It reads like it was written by the guy from the Superficial.
This may be one of the most beautiful passages written in the English language ever:
"PLANET OF TERROR is directed by Robert Rodriquez, which is all I need to say. In fact, instead of his name on poster saying, 'Directed By', he can legally change his name to a picture of a naked Viking woman on a snowmobile with flamethrowers out the back and the flamethrowers are killing a Yeti."
I saw the trailers -- that woman from Charmed, but with a machine-gun peg-leg? No... I don't think so. I'd rather just rent Kill Bill v.2 again.
Anyway, a Tarantino-Rodriguez double-feature would be like reading a book where the first ten chapters are Bellow, and the last ten are Dan Brown.
He could fuck a bulldozer into eight Mini Coopers.
Fantastic.
Why don't one of these schmucks remake Robot Monster? The sight of Ro-Man destroying humanity with his calcinator surgically attached to his groin would be terrifying to behold.
Why do you nice people watch so many shit movies?
Why do you nice people watch so many shit movies?
If you've got teenagers, the trailers therefore and the buzz surrounding them are unavoidable staples of conversation.
God, that was awesome. Way better than that straight-people-lit Wolfon's on about.
"where the first ten chapters are Bellow, and the last ten are Dan Brown."
That might actually be worth reading.
300 is not yesterday. It's an obsession with too many of my college friends (who all grew up to be weenies who need manly stories, I guess) and are all now praising the American Spartans.
What a great review.... and the flamethrowers are killing a Yeti.
Also, totally unrelated to anything in this thread, but this still seems like the proper place to link it.
Also off topic, this is my new mental image of Ogged. And holy shit, this paper compared him to Mowgli. Nice.
It's an obsession with too many of my college friends (who all grew up to be weenies who need manly stories, I guess) and are all now praising the American Spartans
Seriously? Your own cohort, not some guys down the hall? Pretty alienating.
The Kung Fu Monkey has the definitive write-up on 300. He says what its appeal is all about is:
It is for the lack of a better term manly anti-authoritarianism. Man the fuck up and do the manly thing, men.
From Saving Private Ryan to Lord of the Rings (the point of LotR is not Aragorn uniting the West, it's that the unlikely hobbits nuke Sauron, you idiots), to the various reads on Star Wars to 300, there is no unifying idea but one ...... We gotta get off our asses and kill some people!
Sometimes reluctantly, sometimes nobly, but let's get to manning the fuck up and doing manly things!
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2007/03/writing-300-and-viewpoints.html
17: I know. Gives you a creepy, Summer-of-1914, Strange Death of Liberal England sort of feeling; maybe there's a thanatos after all.
It's not so much alienating as providing endless opportunities to razz on them. They're a bunch of comic-book geeks so this was sort of anticipated, but if you think I'm not laughing at their worship of men in leather speedos, you gottanutherthink comin'.
Cumpston (think about the name) has been a fixture there for a while; I'm convinced that he's an elaborate parody of site founder and ultimate fanboy Harry Knowles, who blathers on incessantly about sexual acts when describing a picture he likes, such as Roland Emmerich's Godzilla.
17. This unites so many threads. Do the right thing, man up and kill the Nazis/Commies/Persians in your leather speedos, (or shark suit if you are a poseur).
The Kung-Fu Monkey link is good.
Some of the reaction to 300 is shocking. There is no way you can make the historical analogy come out any way other than that we are the Persians. It goes to show you that racial thinking trumps high-minded ideals.
KF Monkey does bring the a-game in that write-up. I'll actually have to see this movie now. Oh, wait, I love big pecs and tight abs. Score!
Ok, here's the real question: can sleazeball cinema incorporate a female perspective and sensibility, and still be sleazy and exploitational?
Back up for a second. We all know that the worldview of Compston and his ilk is totally androcentric. (If Bitch would bother with this thread, she would point out the way the review assumes that the reader has balls for the shotgun full of handjobs to explode in.)
Second, we all know that women have been involved with grindhouse cinema. Women have written and directed it (e.g. Doris Wishman), and we all know a few women who enjoy watching it. Nevertheless the sensibility of the movies remains male.
Since a shotgun full of handjobs is clearly a good thing, and and inclusivity is clearly a good thing, we ought to have totally sleazy movies that incorporate a distinctly feminine, and feminist, sort of sleaze. Is this sort of thing out there? Where can I find it?
One presumably female reader of the review remarks: "I just ovulated. In my mouth."
28: I'm not sure. I've never been able to make up my mind about her. Also, I haven't seen more than a clip of her movies. I did see her do a spoken word performance where Henry Rollins threatened to beat me up.
I'm not sure.
Me either, and I think I've seen all of her movies.
Dude, what makes you think I watch crappy movies?
Okay, actually I do. I love Robert Rodriguez, so there. If you want chick overthetopness, think shit like Hello Kitty or Vogue.
OMG. Someone in the comments section didn't get that the "first directing job" crack was a joke.
It goes to show you that racial thinking trumps high-minded ideals. Damned near anything trumps high-minded ideals. That's why I sneer at "stories". There are only two stories. 1) We want it, they have it, let's kill them and take it. 2) Some time back, they did 1) and we're pissed. Let's kill them.
totally sleazy movies that incorporate a distinctly feminine, and feminist, sort of sleaze
Tank Girl was based on a comic book written by men, but directed by a woman, and I thought it did a good job of that. It came out at the height of the "wow, intelligent and non-sexist alternative-college rock is actually on mainstream radio, I wonder how long this will last" period.
I can think of a bunch of bad movies with badass female protagonists, but most were directed by slavering heterosexual men, like Russ Meyer.
I was disappointed with Tank Girl, although it did inaugurate my crush on Naomi Watts.
Slavering fanboy stuff like Russ Meyer, or even Joss Whedon, isn't really what I was thinking of.
Is anyone else checking out the Buffy Season 8 comic.
Badass female protagonists are badass, though, b/c they're aping machosimo. That's what makes them so hot; it's kinda like cross-dressing.
What about Ghost World? Although it wasn't made by women.
36 is great -- I confess I had never thought of it that way.
Not to bring it up again, but Kill Bill (v.2). The scene where Beatrix Kiddo learns she's pregnant. In fact, that whole movie seems relevant here.
Ghost World is wholly wrong if I understand the question. What you want is something like Gail Simone's Birds of Prey run, only a movie and even more lowbrow, right? Valerie Solanas Presents I Spit on Your Grave?
Tank Girl was based on a comic book written by men, but directed by a woman, and I thought it did a good job of that.
The Lori Petty (or whatever) movie? Apparently CNed's a Jar Jar Binks fanboy.
I think it's nearly impossible to make a female version of these sorts of movies. The only one I can think of that fits, maybe, is "The Long Kiss Goodbye." And the only other actress I can readily imagine playing such a part is Jodie Foster. These movies are really about physical bullying run riot; it seems to me that we're willing (and even eager) to accept that from a male movie star, but not from a female one. I'm sure that plenty of women can be, and are, bullies, but I don't think such women can maintain that as a public persona and become stars.
39 is right. Most of the suggestions so far have been too highbrow, although it is hard to deny that Kill Bill is the sort of thing I was thinking of, since it is from Tarantino himself.
I think it's nearly impossible to make a female version of these sorts of movies.
I'm not sure what the female version would be. Made by women with woman protagonists? What if the protagonist was still acting out a male fantasy or using machismo to get her way?
What about all these bad-ass-goth-girl-vampire-slayer movies like Underworld and Ultraviolet and Aeon Flux?
If it needs to be a movie that would appeal to teenage girls, but not teenage boys, who aspire to be badasses, the only one I can think of is Baise-Moi, which I find it hard to imagine appealing to anyone.
42 -- if it needs to be a lowbrow movie...well, there just isn't the female audience for dumb violent movies, not compared to the corresponding male audience. Doris Wishman being the exception because she is a complete lunatic and therefore not subject to market forces.
The problem here is that women are dramatically underrepresented as directors to begin with, and when you start narrowing it to a specific genre, things get tight. Stephanie Rothman is literally the only female exploitation director I can think of, and I know her name largely because she's the only female exploitation director other than Doris Wishman anyone can think of.
Lady Snowblood is a hell of a movie, although its American niece Kill Bill is probably more apt.
Comic book dorks should read Birds of Prey, esp. since Gail Simone is the Gail Simone of "Women in Refrigerators", the original wtf-misogynists? comic book rant.
I'm not sure what the female version would be.
Hmm. I'm not sure, either, anymore. I think that in the male versions of these ultra-violent movies, the violence is singularly unmotivated. Whatever the justification, it only exists to allow the violence, really. And we all kind of get that. Somehow, I don't think of female ultra-violence as similarly unjustified. I think that's because the sense that no justification is needed comes not from inside the movie, but from the enormous number of such movies. There aren't that many female ultra-violent movies, so the same effect doesn't exist.
Urgh, wait a minute...scope out the works of Gregg Araki, who mostly makes movies exclusively for the gay audience, although Mysterious Skin heralds his appearance in the mainstream. The big hit of his early career was The Doom Generation, which has a female protagonist who would be pretty intimidating to any straight male. That might be a possibility.
43: Yeah, one kind of movie that answers to my description is not only possible, but ubiquitous, and already a major part of my cinematic diet. I guess I was grasping in a vague and incoherent way towards Valarie Solanas Presents I Spit on Your Grave or something more zombie boobish.
Aeon Flux the cartoon on MTV was amazing, but I've only heard negative things about the live action movie.
The Doom Generation is a female ultra-violent movie. The two guys are really just along for the ride.
The Doom Generation is a female ultra-violent movie. The two guys are really just along for the ride.
Didn't see it. I would, on the basis of your reference here. But, you know..."Tank Girl."
39: You could make a hell of an action movie out of the SCUM Manifesto.
Certainly, exploitation movies written and directed by women seem to have existed, even in the 70s. I would not be surprised if there were some that DID have specifically feminist goals or viewpoints behind them, although who knows how that would have been expressed in an exploitation movie. I mean, "Sweet Sweetback's BAADASSSSS Song" was made as a straightforward commentary on prejudice.
Katherine Bigelow almost fits the bill in a reverse-exploitation kind of way.
I liked Tank Girl, but didn't like The Doom Generation, so you'll probably think it's great.
If you need more recommendations for movies I didn't like, perhaps you would enjoy Superman Returns, or Battle Royale II.
Nerd-sniped by 45.
So snarkout, what about in asian movies?
perhaps you would enjoy Superman Returns
That's just petty, Ned.
39: Yeah, that's Stephanie Rothman, of The Velvet Vampire non-fame.
I thought about Bigelow, but she doesn't seem to be the right genre of stuff, even with her (perfectly good) vampire movie. John Dahl's The Last Seduction is a great exploitation-movie-with-production-values, but Linda Fiorentino's character is a non-feminist B-movie cliche, just ramped up. Seriously, there's got to be an ultraviolent rape-and-revenge movie directed by a militant feminist somewhere in the world, right?
ultraviolent rape-and-revenge movie directed by a militant feminist somewhere in the world
I can't think of any Asian movies directed or written by women, although I'm sure there's someone in this thread with a deeper knowledge than me. Something like Peking Opera Blues is properly gynocentric, but not grindhouse stuff.
32: But you had to know that was coming, right? Like, the comment in the review was an invitation for the actually-dumb to collaborate in creation with the faux-dumb. Just another element of genius in the review.
What's ridiculous is that I've read the book Baise-moi. It was uniformly ghastly.
The review is masterfully over-the-top, but I think Jay Pinkerton (or was it the other guy) diagnosed Grindhouse correctly:
"Seriously, though, a chick with a machine gun for a leg? That's. Fucking. Stupid.
"A machine gun for an arm: Okay, that's actually pretty cool. But a gun for a leg is like one step above just giving her the damn thing for a head, and proves Tarantino and Rodriguez have crossed the line this time for how much ironic detachment you're allowed to have when resuscitating a crappy exploitation genre. Do we really need to hold everything that's thirty years old and kind of funny to watch now up to the sun like some kind of lost masterpiece?"
Isn't 36 kind of an, ummm, Catch-22? Surely women don't have to "imitate machismo" to be badass, do they?
Surely women don't have to "imitate machismo" to be badass, do they? No. They can be relentless in "relating" and "communicating".
As for the leg-gun? Yeah, that's stupid. No real bad-ass would risk getting bubble gum or dog turds in the muzzle of some good machinery.
I'm not sure this conversation makes much sense. We're looking for movies with the same gleefully stupid and violent sensibility as Grindhouse, but from a female angle, right? But various movies with female stars or directors have been suggested as having the same gleefully stupid, violent sensibility as Grindhouse -- only to be be dismissed on the grounds that the women in the movies are just aping men because their characters act in such a gleefully stupid and aggressive manner. It's a catch-22.
There are a ton of movies about women mercilessly kicking ass in a moral vacuum. Searching for one with an enlightened feminist perspective is pointless so long as that perspective is expected to exclude enthusiasm for things like mercilessly kicking ass in a moral vacuum.
scope out the works of Gregg Araki, who mostly makes movies exclusively for the gay audience, although Mysterious Skin heralds his appearance in the mainstream
Hey, what about Splendor?
I just want to note that I was at a sneak preview of Grindhouse yesterday.
-- only to be be dismissed on the grounds that the women in the movies are just aping men because their characters act in such a gleefully stupid and aggressive manner. It's a catch-22.
Hmm. I think I misread prior comments. I see it as the opposite problem (or maybe I'm moving to the same point as everyone else from the other side of it): women can't just be cheerfully amoral, stupid and aggressive in the movies. There is always some further point added, even if it's the audience that tacks the point on. When "Charlie's Angels," etc., come out, for example, various reviewers talk about "a new page in feminism, with women that kick as much ass as guys." The ass-kicking is suddenly motivated again. But what's awesome about George Washington is that he fucked the shit out of bears, not that he fucked the shit out of bears for our freedom.
When "Charlie's Angels," etc., come out, for example, various reviewers talk about "a new page in feminism, with women that kick as much ass as guys." The ass-kicking is suddenly motivated again.
But that's because reviewers are stupid and search desperately for trends. I don't think anyone making the "Charlie's Angels" movies thought they were striking a blow for grrrl power, unless maybe some of them tried to convince themselves of that to make themselves feel better.
No, fucking the shit out of bears for our freedom is pretty hilariously awesome.
No, fucking the shit out of bears for our freedom is pretty hilariously awesome.
Of course. If you're a girl.
61 is correct. It looks like this movie is going to be worth nobody's time, because they could instead spend their time watching The Doom Generation, which also stars Rose McGowan.
And after clicking around at other things on that website...since when did Cracked go from being an imbecilic cartoon magazine for 10-year-old boys to being a really, really funny website, like the funny parts of The Onion AV Club, except funnier?
I'm shocked.
67: There's usually some tacked-on motivation for male protagonists, too. Even if the hero's being stupid, amoral and aggressive, he's still usually Defending Freedom, Fighting Evil, Avenging the Death of [X], Saving the Damsel et cetera. Otherwise he's an "anti-hero" and the movie is "dark" and "gritty" and "realistic" (or maybe "impressionistic," which appears to be the 300 defense). It's not that different.
71: Yeah, Cracked is thoroughly transformed. And they're particularly great for stuff like this.
68 - Well, Drew Barrymore was the executive producer, and while she seems nice and even somewhat savvy as a businesswoman, I don't think anyone has mistaken her for Marie Curie. I bet she really did think she was making something empowering.
The review linked earlier makes the great point that quite a lot of Leonidas' speeches could be dropped, without revision, into a script which portrays him as the bad guy. This motivates the claim that mostly what we want out of a manly action movie is men kicking ass; this is probably related to ogged's argument that it's impossible to make an anti-torture torture movie.
Like tom, I'm not quite getting this conversation. Asskicking movies are essentially mindless; it's not surprising that there aren't feminist movies with messages in a genre that's essentially mindless. Necessarily, if it's got a real message, it isn't 300.
61, 71: I don't understand this impulse to make critical evaluations on movies that nobody's seen yet. I mean, of course we all can make a call on whether a movie looks like something we want to see, or looks like it's going to be another example of loved/hated genre X, but as with the discussion here (and everywhere else) of Black Snake Moan, these comments suggest the kind of depth and finality of judgement that would actually require one to have seen the movie.
Alternatively, I could be taking everybody too seriously.
Well, I started it, and I'm not really sure what I wanted or why I wanted it either.
KF Monkey made me think that I would actually enjoy 300 if I watched it with all of my political filters off.
76: I think this is an ideal forum to evaluate movies you haven't seen. Also books you haven't read and albums that you actually can't listen to all the way through because they are too unpleasant.
Hey I'm going to be in Chicago April 20-22 for the Central APA. Any of the Chicago Unfoggedetariat want to get together for drinks, coffee, lunch?
I don't know about "depth and finality of judgment." If someone wants to get Grindhouse on DVD I'll watch it with an open mind. But no, I'm not going out and spend money and time at the cinema on it, unless extraordinary circumstances intervene or I happen to get really high. It just doesn't look good enough.
Black Snake Moan, on the other hand, I'll definitely see. I feel pretty conflicted about it, but it does look like there's something more interesting going on there.
I'm not going out and spend money and time at the cinema on it... It just doesn't look good enough.
Yeah, that I can totally understand, anybody who likes movies makes this kind of call all the time. I was thinking of all the discussion about Black Snake Moan that started getting rather deep, for a movie no one had seen. And you'll notice that review from Cracked could have been written (and almost certainly was) having seen only the trailer. I'm not complaining so much as saying I don't understand what motivates this. (Although in fairness, evaluating the movie doesn't really seem to be the purpose of the Cracked review).
On a related subject - a few years ago, I used to always read Charles Taylor's movie reviews in Salon just for the pleasure of getting all pissed off, and I noticed that he would sometimes make mistakes in describing the movie that were too basic to be a forgotten name, confused detail, etc. I started looking out for this kind of thing in all the reviews I read, and as far as I can tell, it's a fairly common practice for even big-time movie critics to write their columns having only watched the trailers, or perhaps skipping through large bits of preview dvd's or something. I can't think of another explanation for why professional movie writers would so often make such fundamental errors about the movies they're describing.
I've done the same sort of thing with CD reviews, cerebrocrat ... to detect when the reviewer just listened to the first 30 seconds of every song.
There's usually some tacked-on motivation for male protagonists, too. Even if the hero's being stupid, amoral and aggressive, he's still usually Defending Freedom, Fighting Evil, Avenging the Death of [X], Saving the Damsel et cetera.
Yeah, but we've seen so many such justifications that we know that any given one is a fraud. It's a bit like seeing the hero's one true love die in a series (movie or TV): you know the point is to get rid of the girl so he can sleep with another hottie next week. I think it's harder to make the same move because we lack the same number of female ass-kicking movies.
It's a bit like seeing the hero's one true love die in a series (movie or TV): you know the point is to get rid of the girl so he can sleep with another hottie next week.
Or books. Did anyone else here read all the Travis McGee books when they were a kid? Man, that guy had his one true love die in a whole lot of improbable ways -- random piece of wood shrapnel from an exploding boat; massive head injury; poisoned by cultists using poison favored by the Bulgarian secret service; brain cancer... the man couldn't make meaningful eye contact with someone without saying "Does that hurtling noise sound like a falling safe to you, honey? Honey...?"
80: And you'll notice that review from Cracked could have been written (and almost certainly was) having seen only the trailer.
They're up-front about this: the feature that review is from is called "Trailer Trash" and is specifically a review of trailers, not films. Basically guesses at whether the film will be worth seeing, plus lots and lots of snark. (I know what you mean about movie reviewers, though. I notice the same thing constantly.)
I missed the discussion of BSM so I can't comment on them.
82: Yeah, but we've seen so many such justifications that we know that any given one is a fraud.
Any given justification for a female character will have been done about a billion times in a different genre (such as soap opera or movie-of-the-week). So it might have a different resonance, slightly, but anyone who knows even apocryphally what the material of a typical Sally Fields film is should be able to recognize it in the underlying plot of Kill Bill.
I can't think of another explanation for why professional movie writers would so often make such fundamental errors about the movies they're describing.
I always assumed they were taking shitty notes in a dark theater.
Any given justification for a female character will have been done about a billion times in a different genre
That's what I'm saying: there's a justification that gets imported into a female ass-kicking movie that doesn't get read out.
83 - To be fair, one of them is simply traumatized by her experiences and doesn't want to be in his whirling maelstrom of death any longer. Since it's relevant to your comment, I present Gail Simone's Women in Refrigerators, a list of the times male superhero characters were given depth and motivation by dismembering, raping, depowering, or wood-chipping their female loved ones. (The responses Simone got from mostly-male writers are more interesting than the list itself.)
I always assumed they were taking shitty notes in a dark theater.
I'm talking about mistakes that are just too big to be the result of failing to write down details. Unless the shitty notetaking happens to be the result of the heavy drinking the reviewer did beforehand.
87: The clear implication is that it's not just psychological trauma, though -- that there's some organic brain injury making her not love him anymore. And that's not an exhaustive list, I think (maybe it is -- I know I read them all. I do love me some cheesily hardboiled detective novels.)
Surely women don't have to "imitate machismo" to be badass, do they?
Well, surely not. 'badass' is primarily a functional term; if you kick ass, you're badass. But the signifiers outside of fights that someone is badass are mostly ones that are heavily associated with stereotypically masculine social presentations. So much so that femme badasses are a bit of a stock joke; Buffy kicking ass in her prom dress, etc. So if a writer or director is looking for a shorthand to communicate 'this person is a badass', the first thing that's going to come to their hand is a set of behaviors that are heavily masculine-identified. It usually takes an active effort and decision to portray a functional badass as something other than macho.
It's interesting to watch Aliens sometime with an eye towards Ripley's badassery as compared to Vasquez's. Ripley spends a lot of the first three movies being terrified, panicked, running away, and occasionally crying, when she's not scowling and kicking ass. She doesn't have a lot of the bluff and swagger traditionally associated with machismo (and I was very disappointed when Weaver added that to the character in Alien: Resurrection). Vasquez, on the other hand, is visibly and obviously macho-identified. Not just a badass, she openly lays claim to the social role of a badass (and is better accepted by her marine squadmates as such than the weak-chinned Lt. Gorman or whiny PFC Hudson).
Hey I'm going to be in Chicago April 20-22 for the Central APA. Any of the Chicago Unfoggedetariat want to get together for drinks, coffee, lunch?
I would certainly be up for afternoon coffee or drinks on either the 21st or 22nd. I'd forgotten you're a professor.
87: Simone clearly hates men. Otherwise she would recognize the importance that comic book writers give women--women are the ones who give male superheroes meaning. They give birth to the heroes, in a sense--very Earth Mother-y. As they create such meaning through their deaths, there is something even Jesus Christ-y about them. But nooo, Simone has to look for the negative.
92: Did anyone else read that Crooked Timber seminar on China Mieville, in which he explains that he was trying to make a feminist point by having the protagonist's girlfriend mutilated and tortured to the point of losing her mind completely -- having her die romantically off-screen would be anti-feminist? And, you know, sincere I'm sure, and I loved the book, and you can't blame the guy for trying, but it was a funny bit of explanation.
93: Yes, I thought that was ver yinteresting, especially since I had never even considered that there might be a feminist approach to how characters in a fantasy story should be injured or killed. It seemed to me like people followed up his explanation by criticizing him in very similar ways to the way they would have criticized a person who made the exact opposite decision. I got the message that his choice was being criticized by feminist diehards for showing the unnecessary brutalization of a woman to gain sympathy, or being criticized by feminist diehards for idealizing the beauty of suffering/weakness, and he was aware of that, but there was no way he could avoid being criticized, so he erred on the side of grittiness, as he always does.
83: Yes, it really didn't pay to be Travis' main squeeze, but who that would be wasn't all that clear in the early chapters if I remember correctly. Donald Hamilton's "Matt Helm" also had a large death radius for significant others but they died mostly by bullet.
It seemed to me like people followed up his explanation by criticizing him in very similar ways to the way they would have criticized a person who made the exact opposite decision.
I think framing it in that way ('exact opposite') misses the point a bit. It's not as if there are rules saying the hero's girlfriend has to die or be terribly injured, one or the other, so how are you going to do it? The only plot function her injury serves is a little character development for the hero ("You may think you won, but tragedy struck while you were off defeating the enemy!"), and there are other ways to do that beyond attacking the girlfriend. Beloved nephew? Father? Some inanimate treasure? Houseplants?
I'm being kind of silly here, because it's a book, anyone can die in it, it's not like Mieville actually killed anyone. But the "Come on, she's the hero's girlfriend! Something horrific had to happen to her -- is there no way to torture or kill her that would make you happy?!?" struck me funny.
Lin does get pretty awfully punished, though. The man's sins' being visited on the woman's body is SUCH a common trope in genre narratives that he really did deserve some flack for it. His explanation isn't a terrible one---Lin, after all, made her own mistakes---and his decision not to kill her off entirely will torment Isaac for a long time to come. But, no, as a feminist position it's a bit whack.
He avoided writing himself into that kind of trap with his later novels.
It's not as if there are rules saying the hero's girlfriend has to die or be terribly injured, one or the other, so how are you going to do it?
Yes, that's true. She certainly hadn't been a stereotypical character before that, though.
It seemed to me like people followed up his explanation by criticizing him in very similar ways to the way they would have criticized a person who made the exact opposite decision
This is a little like what I was getting at above. It's not just his choice in that piece (which I haven't read) that matters. It's the background against which he writes it. The girlfriend being abused in the most horrific manner imaginable is, as JM says, an unbelievably common trope. You can't really write that bit without making use of something sketchy about the genre.
Kobe! (I don't even know what that means.)
It's an ultra-premium type of beef from Japan. It's often colloquially referred to by the rating ("100") it got from the World Beef Council.
You attempt to mock the non-basketball fan, I see. Pfui.
JAC: email me at rloftis at stlawu dot edu
You know what would revolutionize film? Beauty-free casts. Even demographically average casts would be a revolution, but I'm talking about casts from which beautiful people have been systematically erased, the way racial minorities still often are. I'm a real Jacobin on this.
And they have to be normal movies about normal stupid topics, too, like love and hot sex and fame and wealth and shit. Not some serious movie about the problems of depression-era coal miners or dirt farmers. A real movie, the kind of movie in which the (fat, butt-ugly) heroine is discovered by a (wimpy, butt-ugly) multimillionaire who takes her off to his castle in his Mercedes where they do cocaine day and night.
When it comes to transgression, the surrealists, Dadaists Alexandro Jodorowsky, and Dogme 95 are weenies compared to me.
(Of course nobody would every go to these movies. That's the goal.)
105: It still amazes me how pretty the 'ugly' girlfriends in movies are. Seriously.
Even the cartoon "Shrek" revealed in the end that the characters were really beautiful after all. And it was anti-short-people too.
105: Have you ever seen Palindromes (Todd Solondz, 2004) John? With the exception of a relatively un-beautified Jennifer Jason Leigh, you've just about got your wish. And, unsurprisingly, it didn't make much money.
Regarding the glaring errors in film reviews: This bugs me too. It's everywhere: Ebert, Berardinelli, AICN, all the syndicated critics -- shameful! The only place that's pretty much accurate 99% of the time is Sight and Sound, and I wonder about some of their editorial standards occasionally. (There was this one piece in particular, a critical mini-filmography of a well-known director, where the author waited until about 2/3rds of the way through the piece to disclose that she had collaborated with the director on a couple of projects.)
That 300! It was like I'd been transported into Ernst Rohm's last wank. Gayest, most fascistic movie ever.
Also, everyone knows that their are only two plots: (1) Some people go on a journey and (2) Pygmalion.
Crap! 110 was me, and their s/b there, of course.
Also, re:Shrek, did anyone else notice that, in the merchandising (which is just as much a component of the filmic text as lighting or sound), there was no ogre-Fiona offered as a toy, anywhere? The only thing I can find online is a Blockbuster video stores exclusive, but at Target, or in the Happy Meals, it was always ogre-Shrek and human-Fiona. I'm sure the White Citizens' Councils were none too happy about that!
I reject the concept of an ugly JJL. Solondz movie sounds like the lite version of all the others, sort of like the gang member who seldom kills or rapes anyone.
When he died my Mayflower ancestor Doty owned two barrels of tar, among other things.
Good lord, Emerson.
Did anyone else notice that Jennifer Connelly seemed to have a must-take-off-shirt-says-so-in-contract run for a while there? Maybe it was just seeing Waking The Dead only a month after Requiem for a Dream, but I feel like there were a few more sightings.
115. The one you want is The Hot Spot, also starring Don Johnson (!). But Connelly lost that rider in her contract when she became all arty and cadaverous. I'm glad to see Jennifer Love Hewiit doing bra ads though. Perfect fit for her talent(s).
I last saw Jennifer Connelly in Dark Water and she kept her clothes on throughout.
The same is true of Dark City. And Labyrinth, of course.
Didn't she go topless in Mullholland Falls?
Dark Water and she kept her clothes on throughout
Blame Yglesias.
I don't know if you can lay that off on the writer. OTOH, no topless Rosie Perez in "Fearless," so maybe it is his fault.
116: Note that the two topless movies I mentioned are on the relatively arty and cadaverous (word of the day?) side of her ouevre.
Blame Yglesias.
This is part of his War on Christmas, isn't it?
I've probably complained too many times about Mike Nichols doing a nudity-free movie about a stripper. Talk about gratuitous non-nudity!
It has no nudity, but the best movie for ogling Jennifer Connelly is the otherwise-worthless "Career Opportunities", which is essentially Home Alone in a department store with the Macaulay Culkin character drooling over Ms. Connelly's bod throughout.
And the best Neil Cumpston review is for The Return of the King. That link is all messed up, though, so I'm including part of it here:
---------------------------------
I just saw HOBBIT-MAN: THE KING RETURNS and that's the movie I was talking about in the last paragraph. This movie will make you forget that if you stick a knife in your belly you'll bleed to death so do not bring a knife to this movie.
It's also, thank fucking God, LOUD. Even if you bring an iPod so you can listen to VH during the Elf parts you'll take it off because I swear to fucking Roth you do NOT know where the next big bang is going to come from, or when something big is going to crunch someone's skull while you picture that person getting their skull crushed is really your neighbor upstairs that plays Dido all day or that dude at the Starbucks who's always reading and looking all smart.
Oh yeah, the movie is also 3 hours and 20 minutes, and I think it's almost four hours if you sit through all the credits (it was all pencil sketches of the characters, which I think means they ran out of money). So if you bring some chick who's all like, 'I have a spinning class tomorrow' or 'I'm thirsty' tell her to go home and watch Gay Dudes and the Straight Guy because this movie takes fucking commitment. I saw the one dude in front of me who was with this girl, and the President of Warner Brothers came out and said, 'This movie is three hours and twenty minutes,' and before I could say, 'So what, gaylord' the chick says to the dude she's with that she has to GO. And he LET her go because this movie kicks so much ass you can SENSE it even before it starts. And this chick was a stone fox, and he probably could have made out with her, but he was like, 'I'm going make out with this movie,' that's how good it is. See ya, hottie.
This movie starts with the origin of Golem - that creepy guy who looks like Iggy Pop and wears Tarzan pants and wants the invisible-ring. He's still on a quest with the two hobbits - Rudy from the film RUDY and Fredo - to throw the ring into a volcano (this is like a serious version of JOE VERSUS THE VOLCANO). The ring is also evil but you keep thinking, while you watch it, that someone should put it on and check out some boobs. I have a feeling those scenes will be in the DVDs.
At the same time, the two other midget-men and the giant hippies have seriously fucked up that one evil guy's tower (he was Count Duke in Star Wars: Every Cock in the Universe Up My Ass Part II), and they hook back up with Magneto, and also that chick with the bow and arrows and finally the Giant Midget with the Axe. Oh, and also that I Don't Want to be the King/I Am Destined to Be the King Dude is with them, and he has this whole other story where he pretty much decides to be the King because, I mean, pussy for miles. This is where I started getting really confused, though, because they start talking about kingdoms and alliances and there's a lot of lines like, 'Rohan shall ride!' and 'Gondor still stands!' and 'Flabadan Son of Rectum must wear the mantle of Bloggith!' and also there's some shit with the elves that's like being in a fucking candle store for twenty minutes.
But the movie is only doing this to set up the BATTLE OF SHIT-YOUR-PANTS, which isn't the actual name of the battle but SHOULD be because you will shit stuff you did not eat when you see it.
Hey, GB, do you read Making Light? Because if I remember correctly, I think you need another rabbi.
Yes, LB, we are aware of the tragic death of Rabbi Honigsberg. It was a real shock, as he and I had been trading emails just last week.
In the midst of mourning his death, his fellow rabbis kindly (and without my asking) spread the word that we now needed another rabbi at our wedding, and several candidates have emerged.
Seriously, I think that "badass" pretty much means "macho." And as long as that's the case, you're not going to get a "feminist" badass movie that isn't some variation on "see? Women can be as tough as men!"
That said, I think the one potential exception would be a movie where the plot was driven by a need to protect something concrete, ala Aliens or The Long Kiss Goodnight. I'd nominate the latter as more approaching a feminist sensibility, not only because the plot revolves around Charlie's need to protect her daughter, but also because the entire movie has a really tongue-in-cheek tone about the badassery.
I also loved the line in Pan's Labyrinth where Mercedes says after stabbing the fascist bastard, "I'm not some dying prisoner or old man." Really amazing reality check there on the lady-in-distress stereotype.
127: Sorry if I sounded callous there; when I saw the post, your difficulty (now renewed) in finding a rabbi struck me funny.
My situation has a certain dark humor to it, but Rabbi Honigsberg's does not, so out of respect for him, I'm laying off the funny on this one.
Perfectly reasonable, and if anyone else who knew him reads this, I do apologize.
128: Well, I guess I don't have to see Pan's Labyrinth now. Thanks, I think.
Seriously, I think that "badass" pretty much means "macho."
Why do you think this? Take NBarnes' 90, for example, which draws what seems to be a pretty serviceable distinction between the "badassery" of one female character vs. another. Does it really seem accurate to describe Weaver's character in that situation as "macho"? It doesn't seem that way to me.
Of course the basic message of female action heroes is "women can be tough." But why should that necessarily have anything to do with "macho"?
133: I haven't given anything away; for all you know, after she stabs him he cuts her head off.
Re. badassery, I did suggest Aliens as a feminist-ish badass movie. But isn't it true that "tough," when we're talking about movies, is signified by the same things we think of as "macho"--muscularity, violence and the ability to withstand it, a kind of emotional flatness, steely-jawed determination. Of course none of these things are *inherently* male; but culturally, they are.
134: I only expect emotional flatness and steely-jawed determination in male heroes (and a rather cheesy variety of them). Female heroes usually have at least formalized gestures toward emotional vulnerability (Charlie's Angels) and sometimes actual acting that indicates this (The Bride in Kill Bill). I don't think muscularity and violence and the ability to withstand it are culturally male at this point, at least as regards film.
Well, this is the problem with any kind of cultural studies stuff: you end up just falling back on "is so!" But I think that the muscularity/violence trend in women in movies is largely a kind of cheap pseudo-feminist appropriation: we're not changing the essential formula, which is that muscularity + violence = heroic. We're just saying that women can "rise" to that macho standard, too.
Which, eh.
Of course the basic message of female action heroes is "women can be tough."
No, the basic message of female action heroes is "chicks firing machine guns and beating guys up are HAWT!!!1!"
On the subject of machismo in action heroes, The Onion AV Club opines on the essence of Patrick Swaze.
136: But I think that the muscularity/violence trend in women in movies is largely a kind of cheap pseudo-feminist appropriation: we're not changing the essential formula, which is that muscularity + violence = heroic.
I'm fully on board with alternatives to the action genre as such, for all sorts of reasons. But if you're going to have the genre, I don't think it's necessarily "pseudo-feminist" for people to rewrite its formulae for use by women. If it's important to change social priorities, it's just as important that women not be excluded from certain social priorities on account of their prior male-ness. (And as much as I thought Birds of Prey sucked, Gail Simone's point about the tendency to undercut female heroes is quite correct, and I would wager a bigger problem than any tendency toward giving women "macho" versions of authority.)
137: Yep. That too.
