cut to a few days later. She is dejectedly cleaning out her office, when in he comes. He makes a manly proposal and she melts. The office-full of people who loathed and feared her a week ago melt and oo and ahh like they're looking at a truckload of puppies, except for some guy who, as we fade to black, yells, "Show her who's boss."
So yes-- the moral of this rom-com is, once again, women who are in power are inhuman monsters who can only be redeemed by some man with big arms who puts them back in their place and lets them be the frail, weepy creatures they are meant to be.
Or the moral may be, when faced with a totally predictable plot, try to spice it up with characters that make no sense.
The movie has some occasional moments. There's a scene where, asked to tell the story of the proposal, the two improvise and struggle to steer the made-up story to make Reynolds either more or less manly. There are what appear to be improvised interviews over the credits which are fun. That's a good three minutes of decent movie all told.
It could have been worse. Nobody suggests that she really needs to get laid, and the two characters do not have sex. He doesn't chase her through an airport terminal. There's no goopy ballad in the soundtrack.
But my Lord in Heaven, this movie is an offense against womankind in particular and humanity and story-telling general.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Keeping Streisand at Bay
We are watching (and sitll haven't finished) the Judy Garland version of A Star is Born. Because Nick didn't know who Liza Minelli was. And he had never seen Judy in anything but Wizard of Oz. So that's that. I have never seen a Barbra Streisand movie, because I find her so obnoxious.
On a totally unrelated note, you should go see the new Jennifer Aniston movie, because it is based on a Eugenides short story. It's really a story about boys, I think, so maybe it won't be so relevant here, but we all know how much I love Jeff, so I will go. Actually, since I will be home so soon, we could probably go together.
I think that's all I have to add. You caught on to the essential problem/paradox/weirdness of Ms. Piggy being a badass, but also being played by a guy. Drag characters in general may come up here a lot actually.
On a totally unrelated note, you should go see the new Jennifer Aniston movie, because it is based on a Eugenides short story. It's really a story about boys, I think, so maybe it won't be so relevant here, but we all know how much I love Jeff, so I will go. Actually, since I will be home so soon, we could probably go together.
I think that's all I have to add. You caught on to the essential problem/paradox/weirdness of Ms. Piggy being a badass, but also being played by a guy. Drag characters in general may come up here a lot actually.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
I don't know that I'm ready to deal with Streisand yet. Though "What's Up, Doc" is now out on disc. That might be the last thing she did that I unequivocally liked.
Cabaret is a heck of a movie. I agree that Minelli takes things up a notch by her two-layered performance, turning Sally from a character who is the standard Auntie Mame theater bigger-than-life goddess into a woman who doesn't seem to know herself and prefers to view her own illusions. It's super-effective for the film because it makes a perfect bridge to a country that refuses to see itself as it really is, all building up to the finale of the song "Cabaret" that is not the celebration of life that it pretends to be, but a creepy and ineffective denial of the darker things that, unanswered, will soon overwhelm the club and places like it. I saw the movie in college and I still remember that final shot of the nazis' twisted reflection.
It was also a brave film in its time, with its subtle suggestion that throwing flowers and peace signs around and telling yourself you're really hip and together when you aren't.
I'm not sure how it fits our purposes here, but it is a good film. I should probably watch it again. (I am also tickled that it covers exactly the same period as Sound of Music. I want Maria and Sally to meet.)
Another suggestion to add to the list is Farscape, probably one of the most female-heavy SF series ever. And since it is essentially a four-and-a-half year love story between its two leads, it hs some stuff to say about that, too.
I agree that Miss Piggy makes a good choice. But what do we do with the fact that she's played by a man.
Cabaret is a heck of a movie. I agree that Minelli takes things up a notch by her two-layered performance, turning Sally from a character who is the standard Auntie Mame theater bigger-than-life goddess into a woman who doesn't seem to know herself and prefers to view her own illusions. It's super-effective for the film because it makes a perfect bridge to a country that refuses to see itself as it really is, all building up to the finale of the song "Cabaret" that is not the celebration of life that it pretends to be, but a creepy and ineffective denial of the darker things that, unanswered, will soon overwhelm the club and places like it. I saw the movie in college and I still remember that final shot of the nazis' twisted reflection.
It was also a brave film in its time, with its subtle suggestion that throwing flowers and peace signs around and telling yourself you're really hip and together when you aren't.
I'm not sure how it fits our purposes here, but it is a good film. I should probably watch it again. (I am also tickled that it covers exactly the same period as Sound of Music. I want Maria and Sally to meet.)
Another suggestion to add to the list is Farscape, probably one of the most female-heavy SF series ever. And since it is essentially a four-and-a-half year love story between its two leads, it hs some stuff to say about that, too.
I agree that Miss Piggy makes a good choice. But what do we do with the fact that she's played by a man.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Bwahahaa
I am just basking (sp?) in my Mulan victory right now.
Nick and I have started watching all those movies that people are supposed to see but we haven't. So far I am not sure what it would add to our purposes, except that Liza Minelli is pretty freaking amazing in Cabaret. I wasn't crazy about the movie, but I loved her.
Of course, the movie version of Sally Boyles kind of paints her as a lot weaker than she paints herself to be, but that vulnerability makes her decision to get an abortion look like pure true strength vs selfishness or cruelty. Somehow it makes sense to me that the decisions that take the most strength would make a woman look the worst. Like all other female badasses in Disney are the villians. But what Sally does, essentially, is free the man she loves. Is to give up her one chance at normalcy for him AND for herself.
I really loved how the film nuanced the character from the show and I thought Liza was brilliant. In dialogue, Sally is a character who always tells you who she is and Minelli's performance constantly rejects what her own character was saying. Its an effective illustration of sort of easy strength (strong performances, using sex appeal, etc) and strength of character (facing your own numerous flaws, insecurities, etc.).Loved it.
Right now we are mid-way through A Star is Born. We also watched Muppets Take Manhattan- Miss Piggy might be a fun thing to talk about here.
Nick and I have started watching all those movies that people are supposed to see but we haven't. So far I am not sure what it would add to our purposes, except that Liza Minelli is pretty freaking amazing in Cabaret. I wasn't crazy about the movie, but I loved her.
Of course, the movie version of Sally Boyles kind of paints her as a lot weaker than she paints herself to be, but that vulnerability makes her decision to get an abortion look like pure true strength vs selfishness or cruelty. Somehow it makes sense to me that the decisions that take the most strength would make a woman look the worst. Like all other female badasses in Disney are the villians. But what Sally does, essentially, is free the man she loves. Is to give up her one chance at normalcy for him AND for herself.
I really loved how the film nuanced the character from the show and I thought Liza was brilliant. In dialogue, Sally is a character who always tells you who she is and Minelli's performance constantly rejects what her own character was saying. Its an effective illustration of sort of easy strength (strong performances, using sex appeal, etc) and strength of character (facing your own numerous flaws, insecurities, etc.).Loved it.
Right now we are mid-way through A Star is Born. We also watched Muppets Take Manhattan- Miss Piggy might be a fun thing to talk about here.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
MULAN
Okay, I'm watching it. But because I'm a lazy man, I'm goin to try real time blogging and simply comment as I go....
I'd forgotten how old this was-- 1998. Pre-Hercules!
Hey, it's June Foray!!
"You'll Bring Honor To Us All" Okay, statement of traditional values without making too much of a straw man out of them.
Marni Nixon is singing for Grandma!! Marni Nixon is a movie musical Goddess!
Matchmaker is fat and obnoxious. Mulan's requisite outcast status is now established.
"If I were truly to be myself, I would break my family's heart" Hey-- I know this song! So her problem is that she can't reveal her true identity.
Dieing for honor-- a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, and everyone should know their place. And so she transforms, set to uber-heroic soundtrack.
Chinese religious traditions are HIlarious!
The Huns don't even look human.
Men in the army are gross, disgusting, and stupid. Also brutish and ridiculously violent. She tries to spit, gets manly urges to kill something and cook outdoors. If we had a character trying to pass as a woman and talking about being helpless and overemotional and having big urge to shop, would that be sexist?
Captain is derided for being a "pretty boy"
"I'll make a man out of you" Free from standard guy stereotypes. Part of message is suck it up and don't quit.
Hygiene is a stupid girly habit.
Marching off to battle. "A Girl Worth Fighting For" "How bout a girl who has a brain and speaks her mind? Nahh..."
First battle scene is straightforward and traditional, all manly and warriorlike.
Some sort of extra points for having the extra-macho soldier played by Harvey Fierstein.
She wanted to do things right so that when she looked in the mirror she'd see someone worthwhile. Main character statement without gender attached
"You said you'd trust Ping. Why is Mulan any different?" Echoes a scene in Tootsie.
I wish noone had ever developed software to render large crowds. It always looks out of place.
Be A Man reprise when dressed as geishas. Cute.
Boy, it's a good thing that there's no group of Huns to see this movie. They're like ev ery bad cliche ethnic depiction of Asians from the first half of the 20th century.
The captain physically fights the Hun chief. All Mulan can do is avoid getting hit for most of the fight.
Hugs all around. Very Disney.
Now must earn approval of father. More hugging.Followed by inappropriate modern funky finale number.
Okay, I admit it. I was way over-abusing this film. I take it all back. It has problems, but they aren't sexism. I'll even let you call the over-the-top moments with the men as clever post-modern satire on gender stereotypes and not merely a set-up to make her look good.
In other words, I hereby publicly acknowledge that you were right and I was wrong.
I'd forgotten how old this was-- 1998. Pre-Hercules!
Hey, it's June Foray!!
"You'll Bring Honor To Us All" Okay, statement of traditional values without making too much of a straw man out of them.
Marni Nixon is singing for Grandma!! Marni Nixon is a movie musical Goddess!
Matchmaker is fat and obnoxious. Mulan's requisite outcast status is now established.
"If I were truly to be myself, I would break my family's heart" Hey-- I know this song! So her problem is that she can't reveal her true identity.
Dieing for honor-- a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, and everyone should know their place. And so she transforms, set to uber-heroic soundtrack.
Chinese religious traditions are HIlarious!
The Huns don't even look human.
Men in the army are gross, disgusting, and stupid. Also brutish and ridiculously violent. She tries to spit, gets manly urges to kill something and cook outdoors. If we had a character trying to pass as a woman and talking about being helpless and overemotional and having big urge to shop, would that be sexist?
Captain is derided for being a "pretty boy"
"I'll make a man out of you" Free from standard guy stereotypes. Part of message is suck it up and don't quit.
Hygiene is a stupid girly habit.
Marching off to battle. "A Girl Worth Fighting For" "How bout a girl who has a brain and speaks her mind? Nahh..."
First battle scene is straightforward and traditional, all manly and warriorlike.
Some sort of extra points for having the extra-macho soldier played by Harvey Fierstein.
She wanted to do things right so that when she looked in the mirror she'd see someone worthwhile. Main character statement without gender attached
"You said you'd trust Ping. Why is Mulan any different?" Echoes a scene in Tootsie.
I wish noone had ever developed software to render large crowds. It always looks out of place.
Be A Man reprise when dressed as geishas. Cute.
Boy, it's a good thing that there's no group of Huns to see this movie. They're like ev ery bad cliche ethnic depiction of Asians from the first half of the 20th century.
The captain physically fights the Hun chief. All Mulan can do is avoid getting hit for most of the fight.
Hugs all around. Very Disney.
Now must earn approval of father. More hugging.Followed by inappropriate modern funky finale number.
Okay, I admit it. I was way over-abusing this film. I take it all back. It has problems, but they aren't sexism. I'll even let you call the over-the-top moments with the men as clever post-modern satire on gender stereotypes and not merely a set-up to make her look good.
In other words, I hereby publicly acknowledge that you were right and I was wrong.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Salt
Went to see Salt this week, the spy-action thriller with Angelina Jolie playing the part originally intended for Tom Cruise.
It's a hard film to evaluate in part because it starts and ends with giant plot holes-- everything in between, but it takes what to me is a giant improbability to get things started and a massive oversight to avoid the more obvious ending.
Let me know if you see it, or if you plan not to bother, because I can't really discuss it without spoilers, but I think it includes a couple of aspects that fit our discussion here. I don't think Evelyn Salt is exactly the woman we've been searching for, but I think the film gives us a couple more clues.
It's a hard film to evaluate in part because it starts and ends with giant plot holes-- everything in between, but it takes what to me is a giant improbability to get things started and a massive oversight to avoid the more obvious ending.
Let me know if you see it, or if you plan not to bother, because I can't really discuss it without spoilers, but I think it includes a couple of aspects that fit our discussion here. I don't think Evelyn Salt is exactly the woman we've been searching for, but I think the film gives us a couple more clues.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
In defense of Mulan
I just want to point out, and maybe this isn't true for you, but on my version of our blog, all my writing is pink and all your writing is blue. Damn you blogger-gods!
Ok, so I have to admit, the fact that Mulan bugs you so much kind of bugs me. Like you pointed out, every movie can only have one main character, so each story can only be really a boy's story or a girl's. As you also point out, the inverse Mulan story- where men are heroes and all the women are incompitant idiots is probably one of the most repeated tropes in film (including most of the other "girl's stories" Disney has put out... I mean none of the other Disney princesses really fight their own battles). SOOO what the hell is wrong with the woman needing to be the hero (and I want to say you should watch the movie again... the men really aren't all that incompetent and both her leader and her all of her various animal friends are male)?
It kind of brings us to what the hell we really want from our films. Like you said, very few films can fulfill all of the criteria we could throw out there, be both empowered and flawed in ways that aren't in some way kind of annoying. I feel like the best we can hope for, in some way, is to achieve some sort of balance in the whole of our viewership. I think about this a lot for what I would show the kids I don't actually have even as a sparkle in my eye. I am not willing to cut off my kids from Pixar movies (excpet cars) because they are generally really good, BUT I also don't want to send the message that heroes only come with penises. So, so what if Mulan shortchanges the characterization of the men for her story? It's her story!
At the same time, I think I am trying to figure out how to have a better balance in my own viewership- not just watching crap (and giving it my money) when it treats women as captive audiences for the power of oridnary man to blow shit up. I just don't care.
I think it's worth the caveat too, jumping off from your point about generational differences, that we are mostly dealing all with one period's worth of film makers lately. One that I perceive as being highly heteronormative ( I mean, our conversation has become totally relational- its always women in respect to men). I don't know how far we can get from this (Juno comes to mind as something that is less concerned with this sort of politic, where the men are really really supporting characters), especially because then we land on what is essentially feminine and what is essentially woman. How trans could we get here? Cate Blanchett as Bob Dylan? Hillary Swank as Brandon? Can we think of any men who play compelling female characters? I don't know how far we can go down that rabbit hole, but it is worth noting that it exists.
Ok, so I have to admit, the fact that Mulan bugs you so much kind of bugs me. Like you pointed out, every movie can only have one main character, so each story can only be really a boy's story or a girl's. As you also point out, the inverse Mulan story- where men are heroes and all the women are incompitant idiots is probably one of the most repeated tropes in film (including most of the other "girl's stories" Disney has put out... I mean none of the other Disney princesses really fight their own battles). SOOO what the hell is wrong with the woman needing to be the hero (and I want to say you should watch the movie again... the men really aren't all that incompetent and both her leader and her all of her various animal friends are male)?
It kind of brings us to what the hell we really want from our films. Like you said, very few films can fulfill all of the criteria we could throw out there, be both empowered and flawed in ways that aren't in some way kind of annoying. I feel like the best we can hope for, in some way, is to achieve some sort of balance in the whole of our viewership. I think about this a lot for what I would show the kids I don't actually have even as a sparkle in my eye. I am not willing to cut off my kids from Pixar movies (excpet cars) because they are generally really good, BUT I also don't want to send the message that heroes only come with penises. So, so what if Mulan shortchanges the characterization of the men for her story? It's her story!
At the same time, I think I am trying to figure out how to have a better balance in my own viewership- not just watching crap (and giving it my money) when it treats women as captive audiences for the power of oridnary man to blow shit up. I just don't care.
I think it's worth the caveat too, jumping off from your point about generational differences, that we are mostly dealing all with one period's worth of film makers lately. One that I perceive as being highly heteronormative ( I mean, our conversation has become totally relational- its always women in respect to men). I don't know how far we can get from this (Juno comes to mind as something that is less concerned with this sort of politic, where the men are really really supporting characters), especially because then we land on what is essentially feminine and what is essentially woman. How trans could we get here? Cate Blanchett as Bob Dylan? Hillary Swank as Brandon? Can we think of any men who play compelling female characters? I don't know how far we can go down that rabbit hole, but it is worth noting that it exists.
I have no argument with you about Pixar -- I noted long ago that they are a bunch of men making movies about how to become a man. What redeems them, at least a little bit for our purposes is that
A) they generally define How To Become A Man in ways beyond the usual stupid movie way but instead focus on things like becoming a nurturing father and pursuing excellence in achievement and
B) you have to learn to become a man in ways that don't involve diminishing the women around you. The solution to the Incredibles' marriage problems does not turn out to be having the Mrs. stay home more and give up her power.
No, you can't switch genders in a Pixar film, but then, you can't switch genders in a Cameron film, either. I think both are trying to work with what is different about men and women without diminishing either.
I'll suggest that being able to switch the genders isn't a metric. The metric that I'm more likely to use is, if the genders were switched, would it be insulting. For instance, if Mulan were gender-switched and we made a movie in which the hero was always right and all the women in the world were stupid, ill-spirited, ridiculous or ugly, would you be insulted. Oh, no, wait-- that movie has been made a zillion times and yes, you were.
I don't think it's coincidental that Cameron and many Pixar guys are from my generation. When we grew up, the conventional progressive wisdom was that men and women were exactly the same and just raised to be different-- nurture accounted for all gender differences. Then we got old enough to see children and almost immediately the PCW said, "Um, no, that can't be right." And my generation has been working on the mystery of what the "real" gender differences are ever since.
Charlie's Angels is not a movie I want to fight for, other than I think it makes an interesting test case because it's a pair of cheesy crappy films. Yes, the women are not real characters except for quirks, but that's standard for action stars-- can you name a single action hero character who is a well-developed character? I don't think I can. It's taken us decades of movie-making to figure out that if we at least cast an actor with chops like Edward Norton or Robert Downey Jr in an action role, they may create at least the appearance of characterization where the writers have failed to do so, but still.
I've lost the thread of where I was going, but I remember thinking that there are two narrative issues here.
One is that a movie can only really have one main character, so until someone makes a movie out of Middlesex, the movie will be either a man or a woman's story.
Second is that movie characterization so often depends on barely-there characterization, removing much of what is authentic about a character, including the parts that make them authentically male or female.
I'm not sure where I was going with either of those thoughts, but I had them, and now I've written them down.
I suppose I will have no choice but to watch Avatar eventually, but I find that basic story arc unappealing, and have done so the six gazzillion other times I've viewed or read it. But yes-- Cameron's interest in telling women's stories is oft-noted. That would be why I told you to watch Aliens.
A) they generally define How To Become A Man in ways beyond the usual stupid movie way but instead focus on things like becoming a nurturing father and pursuing excellence in achievement and
B) you have to learn to become a man in ways that don't involve diminishing the women around you. The solution to the Incredibles' marriage problems does not turn out to be having the Mrs. stay home more and give up her power.
No, you can't switch genders in a Pixar film, but then, you can't switch genders in a Cameron film, either. I think both are trying to work with what is different about men and women without diminishing either.
I'll suggest that being able to switch the genders isn't a metric. The metric that I'm more likely to use is, if the genders were switched, would it be insulting. For instance, if Mulan were gender-switched and we made a movie in which the hero was always right and all the women in the world were stupid, ill-spirited, ridiculous or ugly, would you be insulted. Oh, no, wait-- that movie has been made a zillion times and yes, you were.
I don't think it's coincidental that Cameron and many Pixar guys are from my generation. When we grew up, the conventional progressive wisdom was that men and women were exactly the same and just raised to be different-- nurture accounted for all gender differences. Then we got old enough to see children and almost immediately the PCW said, "Um, no, that can't be right." And my generation has been working on the mystery of what the "real" gender differences are ever since.
Charlie's Angels is not a movie I want to fight for, other than I think it makes an interesting test case because it's a pair of cheesy crappy films. Yes, the women are not real characters except for quirks, but that's standard for action stars-- can you name a single action hero character who is a well-developed character? I don't think I can. It's taken us decades of movie-making to figure out that if we at least cast an actor with chops like Edward Norton or Robert Downey Jr in an action role, they may create at least the appearance of characterization where the writers have failed to do so, but still.
I've lost the thread of where I was going, but I remember thinking that there are two narrative issues here.
One is that a movie can only really have one main character, so until someone makes a movie out of Middlesex, the movie will be either a man or a woman's story.
Second is that movie characterization so often depends on barely-there characterization, removing much of what is authentic about a character, including the parts that make them authentically male or female.
I'm not sure where I was going with either of those thoughts, but I had them, and now I've written them down.
I suppose I will have no choice but to watch Avatar eventually, but I find that basic story arc unappealing, and have done so the six gazzillion other times I've viewed or read it. But yes-- Cameron's interest in telling women's stories is oft-noted. That would be why I told you to watch Aliens.
Monday, June 21, 2010
More Movies
Ok, so I think you have redeemed Charlie's Angels in some ways, but in other ways, not so much. I am kind of convinced that the typical action film may just not have room for truly empowered or interesting female characters (I don't really think one key quirk gives a character a lot of depth).
The past week I have seen a few things, Bride and Prejudice, Avatar, and Toy Story 3. I think the only things that really struck me about Toy Story 3 (for our purposes) was how awesome Barbie and Jessie were, and that Andy's toys could so seemlessly and unquestionably be passed down to Bonnie. I mean, I thought it was the perfect Pixar. To them (and certainly other studios) content for boys (because EVERY SINGLE pixar movie is about becoming a man) should somehow perfectly graft on to girls. I wonder if it would have worked if the roles were reversed. I know you hate Mulan, but this is why I feel like if I had kids I would be sure to have that in our library. I don't want to raise girls thinking they are periphery boys. I love Pixar, but it is a real problem (and I know you are going to take exception to it, but come on! they have enough movies out now that we can't pretend it isn't a real trend).
On the other hand, I think James Cameron actually really likes telling stories about women. I think it's notable that the biggest star in Avatar is Sigourney Weaver. On the other hand, it is a story about a man becoming a man with the help of two women- one on both ends. But, I think I would add Dr. Augustine to the list of strong women. Neytiri, maybe? Have you actually seen this movie yet?
Ok, and on a side note, I love a good Jane Austen remake, and Bride and Prejudice is a good time, because it deals with East/West politics. It, of course, doesn't graft on perfectly, but it is super fun, offers a really cool take on the Elizabeth character, and has Sayid as one of the romantic leads. You can't go wrong, really. Pixar should do a Jane Austen redo!
The past week I have seen a few things, Bride and Prejudice, Avatar, and Toy Story 3. I think the only things that really struck me about Toy Story 3 (for our purposes) was how awesome Barbie and Jessie were, and that Andy's toys could so seemlessly and unquestionably be passed down to Bonnie. I mean, I thought it was the perfect Pixar. To them (and certainly other studios) content for boys (because EVERY SINGLE pixar movie is about becoming a man) should somehow perfectly graft on to girls. I wonder if it would have worked if the roles were reversed. I know you hate Mulan, but this is why I feel like if I had kids I would be sure to have that in our library. I don't want to raise girls thinking they are periphery boys. I love Pixar, but it is a real problem (and I know you are going to take exception to it, but come on! they have enough movies out now that we can't pretend it isn't a real trend).
On the other hand, I think James Cameron actually really likes telling stories about women. I think it's notable that the biggest star in Avatar is Sigourney Weaver. On the other hand, it is a story about a man becoming a man with the help of two women- one on both ends. But, I think I would add Dr. Augustine to the list of strong women. Neytiri, maybe? Have you actually seen this movie yet?
Ok, and on a side note, I love a good Jane Austen remake, and Bride and Prejudice is a good time, because it deals with East/West politics. It, of course, doesn't graft on perfectly, but it is super fun, offers a really cool take on the Elizabeth character, and has Sayid as one of the romantic leads. You can't go wrong, really. Pixar should do a Jane Austen redo!
Friday, June 11, 2010
Charlie's Angels
Okay, I finally watched this again last night. Here's some random observations.
I had forgotten Tom Green was in it. I still don't quite get how anyone ever thought he was funny.
The film does in fact present the main characters as women who are tough, smart, kick-ass and capable. It gives each one a little something to, I guess, round out the character-- Liu can't cook, Barrymore makes bad man choices, Diaz is a ditz-- but those seem offered as leavening and not undercutting for the characters.
It totally passes that test for women characters. Interestingly, it does NOT pass that test for the male characters. There are more than two male characters with names, but they mostly do not talk to each other at all.
That said, the movie is fascinated with the women's asses, which fill the screen as often as their faces. And boobs.
It has what I call the Mulan problem-- these women can be so powerful because the men are morons. There are at least two scenes in which the character takes control of the situation by flaunting her sexuality and thereby reduces the male characters (all nameless in these scenes) to drooling, stammering idiots. I am at a loss to decide who's being insulted more there.
Barrymore is the producer and is subtly first among equals in the trio. She has no father, and the script makes the point of paralleling her absent father and her absent boss. FWIW.
There is a scene in which Diaz fights off bad guys while keeping up a cell phone conversation with Luke Wilson, her new crush. My female co-viewer found that insulting/ridiculous.
Bill Murray's character has to be rescued by the women. Charlie has to be protected by the women.
The scene in which Diaz appears on stage at Soul Train dancing to "I like big butts" in front of an all-black, initially rejecting crowd probably puts racism on the table, too,
Tom Green sucks and I hope that someone has really truly driven a stake through the heart pf his career at this point. I'm just sayin'...
I had forgotten Tom Green was in it. I still don't quite get how anyone ever thought he was funny.
The film does in fact present the main characters as women who are tough, smart, kick-ass and capable. It gives each one a little something to, I guess, round out the character-- Liu can't cook, Barrymore makes bad man choices, Diaz is a ditz-- but those seem offered as leavening and not undercutting for the characters.
It totally passes that test for women characters. Interestingly, it does NOT pass that test for the male characters. There are more than two male characters with names, but they mostly do not talk to each other at all.
That said, the movie is fascinated with the women's asses, which fill the screen as often as their faces. And boobs.
It has what I call the Mulan problem-- these women can be so powerful because the men are morons. There are at least two scenes in which the character takes control of the situation by flaunting her sexuality and thereby reduces the male characters (all nameless in these scenes) to drooling, stammering idiots. I am at a loss to decide who's being insulted more there.
Barrymore is the producer and is subtly first among equals in the trio. She has no father, and the script makes the point of paralleling her absent father and her absent boss. FWIW.
There is a scene in which Diaz fights off bad guys while keeping up a cell phone conversation with Luke Wilson, her new crush. My female co-viewer found that insulting/ridiculous.
Bill Murray's character has to be rescued by the women. Charlie has to be protected by the women.
The scene in which Diaz appears on stage at Soul Train dancing to "I like big butts" in front of an all-black, initially rejecting crowd probably puts racism on the table, too,
Tom Green sucks and I hope that someone has really truly driven a stake through the heart pf his career at this point. I'm just sayin'...
Sunday, June 6, 2010
I hadn't been paying attention to Killers because it looked so stupid, which is part of my problem with that particular sort of analysis, because I'm not certain that ripping up this sort of film with feminist critique doesn't somehow minimize the fact that it is mostly hampered by its serious crappitude. Put another way, I think this type of critique might subtly indicate that if the movie just got its handling of its female lead in order, it would be okay.
My problem with an awful lot of hollywood crap is that it handles all of its humans-- male, female, gay, straight, inhuman-- so very badly, and I'm not sure bad handling of women isn't simply a single symptom of larger problems, and a feminist critique may miss the point. IOW, saying that Transformers II handles gender roles badly is like saying that massive kidney failure is bad for your complexion. It's true, but perhaps a bit incomplete.
Funny I should mention Transformers, because Shia LeBoeuf is the acting version of the writing problem that I suspect plagues Killers (and a few zillion other movies). I hate Shia's performances because they are never a whole performance. In this scene he's brave, but in the next scene he's scared; in this scene he's determined, but in the next scene he's tentative-- all based on what somebody thinks would play best in that scene, regardless of how it fits into the whole character. It's the "what would play best" part where the writers let their heteronormative flag fly-- but they aren't writing a character, their writing a scene, and so the characters become a pastiche of writers' assorted prejudices and notions instead of whole and coherent characters.
So maybe I'm trying to say, apropos of I know not what, that bad writing is the disease that allows the heteronormative issues to bloom (along with many others).
Sometimes it's lazy writing that is trying to solve narrative problems-- I need someone to go outside so the killer can chop a character, but I can't really think of a reason that a real human would do that, so I'll just make up something stupid.
Sometimes I'm trying to sculpt a character beyond all sense. At some point we can address the train wreck that is Barbra Streisand, who once she won control of her own films made certain that she would be the funniest, deepest, smartest, wackiest, most dependable, sweetest, toughest and all around bestest character in every movie she made. Watch "Prince of Tides" for one of the more egregious examples.
I don't think I'm disagreeing with your point-- just extending it.
Heigl is a great example of...something. I thought "Knocked Up" was despicable on pretty much every level, a fine example of the Apatow we-love-and-resent-mommy-for-making-us-grow-up-so-we-can-get-laid school of relationship stories. But it, like most of her films (probably this one, too) makes me ask the question, "Why does ANY woman read this script and think, oh yeah, I want to make this movie"?
My problem with an awful lot of hollywood crap is that it handles all of its humans-- male, female, gay, straight, inhuman-- so very badly, and I'm not sure bad handling of women isn't simply a single symptom of larger problems, and a feminist critique may miss the point. IOW, saying that Transformers II handles gender roles badly is like saying that massive kidney failure is bad for your complexion. It's true, but perhaps a bit incomplete.
Funny I should mention Transformers, because Shia LeBoeuf is the acting version of the writing problem that I suspect plagues Killers (and a few zillion other movies). I hate Shia's performances because they are never a whole performance. In this scene he's brave, but in the next scene he's scared; in this scene he's determined, but in the next scene he's tentative-- all based on what somebody thinks would play best in that scene, regardless of how it fits into the whole character. It's the "what would play best" part where the writers let their heteronormative flag fly-- but they aren't writing a character, their writing a scene, and so the characters become a pastiche of writers' assorted prejudices and notions instead of whole and coherent characters.
So maybe I'm trying to say, apropos of I know not what, that bad writing is the disease that allows the heteronormative issues to bloom (along with many others).
Sometimes it's lazy writing that is trying to solve narrative problems-- I need someone to go outside so the killer can chop a character, but I can't really think of a reason that a real human would do that, so I'll just make up something stupid.
Sometimes I'm trying to sculpt a character beyond all sense. At some point we can address the train wreck that is Barbra Streisand, who once she won control of her own films made certain that she would be the funniest, deepest, smartest, wackiest, most dependable, sweetest, toughest and all around bestest character in every movie she made. Watch "Prince of Tides" for one of the more egregious examples.
I don't think I'm disagreeing with your point-- just extending it.
Heigl is a great example of...something. I thought "Knocked Up" was despicable on pretty much every level, a fine example of the Apatow we-love-and-resent-mommy-for-making-us-grow-up-so-we-can-get-laid school of relationship stories. But it, like most of her films (probably this one, too) makes me ask the question, "Why does ANY woman read this script and think, oh yeah, I want to make this movie"?
Friday, June 4, 2010
Killers Review
Alright, this is the review by Liza Schwarzbaum from EW for Killers. I thought in some ways it speaks to the ladies in action movies. It also made me want to give Charlie's Angels a little slack, and to decompress the whole totally feminist anti-feminist, which I feel like has been a trend lately (I could rant about that... maybe later... it's a lot of rant, but it includes feeling angry about girls who are angry about how pretty they are)
Ok, quote:
I could explore any one of those components further. But I prefer to go with a dissection of the wreck that is Heigl's character, Jen. In the course of 100 minutes, Jen is presented as 1) a lonely, uptight loser (disguised by the flawless body and blonde prettiness of the star who plays her) who has been recently dumped by a man; 2) an infantilized adult woman whose parents micromanage her life; 3) a ditzy girl-woman who knows how to wear sexy lingerie but not how to own her sexuality; 4) a competent working woman (she does something corporate that requires her to wear sleek, feminine office-wear) who gets flustered when asked to make an important presentation; 5) a stereotypical girly-girl who unhelpfully screams EEEEEEEEEEE!!! when she and her husband face danger and who demands answers to her questions at really inopportune times like when the couple are being shot at; 6) a woman who's too gullible; 7) a woman who's impractical; 8) a female character who chews noisily on junk food in the movie world's universal lazy symbol for unladylike behavior; 8) a woman who handles a firearm as if it were a snake; 9) a wife who requires ''managing'' by her husband; and 10) a female character stapled together with every dispiriting, routinely accepted trait so popular and so soul-killing in the female characters we find in CARCs like Killers.
This could probably also be another one of those tests we did. A strong/nuanced/ interesting female character can show NONE of these qualities. Long live heteronormative cliches.
Ok, quote:
I could explore any one of those components further. But I prefer to go with a dissection of the wreck that is Heigl's character, Jen. In the course of 100 minutes, Jen is presented as 1) a lonely, uptight loser (disguised by the flawless body and blonde prettiness of the star who plays her) who has been recently dumped by a man; 2) an infantilized adult woman whose parents micromanage her life; 3) a ditzy girl-woman who knows how to wear sexy lingerie but not how to own her sexuality; 4) a competent working woman (she does something corporate that requires her to wear sleek, feminine office-wear) who gets flustered when asked to make an important presentation; 5) a stereotypical girly-girl who unhelpfully screams EEEEEEEEEEE!!! when she and her husband face danger and who demands answers to her questions at really inopportune times like when the couple are being shot at; 6) a woman who's too gullible; 7) a woman who's impractical; 8) a female character who chews noisily on junk food in the movie world's universal lazy symbol for unladylike behavior; 8) a woman who handles a firearm as if it were a snake; 9) a wife who requires ''managing'' by her husband; and 10) a female character stapled together with every dispiriting, routinely accepted trait so popular and so soul-killing in the female characters we find in CARCs like Killers.
This could probably also be another one of those tests we did. A strong/nuanced/ interesting female character can show NONE of these qualities. Long live heteronormative cliches.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Angels
Well, yes. The discussion is tricky because in many ways they suck as female characters in the same way that most action men suck as male characters. Does the opportunity to be cartoony crappy characters represent a step forward? After decades of Magic Negroes, is it a step forward to have a black character how is an ass?
The angels will arrive next week from netflix, so I'll perhaps glean more insights, but here are just some quick responses.
I'm going to give them a pass on the comic relief sidekick mans-- it's pretty standard that an action hero doesn't get to be funny, and the angels actually get way more lightheartedness leeway than Stallone or Schwartzenoodle ever did.
I am more interested in the T&A aspect of the show. The original tv show was one of the pioneering jiggle shows, all about putting hot girls in skimpy clothes on the show (to the best of my recollection, the angels were never hired to travel to any place that required big bulky parkas). The movies seem intent on "reclaiming" that or something, but I've never quite grasped the idea of finding power in sexual objectification.
As for the other-- Drew Barrymore slept with Tom Green in real life. In the movies, she sleeps with the bad guys (which Jolie also does in Tomb Raider). Camron hooks up with Luke Wilson, and Liu has a LTR with whatshisname guy who played Joey on Friends.
The angels will arrive next week from netflix, so I'll perhaps glean more insights, but here are just some quick responses.
I'm going to give them a pass on the comic relief sidekick mans-- it's pretty standard that an action hero doesn't get to be funny, and the angels actually get way more lightheartedness leeway than Stallone or Schwartzenoodle ever did.
I am more interested in the T&A aspect of the show. The original tv show was one of the pioneering jiggle shows, all about putting hot girls in skimpy clothes on the show (to the best of my recollection, the angels were never hired to travel to any place that required big bulky parkas). The movies seem intent on "reclaiming" that or something, but I've never quite grasped the idea of finding power in sexual objectification.
As for the other-- Drew Barrymore slept with Tom Green in real life. In the movies, she sleeps with the bad guys (which Jolie also does in Tomb Raider). Camron hooks up with Luke Wilson, and Liu has a LTR with whatshisname guy who played Joey on Friends.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Charlie's Angels
I am glad you agree with the thing. I feel like I have to continually prove to you how f-ed up things are, because I am not full of it, women really get the short end of the stick. (By the way, I am writing this blog solely to avoid working on my globalization paper, which is a freaking total mess). I do want to add Ghost World to our list, in case I forgot it, because it really fills the criteria. I also saw a funny article about the test that mentioned that everyone should just watch Gilmore Girls forever, because it shows that women can talk about a whole lot, which I am pretty sure is the truest thing ever.
Ok, as far as Charlie's Angels go, I think it really depends on your definition of strength. I feel like we have been moving around this topic a lot, but that the "weak women" article mighht get to it. I feel like the Charlie's Angels are "strong women" because they are able to be both violent and maintain their status as sexual objects. It's like the Angelina Jolie version of strength, and I have to say as a woman, that really has no appeal to me- it just feels empty. Do you think they are strong women? I mean, I just don't know. I don't think I would ever see their movies a gain, because I refuse to give my money to things that blow up, and I don't think they are particularly well-rounded characters, but at the same time, how many action characters are?
On the same note, they are directed by a disembodied sort of transcendent male figure and travel around with a kooky male sidekick, because it would just be too much for them to be acutally funny. I also remember them being charecterized by their sexual identities- like, Cameron Diaz was sort of innocent, Drew Barrymore was kind spontaneous and had sex with Tom Green (gross), and Lucy Liu kind of oscilated back and forth. I feel like that is tricky. I don't know, you want to give them some credit for being the heroes themselves, but if its a win for women it is only a partial win. That's my take on the whole thing. What do you think? And how much do you think to be considered "strong" does a woman have to take on stereotypically masculine charecteristics (a la Mulan, your favorite Disney movie)?
Ok, as far as Charlie's Angels go, I think it really depends on your definition of strength. I feel like we have been moving around this topic a lot, but that the "weak women" article mighht get to it. I feel like the Charlie's Angels are "strong women" because they are able to be both violent and maintain their status as sexual objects. It's like the Angelina Jolie version of strength, and I have to say as a woman, that really has no appeal to me- it just feels empty. Do you think they are strong women? I mean, I just don't know. I don't think I would ever see their movies a gain, because I refuse to give my money to things that blow up, and I don't think they are particularly well-rounded characters, but at the same time, how many action characters are?
On the same note, they are directed by a disembodied sort of transcendent male figure and travel around with a kooky male sidekick, because it would just be too much for them to be acutally funny. I also remember them being charecterized by their sexual identities- like, Cameron Diaz was sort of innocent, Drew Barrymore was kind spontaneous and had sex with Tom Green (gross), and Lucy Liu kind of oscilated back and forth. I feel like that is tricky. I don't know, you want to give them some credit for being the heroes themselves, but if its a win for women it is only a partial win. That's my take on the whole thing. What do you think? And how much do you think to be considered "strong" does a woman have to take on stereotypically masculine charecteristics (a la Mulan, your favorite Disney movie)?
Oh, that is both interesting and sad. However I think we can still use our examples-- we are looking for good female characters in movies, which I propose is possible even if the movie is not good or even female friendly.
And I disagree with her list-- Aliens has two female characters who talk about things other than men. In fact, if you define "talking" loosely, it has three (Alien queen).
It does, oddly, bring up the next movies I was going to ask you about-- the Charlie's Angels flicks. They are obviously highly capable females with many areas of expertise, and yet the films are really interested in their boobs and butts (which they in fact use repeatedly as secret weapons against bad guys). So do these films make the cut or not?
And I disagree with her list-- Aliens has two female characters who talk about things other than men. In fact, if you define "talking" loosely, it has three (Alien queen).
It does, oddly, bring up the next movies I was going to ask you about-- the Charlie's Angels flicks. They are obviously highly capable females with many areas of expertise, and yet the films are really interested in their boobs and butts (which they in fact use repeatedly as secret weapons against bad guys). So do these films make the cut or not?
Friday, May 28, 2010
Bechdel Test
Ok, this clearly seems to the point here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLF6sAAMb4s
This is so sad. Even some of the movies we have listed don't pass this test!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLF6sAAMb4s
This is so sad. Even some of the movies we have listed don't pass this test!
Saturday, May 22, 2010
My Birthday Present Link
Okay, read the more weak women article. I think I pretty much agree with all of it. And although she didn't mention it, that essay pretty much lays out why I hated Mulan.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Animated Women
I'm not sure what you do with the fact that Betty started out as a dog. Her career is also a good example of how the Hays Office affected many features.
Her career also mirrors the trajectory of many newspaper stripes of the twenties and thirties. In the late twenties, single social strips were big for women-- Blondie (whose maiden name was Boopadoop) started out about the adventures of a cute flapper girl, and another feature called Boots and Her Buddies was about a young woman and her many beaus. These kind of strips, along with adventure strips, dominated the comics page, but by the mid/late thirties they had been replaced with domestic strips.
Blondie met Dagwood (originally an heir to the Bumstead fortune who risked being disinherited to be with her) and Boots settled down and got married. Captain Easy, an adventure strip in the Terry and the Pirates mode, switched focus to his sidekick Wash Tubbs and his home life with wife and kids.
Betty switches from adventures in foreign lands with adoring men to hanging around the house with that puppy.
I'm trying to think of other women in early animation, but of course there's not much. Even after Disney had his first feature hit with a female lead, he didn't use a woman lead character again for...what, six? more films.
Her career also mirrors the trajectory of many newspaper stripes of the twenties and thirties. In the late twenties, single social strips were big for women-- Blondie (whose maiden name was Boopadoop) started out about the adventures of a cute flapper girl, and another feature called Boots and Her Buddies was about a young woman and her many beaus. These kind of strips, along with adventure strips, dominated the comics page, but by the mid/late thirties they had been replaced with domestic strips.
Blondie met Dagwood (originally an heir to the Bumstead fortune who risked being disinherited to be with her) and Boots settled down and got married. Captain Easy, an adventure strip in the Terry and the Pirates mode, switched focus to his sidekick Wash Tubbs and his home life with wife and kids.
Betty switches from adventures in foreign lands with adoring men to hanging around the house with that puppy.
I'm trying to think of other women in early animation, but of course there's not much. Even after Disney had his first feature hit with a female lead, he didn't use a woman lead character again for...what, six? more films.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Happy Birthday Paggy!
Also, a special birthday gift for you Paggy-
http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/08/18/why-strong-female-characters-are-bad-for-women/
http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/08/18/why-strong-female-characters-are-bad-for-women/
Yeah, I'm back!
Ok, so obviously I have really let the blog die, and I am sorry about that, but I feel like I should post, so I am posting.
I am taking animation this quarter, and it is amazing to me just how connected to gender it is. This whole Pygmalion fantasy, or creating a living being without natural reproduction certainly complicates women's connections to the media.
On the other hand, there are some sickly amazing female animated characters! First and foremost, I have to point out how amazing Betty Boop is- I am currently obsessed with her, especially the Cab Calloway cartoons. I know we talked about this like a month ago, but I think I have watched the Snow White cartoon like 50 times since then.
Also, have you ever seen the Quay bros films? Streets of Crocodiles came out the year I was born, but I had never heard about them until this class. This animation really rides a lot of gender lines, but the longer I look at them, the more I can see that there is gendered stuff going on there. On the other hand, they have like no interiority, so I am not sure we can grant them any sort of really sophisticated status for our purposes.
Ok, that is about all I have seen lately, unless you want to hear my musings on Glee or Housewives of New Jersey, or hear about how much I hate Lost. Most of my viewing is television, which you no longer watch at all, so I feel like we have a problem meeting in the middle. Look at me! I posted! Be impressed!
I am taking animation this quarter, and it is amazing to me just how connected to gender it is. This whole Pygmalion fantasy, or creating a living being without natural reproduction certainly complicates women's connections to the media.
On the other hand, there are some sickly amazing female animated characters! First and foremost, I have to point out how amazing Betty Boop is- I am currently obsessed with her, especially the Cab Calloway cartoons. I know we talked about this like a month ago, but I think I have watched the Snow White cartoon like 50 times since then.
Also, have you ever seen the Quay bros films? Streets of Crocodiles came out the year I was born, but I had never heard about them until this class. This animation really rides a lot of gender lines, but the longer I look at them, the more I can see that there is gendered stuff going on there. On the other hand, they have like no interiority, so I am not sure we can grant them any sort of really sophisticated status for our purposes.
Ok, that is about all I have seen lately, unless you want to hear my musings on Glee or Housewives of New Jersey, or hear about how much I hate Lost. Most of my viewing is television, which you no longer watch at all, so I feel like we have a problem meeting in the middle. Look at me! I posted! Be impressed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)