The story I have to tell that justifies this post isn't easy. And I'm not sure it even makes sense. I'm looking down at the blue post-it on my desk that serves as a note-to-self: "post about new Secretary discovery." I wrote that nights ago, after I had already gotten in bed to go to sleep. So, I had already been lying in bed for at least a couple of minutes when this "new" "discovery" about Secretary (2002) hit me. It's very strange, since I haven't seen the film in a long while. I really cannot explain why I was thinking about Secretary at that moment, whenever it was.
But I do remember what I meant by "new Secretary discovery." After all, in parentheses, I scribbled a reminder of what that "discovery" is: "perversion of marriage." But I am getting too ahead of myself. And if you don't want the film to be spoiled for you if you haven't yet seen it, please find something else to read. Spoilers lie below.
Secretary is the story of Lee Holloway, a young woman who has just been released from a mental institution. She mutilates herself for autoerotic pleasure, and pretty much everyone, especially her family, misunderstands her: they think she's suicidal. Anyway, Lee gets a job as the newest in a long line of unceremoniously fired secretaries for the eccentric lawyer E. Edward Grey. To cut a long story short, their already sexually tense relationship eventually develops so that they enjoy a sadomasochistic one during regular business hours. Lee wants more. He freezes up, fires her, but she is still devoted to him, convinced that she has found some sort of soul mate, someone who understands her, etc. etc. It's an unconventional love story. But in the end, they marry.
For the longest time, I absolutely hated this ending. For the record, most of the time I hate it in films whenever the story ends with a wedding. In these cases, the wedding/marriage is completely unnecessary. Apparently, films end with this kind of event as a way to show to the audience that the love between the characters is legitimate and long-lasting. That's a pretty stupid reason, isn't it? Considering the divorce rate in this country is almost 50 percent, if it isn't already 50 percent.
Anyway, I especially hated the capping of the story with the marriage of Lee and Edward. By all accounts, they're perverted (but toward the end, her family and friends attempt to understand her desire for her former boss). Why do they want to conform to heteronormativity all of a sudden? I just didn't understand why.
And then it hit me, a couple of nights ago. This is probably really obvious to most of you, but it took me so long to understand that their union perverts the institution of marriage. And it all begins with Lee's wedding dress.
Right before the lovers are reunited, Lee has accepted the marriage proposal of her boyfriend, Peter. Simply because she has no idea what to do with herself. Trying on her soon-to-be mother-in-law's wedding dress, Lee realizes she doesn't want Peter, that she wants Edward. She rushes over to Edward's office, passing by the new secretary. In short, she plops herself down behind his desk, and at his request, doesn't lift her hands from the surface until he returns (days later!). A media circus ensues, and Lee reluctantly receives visitors.
Now, about that perversion of marriage: Since Lee doesn't get up, she pees in the dress. Take that, sanctity of marriage! The scene that follows Edward's return further subverts marriage. He carries her over the marital threshold to the loft upstairs, which resembles the Garden of Eden... if Martha Stewart had designed it. She's wearing a wedding dress, but this is not their wedding night. And the Garden of Eden motif recalls the notion of Original Sin, which they ignore. As we viewers have already witnessed, neither Lee nor Edward are prudes, so it is not a shock that they have pre-marital sex.
But it doesn't end here. Because when they finally do get married, they wipe out the religious connotations, electing to be married by a Justice of the Peace. But I should say this is all related through Lee's voiceover. We do not see the ceremony itself. In this way, the filmmakers further subvert the institution of marriage, but also the institution that cinematic romances must end with a wedding because we do not see it. Moreover, Lee is decked out in something that resembles a wedding dress in every way, except for the fact that its color is black. You'd think she were marrying Dracula or Beetlejuice. Not only that, the scene in which we glimpse the dress features Edward and Lee fucking, her wrists tied around the trunk of a tree. No threshold here, just good, dark, sadomasochistic love.
Following this, Lee talks about their marital bliss. They're "just like any other couple you'd see." Unfortunately, the independence Lee enjoyed with a job does not continue, for as Edward rolls out of the driveway, off to work, she stays home. We assume she eagerly anticipates his return. After all, she has dropped a dead cockroach on their immaculate bed. Edward's going to come home and spank her.
Yeah, so a couple of nights ago, I realized that Secretary makes fun of the romantic comedy/drama's formulaic ending: that the characters should not only fall in love and remain together as a couple, they should also get married. While Secretary conforms to the model, I think it says a lot about the formula itself. The film points out how there can be a happily ever after for sadist and the masochist. (See The Piano Teacher [2001] for a comparison.) However, having said all this, I still lament that Lee does not exactly maintain her complete feminist figure status. I wish she didn't become a housewife, really.
By the way, there was actually a second discovery that I made about Secretary. It made me think about all those films that are named for a character's profession. Other films of this ilk are: Waitress (2007), Hitman (2007), Actrices (2007), and Rock Star (2001). Closely related are those films who fit the category, but have a definite article to accompany them. They include: Le Valet (2006), Il Postino (1994), The Piano Teacher/La Pianiste, and The Pianist (2002). Can you think of any others?
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Friday, November 16, 2007
in defense of cavemen
I'm just going to come right out and say it: I love "Cavemen" (2007-present). I think it is one of the smartest shows on TV right now, a funny and engaging satire.
The show follows three cavemen roommates: Joel, the practical one with a homo sapien girlfriend and a job at an IKEA-like store; Andy, Joel's younger, impressionable brother; and Nick, a sarcastic grad student who's a bit of a separatist. Admittedly, Nick can be annoying, but he's the critical and cynical one of the group. Though he's sometimes wrong about other people, without his insights, you'd think cavemen really were stupid. He is, after all, the one who has to remind the others everything's about race, and without him it'd look like they never think about how they are treated in the media and in person-to-person interactions.
Now, about that controversy: I understand that the critics, who universally panned the show, reviewed a pilot that was not the same one that the general public saw when it premiered on October 2. I understand the makers, in response to the poor reception of the pilot, eliminated the racist jokes that implied the cavemen have experienced a history very much akin to that of African Americans. It didn't help that the original pilot set the scene in Atlanta. Now they're in sunny, Conservative-ladden San Diego. It's a good move, I think, though it sometimes feels more like LA than SD.
The critics didn't like this new refashioned show, from what I can tell, and no one I know besides my sister watches it. And I think the main reason why we like it is because it sophisticatedly engages in race studies, something we've explored due to being American Studies majors at university.
The four most recent episodes demonstrate this point best:
In "The Cavewoman," Nick dates an aggressive cavewoman called Heather who works in a frozen yogurt shop that resembles LA's Pinkberry chain. (Ah, but that is neither here nor there.) This episode is about masculinity caveman-style. Besides the fact that Heather is an utter bitch to everyone and completely dominates Nick, forcing him to put off breaking up with her as long as possible he's so scared, Heather makes the remaining two thirds of the trio feel less like (cave)men. She grills Joel on dating a homo sapien (something Nick does all the time), and she humiliates Andy for not calling her girlfriend for a date. Heather is the first cavewoman to be glimpsed in the show, appearing only in the third installment, and she stands in as a funny contrast to the cavemen, though presumably not all cavewomen are like Heather!
"The Mascot" is far more topical, as it relates to Nick's stint as a substitute teacher at a high school whose mascot is, you guessed it, a caveman. When he goes to the school's administration to explain why this is wrong and politically incorrect, he's met with, "Oh, yes, I know exactly what you mean." But the principal doesn't even care. In the end, Nick fights the oversized mascot, and in the process perpetuates the inaccurate stereotype by beating the guy with a (plush) log. Such a premise for this episode is meant to show how images of a (minority) group of people, accepted by the larger society, are at once challenged and reinforced by the minority group in question. What a vicious circle.
My favorite episode so far has been "The Shaver," which recalls narratives of racial passing (see either version of Imitation of Life [1934, 1959] for more info). While Joel becomes more and more under the influence of a crackpot motivational speaker, Nick and Andy seek to expose the crackpot as a hypocritical caveman because he has a strange all-over body stubble and protruding brow. Of course it all explodes at the end. The guy denies it and is caught saying something racist. He's a self-hating caveman! Plus, the trio's love of John Tesh, apparently the most famous shaver, and their willingness to forgive him for trying to pass as a homo sapien is just hilarious! "You really think they could let a caveman on TV?" Nick rhetorically asks Andy.
This past week's "Rock Vote" was about the guys trying to find an ideal candidate, the politician who will best represent them in the state assembly. Turns out Joel's ideal candidate was just using them to get votes from other cavemen. And Nick's candidate--a caveman himself--was a total wacko. Ah, but it all gets resolved in the end when they all vote for Witherspoon, who until the end was never considered by any of them. For Joel and Nick it's about their crush on Reese, and for Andy, who for so long followed in Joel and Nick's footsteps to find someone to vote for, it's because he knows Witherspoon has the best ideas for all people in San Diego.
I've heard the criticism that they do not look enough like cavemen. They aren't hairy enough, apparently. I think this is easy to write off because they've been around for thousands of years. Surely if they existed today they'd have adapted like the rest of us. They don't need such thick fur nowadays. Others have complained that the show is hard to watch simply because they're ugly and difficult to even look at. I disagree, but I must admit, however, that I wish they'd wash their hair once and awhile.
I really haven't done the show justice. It's far more nuanced. And I think the reason why the critics detested this one (what with the Chicago Trib going so far as to call "Cavemen" one of the 25 worst TV shows ever and all), is because they are not trained cultural critics. But then again, watching a TV show and recognizing the racial discrimination many people in contemporary society have historically faced isn't hard. It's so easy a caveman does it all the time.
The show follows three cavemen roommates: Joel, the practical one with a homo sapien girlfriend and a job at an IKEA-like store; Andy, Joel's younger, impressionable brother; and Nick, a sarcastic grad student who's a bit of a separatist. Admittedly, Nick can be annoying, but he's the critical and cynical one of the group. Though he's sometimes wrong about other people, without his insights, you'd think cavemen really were stupid. He is, after all, the one who has to remind the others everything's about race, and without him it'd look like they never think about how they are treated in the media and in person-to-person interactions.
Now, about that controversy: I understand that the critics, who universally panned the show, reviewed a pilot that was not the same one that the general public saw when it premiered on October 2. I understand the makers, in response to the poor reception of the pilot, eliminated the racist jokes that implied the cavemen have experienced a history very much akin to that of African Americans. It didn't help that the original pilot set the scene in Atlanta. Now they're in sunny, Conservative-ladden San Diego. It's a good move, I think, though it sometimes feels more like LA than SD.
The critics didn't like this new refashioned show, from what I can tell, and no one I know besides my sister watches it. And I think the main reason why we like it is because it sophisticatedly engages in race studies, something we've explored due to being American Studies majors at university.
The four most recent episodes demonstrate this point best:
In "The Cavewoman," Nick dates an aggressive cavewoman called Heather who works in a frozen yogurt shop that resembles LA's Pinkberry chain. (Ah, but that is neither here nor there.) This episode is about masculinity caveman-style. Besides the fact that Heather is an utter bitch to everyone and completely dominates Nick, forcing him to put off breaking up with her as long as possible he's so scared, Heather makes the remaining two thirds of the trio feel less like (cave)men. She grills Joel on dating a homo sapien (something Nick does all the time), and she humiliates Andy for not calling her girlfriend for a date. Heather is the first cavewoman to be glimpsed in the show, appearing only in the third installment, and she stands in as a funny contrast to the cavemen, though presumably not all cavewomen are like Heather!
"The Mascot" is far more topical, as it relates to Nick's stint as a substitute teacher at a high school whose mascot is, you guessed it, a caveman. When he goes to the school's administration to explain why this is wrong and politically incorrect, he's met with, "Oh, yes, I know exactly what you mean." But the principal doesn't even care. In the end, Nick fights the oversized mascot, and in the process perpetuates the inaccurate stereotype by beating the guy with a (plush) log. Such a premise for this episode is meant to show how images of a (minority) group of people, accepted by the larger society, are at once challenged and reinforced by the minority group in question. What a vicious circle.
My favorite episode so far has been "The Shaver," which recalls narratives of racial passing (see either version of Imitation of Life [1934, 1959] for more info). While Joel becomes more and more under the influence of a crackpot motivational speaker, Nick and Andy seek to expose the crackpot as a hypocritical caveman because he has a strange all-over body stubble and protruding brow. Of course it all explodes at the end. The guy denies it and is caught saying something racist. He's a self-hating caveman! Plus, the trio's love of John Tesh, apparently the most famous shaver, and their willingness to forgive him for trying to pass as a homo sapien is just hilarious! "You really think they could let a caveman on TV?" Nick rhetorically asks Andy.
This past week's "Rock Vote" was about the guys trying to find an ideal candidate, the politician who will best represent them in the state assembly. Turns out Joel's ideal candidate was just using them to get votes from other cavemen. And Nick's candidate--a caveman himself--was a total wacko. Ah, but it all gets resolved in the end when they all vote for Witherspoon, who until the end was never considered by any of them. For Joel and Nick it's about their crush on Reese, and for Andy, who for so long followed in Joel and Nick's footsteps to find someone to vote for, it's because he knows Witherspoon has the best ideas for all people in San Diego.
I've heard the criticism that they do not look enough like cavemen. They aren't hairy enough, apparently. I think this is easy to write off because they've been around for thousands of years. Surely if they existed today they'd have adapted like the rest of us. They don't need such thick fur nowadays. Others have complained that the show is hard to watch simply because they're ugly and difficult to even look at. I disagree, but I must admit, however, that I wish they'd wash their hair once and awhile.
I really haven't done the show justice. It's far more nuanced. And I think the reason why the critics detested this one (what with the Chicago Trib going so far as to call "Cavemen" one of the 25 worst TV shows ever and all), is because they are not trained cultural critics. But then again, watching a TV show and recognizing the racial discrimination many people in contemporary society have historically faced isn't hard. It's so easy a caveman does it all the time.
Friday, October 19, 2007
is drag always queer?
I'm currently looking up books to add to the bibliography for my thesis. I typed in the keyword "drag" and the results are a combination of three things: what I am looking for (stuff about drag queens and kings), drag racing, and anything else that has "drag" or "dragged" in the title, such as "Look What the Cat Dragged In!"
Ironic, no? Drag queens and drag racing.
Ironic, no? Drag queens and drag racing.
up-to-date randomity
1.) Anyone else think The Primitives "Crash" should have played throughout the end credits of Crash (2004)? It'd have been funny, and perhaps we'd like something about the movie then.
2.) I just recognized there aren't many words with three Us in them. Isn't that unusual?
3.) Anyone else underwhelmed by the films currently out? Will the movie season get any better? Eh. I'm eagerly anticipating I'm Not There (2007) because you know how I hate the conventional biopic; Control (2007) because it's about Joy Division and I want to see how it compares to 24 Hour Party People (2002); and Atonement (2007) because... well, for obvious reasons.
4.) I came out as queer to a class I was teaching, about the diversity of LGBT people, cultures, and issues. My fellow Q&A panelists weren't expecting it, but I don't think they were shocked.
5.) I don't want to wait till next fuckin' summer for the second season of "Mad Men" (2007-present). Tuesday means the season finale of the other show I have been committed to watching since its premiere: "Damages" (2007-present). 'Bout time. It's a bit too drawn out. But I like it.
6.) "Pushing Daisies" (2007-present) is too cute for words. I want the complete series of "Wonderfalls" (2004) on DVD. Right now.
2.) I just recognized there aren't many words with three Us in them. Isn't that unusual?
3.) Anyone else underwhelmed by the films currently out? Will the movie season get any better? Eh. I'm eagerly anticipating I'm Not There (2007) because you know how I hate the conventional biopic; Control (2007) because it's about Joy Division and I want to see how it compares to 24 Hour Party People (2002); and Atonement (2007) because... well, for obvious reasons.
4.) I came out as queer to a class I was teaching, about the diversity of LGBT people, cultures, and issues. My fellow Q&A panelists weren't expecting it, but I don't think they were shocked.
5.) I don't want to wait till next fuckin' summer for the second season of "Mad Men" (2007-present). Tuesday means the season finale of the other show I have been committed to watching since its premiere: "Damages" (2007-present). 'Bout time. It's a bit too drawn out. But I like it.
6.) "Pushing Daisies" (2007-present) is too cute for words. I want the complete series of "Wonderfalls" (2004) on DVD. Right now.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
out of context
OK. It doesn't look like I am going to do much work around the house today. This means I have time to concentrate on writing an argumentative blog post. The topic? I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry (2007).
There are several problems with this movie. I know, I know, can I or should I even complain since I haven't even seen it yet? I think I can.
The film is about two firefighters--friends Chuck (Adam Sandler) and Larry (Kevin James). According to the commercial, Larry is trying to ensure that his pension is passed along to his kids. The best way to do this, he figures, is to form a domestic partnership with his very straight friend, Chuck.
Now I don't know anything about pensions really, but some things are missing from this. It doesn't make sense. Where is Larry's wife/companion/mother of his children? Is he a widower? What about life insurance? You're a firefighter! (Then again, perhaps it's his high-risk job that prevents him from getting life insurance. This is not just.) More to the point, have the makers forgotten that same-sex marriage, while still a hot-button issue (that has cooled considerably), has not been resolved, for lack of a better word? I mean, I don't think in Brooklyn there are laws in place to protect the financial rights of gay couples. Perhaps it would make more sense if the movie were based in Boston?
Anyway, the film is apparently an "unauthorized" remake of the little Australian film Strange Bedfellows (2004). Now I don't know much about Australian politics or Australians' approach to gay marriage, but somehow it is more believable that Paul Hogan and Michael Caton would have more to gain from putting on the charade (which I do not advocate at all). In other words, I could see Australia having tax laws that finally include gay couples. I just don't see them here.
Another problem I have with the film derives yet again from the commercial I see all the time on TV. It sets up the premise. Understandable. Necessary. But it also introduces an unexpected setback in their plan. Looks like Chuck will fall for a case worker or lawyer or something. Anyway, he falls for Jessica Biel (surprise, surprise; and what's the age difference?). My point here is the commercial/trailer spelled out the whole movie. Heterosexuality gets in the way. It shows that the only reason to see this is to see them make fun of homosexuality because two masculine firefighters not all that secure with their sexuality are going to pretend to be homosexuals. Just for laughs. I may be wrong. It may be that the film has good intentions, to educate the usual Adam Sandler moviegoer about gay people (because let's face it, most of his other stuff is homophobic). In other words, the film may be more sympathetic, but I doubt it. If they wanted to do this, Sandler would play in earnest a gay character in a movie. (Shit. I can't remember the representation of the gay couple in Big Daddy [1999].)
I specifically take offense to the scene in the commercial where they're shopping together. Larry picks up a box of tampons or sanitary pads. Chuck reminds him: "We're gay! Not transsexuals!" This statement, while pointing out the difference, ultimately is just another joke, another gag. I can't explain it, but it doesn't sit well with me. Nevermind the fact that male-to-female transsexuals wouldn't need that kind of personal hygiene product.
Here's another thing that bothers me. Freaks me out, rather. And I just found out about it. Director Alexander Payne and his longtime co-writer Jim Taylor have co-written the script. Maybe this means it would be better than it looks, but I am just shocked that they wrote a fuckin' Adam Sandler movie!
OK. I think I've said my piece.
There are several problems with this movie. I know, I know, can I or should I even complain since I haven't even seen it yet? I think I can.
The film is about two firefighters--friends Chuck (Adam Sandler) and Larry (Kevin James). According to the commercial, Larry is trying to ensure that his pension is passed along to his kids. The best way to do this, he figures, is to form a domestic partnership with his very straight friend, Chuck.
Now I don't know anything about pensions really, but some things are missing from this. It doesn't make sense. Where is Larry's wife/companion/mother of his children? Is he a widower? What about life insurance? You're a firefighter! (Then again, perhaps it's his high-risk job that prevents him from getting life insurance. This is not just.) More to the point, have the makers forgotten that same-sex marriage, while still a hot-button issue (that has cooled considerably), has not been resolved, for lack of a better word? I mean, I don't think in Brooklyn there are laws in place to protect the financial rights of gay couples. Perhaps it would make more sense if the movie were based in Boston?
Anyway, the film is apparently an "unauthorized" remake of the little Australian film Strange Bedfellows (2004). Now I don't know much about Australian politics or Australians' approach to gay marriage, but somehow it is more believable that Paul Hogan and Michael Caton would have more to gain from putting on the charade (which I do not advocate at all). In other words, I could see Australia having tax laws that finally include gay couples. I just don't see them here.
Another problem I have with the film derives yet again from the commercial I see all the time on TV. It sets up the premise. Understandable. Necessary. But it also introduces an unexpected setback in their plan. Looks like Chuck will fall for a case worker or lawyer or something. Anyway, he falls for Jessica Biel (surprise, surprise; and what's the age difference?). My point here is the commercial/trailer spelled out the whole movie. Heterosexuality gets in the way. It shows that the only reason to see this is to see them make fun of homosexuality because two masculine firefighters not all that secure with their sexuality are going to pretend to be homosexuals. Just for laughs. I may be wrong. It may be that the film has good intentions, to educate the usual Adam Sandler moviegoer about gay people (because let's face it, most of his other stuff is homophobic). In other words, the film may be more sympathetic, but I doubt it. If they wanted to do this, Sandler would play in earnest a gay character in a movie. (Shit. I can't remember the representation of the gay couple in Big Daddy [1999].)
I specifically take offense to the scene in the commercial where they're shopping together. Larry picks up a box of tampons or sanitary pads. Chuck reminds him: "We're gay! Not transsexuals!" This statement, while pointing out the difference, ultimately is just another joke, another gag. I can't explain it, but it doesn't sit well with me. Nevermind the fact that male-to-female transsexuals wouldn't need that kind of personal hygiene product.
Here's another thing that bothers me. Freaks me out, rather. And I just found out about it. Director Alexander Payne and his longtime co-writer Jim Taylor have co-written the script. Maybe this means it would be better than it looks, but I am just shocked that they wrote a fuckin' Adam Sandler movie!
OK. I think I've said my piece.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
the rum tastes really bad
As promised, here is the post about Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007). I was expecting it to be awful since the second was terrible, but I paid my £4 because I wanted to have the memory of seeing the last two in England. I spoil some things later on, so skip over the three paragraphs where the first of the three has "SPOILER" in its first sentence. I point this out because I do not want to ruin it for you if you are planning on seeing the film.
What can I say about the film that has not already been said? Yes, its special effects are among some of the best I have seen, but the film proves that special effects are not enough to sustain an entertaining movie experience. Yes, the thing is very confusing and hard to follow because they must have squeezed seven subplots in. And because the films in the franchise have already been established as moving very quickly through the action, they don't really give the audience enough time to catch up. Some parts I thought were in another language; I really had no idea what they were talking about. Others, I would have to wait ten minutes to figure out what someone ten minutes earlier had meant. On the whole, I understood the film, and they tied it up nice and tight so that we don't need a fourth installment (please no!). Just didn't understand everything as it happened.
It's a bit disheartening that the original scriptwriters Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio also wrote this one. All of the originality, creativity, and spunk of the first has gradually been replaced by pitiful pastiches of the original. Everyone comes off as a caricature of the character he or she played in the first one. The second one was bad, but this one--clocking in at 168 minutes--is much worse. At least you can follow Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006). My worry is that Elliott and Rossio turned in a script that had so much going on because they were afraid one or two or maybe even three understandable plotlines would not be enough to warrant a film. Yes, but this thinking has an inverse effect: too much makes producing it and watching it pointless.
More specifically, I found different parts very problematic. The first is what has become of Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley). I'm not going to complain that she has turned into a full-fledged pirate. No. That's OK for the story, but what I take issue with is just how much of a sex object they have turned her into. The novelty of course is that she is the only woman, really. The pirates in Singapore even have a hard time treating her like an equal. To make a long story short, Elizabeth becomes the desired of at least five men. I know what you're thinking, there's no cap on how many men can desire one woman, but because she is attacked or gives into them, she directly figures into any physical relationship the men want her for.
First up, you have Will Turner (the disgusting Rambo lookalike Orlando Bloom), her beloved and eventually her husband. This makes a bit more sense than the others since you have watched them grow together since the first film, but that through most of this film Will is very distrustful of her and then asks her to marry him in the middle of a battle, is really quite ridiculous. The captain of the Black Pearl, Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush, the only truly convincing pirate performance), marries them then and there like. (I have more to say about their relationship, but it comes as a spoiler later on.)
There's always been sexual tension between Elizabeth and Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). Sorry, Captain Jack Sparrow. They kissed in the second film, and in this one they make fun of it. Because just as Elizabeth is leaving to copulate with Will on the beach (how romantic: a line of pirates seeing you off to probably watch from the ship!), she goes in to kiss him, and he says something to the effect of "Once is enough." Ouch!
Then there's Admiral James Norrington (Jack Davenport, the sexiest one in the film) who basically gets no screen-time. Just enough to say that he is on Elizabeth's side. He helps her escape from the custody of the British Navy/East India Trading Company. And then he dies, but not before Elizabeth gives into his fantasy and kisses him.
The pirate lord of Singapore, Captain Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat), is also enamored with her. He's convinced she is the human embodiment of the goddess Calypso. He says he wants to make her his mistress, that he hopes she gives herself willingly but if she doesn't, he will take her by force. And this is all after he sort of proved himself to be a good guy. He forces himself on her. To her credit, Elizabeth actually pushes him off her. When he dies, he bequeaths the captainship (no pun intended) to her. Thus she's now a pirate lord.
The fifth man who wants Elizabeth is Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander). Only he's a little more vague. And nothing develops between them, thank god.
So, they have made a character that was once a bit empowering into one who is trapped by men not taking her seriously because they only want her sexually. I understand that this actually makes it more realistic, but when one of the main characters of the franchise is reduced to being a plaything for the men after having experienced some corset-free action is anti-feminist. They give Elizabeth some room to be herself and explore, but then they strap her down. With all those plotlines, one thing remains consistent: Elizabeth's sex appeal. (Nevermind the fact that Keira Knightley is rather boyish in that she has almost no breasts. She's also got one terrible underbite and eyebrows that are way darker than her haircolor. All those days in the sun, eh?)
Here comes the SPOILER: In case you're not fully convinced by my argument, the bonus scene at the end of the VERY long credits cements this status of hers. But first, a little background info from the feature: Will Turner has become the new captain of the Flying Dutchman, the ship that Davy Jones (the Great Bill Nighy, who has been reduced to CGI) has controlled throughout the last two films. Will has become the captain because he killed Davy Jones. The Flying Dutchman is responsible for making sure all the souls that are lost at sea make it to the afterlife. Will, unless someone stabs his heart that is kept in the chest (hence the name of the second film where Davy's predicament was introduced), will carry this duty out for all eternity. And every ten years, he can come back up to the land (or sea) of the living so he can fuck Elizabeth. That is why the consummation of their marriage is a big deal. She won't be able to be with Will for ten more years.
Anyway, in the scene at the end of the credits, Elizabeth and a young boy are waiting on the same island where she and Will first had sex. He probably doesn't know that she's got a little son just dying to meet him. The scene only shows him pop up from the underworld; we don't see him get on the island and meet them. In any case, Elizabeth has merely become a way for Will and his legacy to stay alive. They have strapped her into becoming a mother. How does she continue to pirate? And do you see how there's no need for a fourth? It's wrapped up pretty nicely. Besides, if they were literally at the end of the world when they fought to keep piracy alive, what new challenge could really match that one? Aliens?
Elizabeth's becoming a mother also reminds me of something else equally misogynist. Elizabeth's treatment is very much like the treatment of Princess Isabelle (Sophie Marceau) in Braveheart (1995). Because Murron (Catherine McCormack) died in the first half and could not provide hero William Wallace (Mel Gibson) with some sons, the Princess carries out this requirement for the narrative, and their coupling even goes so far as to suggest that Wallace's kin will one day take the English throne. Such a shame.
The second problem of this film concerns Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris), who was introduced in the second film as a sort of voodoo guru. If you ask me, her representation is rather racist. She is black, speaks with a distinctly Caribbean accent that no one else does (is that Jamaican?), and is highly sexualized. She is a walking stereotype a la the TV psychic Miss Cleo. But she's also Calypso, Davy Jones's beloved who is trapped in the human form of "Tia Dalma." After the world's pirate lords meet and Barbossa sets Calypso free (their predecessors' council was also the one that put her under this spell in the past), she morphs into a 50-foot woman before escaping as millions of crabs. When the spell is first broken, Tia Dalma is wrapped up in rope as if she is nothing but an animal. And when she is the giant, her clothes are ripped, she screams at them down below but you can't understand her, and overall she looks very primitive but still sexy. I understand that in order for Tia Dalma to be mysterious and magical, she would have to be black. We don't really think of white people as being voodoo gurus, do we? But I just thought the filmmakers crushed her under so many stereotypes that she came off as no better than if she were a mammy.
My third problem is with the British military morphing into the East India Trading Company. This has gradually happened since the second film, when Lord Cutler Beckett was presented as evil because he took over the jurisdiction of Governor Swann (Jonathan Pryce, whose death scene is the only touching one in the third film). Nevermind the fact that they're actually in the West Indies. (Maybe I missed this; maybe they're called the East India Trading Company because they had previously been to the East and had made their fortune there, moving to the West Indies to make more. I really don't know. But they should rename themselves the West Indies Trading Company then.)
In any case, Beckett's more evil in this one because he wants to make pirates, who are bad for his business, extinct. This is the main plot, that all the pirates must learn to trust each other and fight off the EITC. But it really sinks under all the other plotlines so that when the last battle is fought, you almost forget what they are fighting for. It's rather anti-climatic to boot. Plus Beckett is a sort of Napoleonic character because--I love you Tom, but you know, you're, uh, short.
But my question is, what are the implications of turning the enemy that once was the British government into the enemy that is now the EITC? For such a huge blockbuster franchise, it's a bit hypocritical, don't you think, that at the center of the story is an anti-capitalistic message? More than this though, doesn't this imply how corporatized our world is becoming? Soon it's no longer going to be about governments or nations. Everything will be in the hands of the multinational/transnational corporations. Some might say it already is.
On the other hand, I wonder if pirates today use this film as a sort of manifesto. Johnny Depp and Keith Richards, who plays his dad in this one (and not very well, mind you), have hinted that rock stars are modern-day pirates. But I mean: do the film pirates in Asia and Canada, for instance, justify what they do with this wildly popular trilogy? In other words, does the film make it OK to pirate films, especially this one, since piracy is at the core of these sympathetic heroes who are fighting The Man?
There are so many problems with this film (franchise) that if I were to discuss them all, my arguments and explanations would become just as twisted as all the stupid plotlines.
This long blog post has been very unexpected. When Denise met Lisa and me for dinner (where I ate the aforementioned bangers 'n' mash), she asked us how the film was. I told her she definitely didn't miss anything. Later on, she asked again, and I said I need time to think about it, to process it. I didn't think I had much to say other than "it wasn't funny," "it was too long and boring," "it was just ridiculous." Turns out I was wrong.
What can I say about the film that has not already been said? Yes, its special effects are among some of the best I have seen, but the film proves that special effects are not enough to sustain an entertaining movie experience. Yes, the thing is very confusing and hard to follow because they must have squeezed seven subplots in. And because the films in the franchise have already been established as moving very quickly through the action, they don't really give the audience enough time to catch up. Some parts I thought were in another language; I really had no idea what they were talking about. Others, I would have to wait ten minutes to figure out what someone ten minutes earlier had meant. On the whole, I understood the film, and they tied it up nice and tight so that we don't need a fourth installment (please no!). Just didn't understand everything as it happened.
It's a bit disheartening that the original scriptwriters Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio also wrote this one. All of the originality, creativity, and spunk of the first has gradually been replaced by pitiful pastiches of the original. Everyone comes off as a caricature of the character he or she played in the first one. The second one was bad, but this one--clocking in at 168 minutes--is much worse. At least you can follow Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006). My worry is that Elliott and Rossio turned in a script that had so much going on because they were afraid one or two or maybe even three understandable plotlines would not be enough to warrant a film. Yes, but this thinking has an inverse effect: too much makes producing it and watching it pointless.
More specifically, I found different parts very problematic. The first is what has become of Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley). I'm not going to complain that she has turned into a full-fledged pirate. No. That's OK for the story, but what I take issue with is just how much of a sex object they have turned her into. The novelty of course is that she is the only woman, really. The pirates in Singapore even have a hard time treating her like an equal. To make a long story short, Elizabeth becomes the desired of at least five men. I know what you're thinking, there's no cap on how many men can desire one woman, but because she is attacked or gives into them, she directly figures into any physical relationship the men want her for.
First up, you have Will Turner (the disgusting Rambo lookalike Orlando Bloom), her beloved and eventually her husband. This makes a bit more sense than the others since you have watched them grow together since the first film, but that through most of this film Will is very distrustful of her and then asks her to marry him in the middle of a battle, is really quite ridiculous. The captain of the Black Pearl, Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush, the only truly convincing pirate performance), marries them then and there like. (I have more to say about their relationship, but it comes as a spoiler later on.)
There's always been sexual tension between Elizabeth and Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). Sorry, Captain Jack Sparrow. They kissed in the second film, and in this one they make fun of it. Because just as Elizabeth is leaving to copulate with Will on the beach (how romantic: a line of pirates seeing you off to probably watch from the ship!), she goes in to kiss him, and he says something to the effect of "Once is enough." Ouch!
Then there's Admiral James Norrington (Jack Davenport, the sexiest one in the film) who basically gets no screen-time. Just enough to say that he is on Elizabeth's side. He helps her escape from the custody of the British Navy/East India Trading Company. And then he dies, but not before Elizabeth gives into his fantasy and kisses him.
The pirate lord of Singapore, Captain Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat), is also enamored with her. He's convinced she is the human embodiment of the goddess Calypso. He says he wants to make her his mistress, that he hopes she gives herself willingly but if she doesn't, he will take her by force. And this is all after he sort of proved himself to be a good guy. He forces himself on her. To her credit, Elizabeth actually pushes him off her. When he dies, he bequeaths the captainship (no pun intended) to her. Thus she's now a pirate lord.
The fifth man who wants Elizabeth is Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander). Only he's a little more vague. And nothing develops between them, thank god.
So, they have made a character that was once a bit empowering into one who is trapped by men not taking her seriously because they only want her sexually. I understand that this actually makes it more realistic, but when one of the main characters of the franchise is reduced to being a plaything for the men after having experienced some corset-free action is anti-feminist. They give Elizabeth some room to be herself and explore, but then they strap her down. With all those plotlines, one thing remains consistent: Elizabeth's sex appeal. (Nevermind the fact that Keira Knightley is rather boyish in that she has almost no breasts. She's also got one terrible underbite and eyebrows that are way darker than her haircolor. All those days in the sun, eh?)
Here comes the SPOILER: In case you're not fully convinced by my argument, the bonus scene at the end of the VERY long credits cements this status of hers. But first, a little background info from the feature: Will Turner has become the new captain of the Flying Dutchman, the ship that Davy Jones (the Great Bill Nighy, who has been reduced to CGI) has controlled throughout the last two films. Will has become the captain because he killed Davy Jones. The Flying Dutchman is responsible for making sure all the souls that are lost at sea make it to the afterlife. Will, unless someone stabs his heart that is kept in the chest (hence the name of the second film where Davy's predicament was introduced), will carry this duty out for all eternity. And every ten years, he can come back up to the land (or sea) of the living so he can fuck Elizabeth. That is why the consummation of their marriage is a big deal. She won't be able to be with Will for ten more years.
Anyway, in the scene at the end of the credits, Elizabeth and a young boy are waiting on the same island where she and Will first had sex. He probably doesn't know that she's got a little son just dying to meet him. The scene only shows him pop up from the underworld; we don't see him get on the island and meet them. In any case, Elizabeth has merely become a way for Will and his legacy to stay alive. They have strapped her into becoming a mother. How does she continue to pirate? And do you see how there's no need for a fourth? It's wrapped up pretty nicely. Besides, if they were literally at the end of the world when they fought to keep piracy alive, what new challenge could really match that one? Aliens?
Elizabeth's becoming a mother also reminds me of something else equally misogynist. Elizabeth's treatment is very much like the treatment of Princess Isabelle (Sophie Marceau) in Braveheart (1995). Because Murron (Catherine McCormack) died in the first half and could not provide hero William Wallace (Mel Gibson) with some sons, the Princess carries out this requirement for the narrative, and their coupling even goes so far as to suggest that Wallace's kin will one day take the English throne. Such a shame.
The second problem of this film concerns Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris), who was introduced in the second film as a sort of voodoo guru. If you ask me, her representation is rather racist. She is black, speaks with a distinctly Caribbean accent that no one else does (is that Jamaican?), and is highly sexualized. She is a walking stereotype a la the TV psychic Miss Cleo. But she's also Calypso, Davy Jones's beloved who is trapped in the human form of "Tia Dalma." After the world's pirate lords meet and Barbossa sets Calypso free (their predecessors' council was also the one that put her under this spell in the past), she morphs into a 50-foot woman before escaping as millions of crabs. When the spell is first broken, Tia Dalma is wrapped up in rope as if she is nothing but an animal. And when she is the giant, her clothes are ripped, she screams at them down below but you can't understand her, and overall she looks very primitive but still sexy. I understand that in order for Tia Dalma to be mysterious and magical, she would have to be black. We don't really think of white people as being voodoo gurus, do we? But I just thought the filmmakers crushed her under so many stereotypes that she came off as no better than if she were a mammy.
My third problem is with the British military morphing into the East India Trading Company. This has gradually happened since the second film, when Lord Cutler Beckett was presented as evil because he took over the jurisdiction of Governor Swann (Jonathan Pryce, whose death scene is the only touching one in the third film). Nevermind the fact that they're actually in the West Indies. (Maybe I missed this; maybe they're called the East India Trading Company because they had previously been to the East and had made their fortune there, moving to the West Indies to make more. I really don't know. But they should rename themselves the West Indies Trading Company then.)
In any case, Beckett's more evil in this one because he wants to make pirates, who are bad for his business, extinct. This is the main plot, that all the pirates must learn to trust each other and fight off the EITC. But it really sinks under all the other plotlines so that when the last battle is fought, you almost forget what they are fighting for. It's rather anti-climatic to boot. Plus Beckett is a sort of Napoleonic character because--I love you Tom, but you know, you're, uh, short.
But my question is, what are the implications of turning the enemy that once was the British government into the enemy that is now the EITC? For such a huge blockbuster franchise, it's a bit hypocritical, don't you think, that at the center of the story is an anti-capitalistic message? More than this though, doesn't this imply how corporatized our world is becoming? Soon it's no longer going to be about governments or nations. Everything will be in the hands of the multinational/transnational corporations. Some might say it already is.
On the other hand, I wonder if pirates today use this film as a sort of manifesto. Johnny Depp and Keith Richards, who plays his dad in this one (and not very well, mind you), have hinted that rock stars are modern-day pirates. But I mean: do the film pirates in Asia and Canada, for instance, justify what they do with this wildly popular trilogy? In other words, does the film make it OK to pirate films, especially this one, since piracy is at the core of these sympathetic heroes who are fighting The Man?
There are so many problems with this film (franchise) that if I were to discuss them all, my arguments and explanations would become just as twisted as all the stupid plotlines.
This long blog post has been very unexpected. When Denise met Lisa and me for dinner (where I ate the aforementioned bangers 'n' mash), she asked us how the film was. I told her she definitely didn't miss anything. Later on, she asked again, and I said I need time to think about it, to process it. I didn't think I had much to say other than "it wasn't funny," "it was too long and boring," "it was just ridiculous." Turns out I was wrong.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
seeing, smelling, feeling
Men make me giggle. Here are some examples of why they do:
1.) At the cafe yesterday where I enjoyed some Earl Grey and a white chocolate fudge-covered biscuit, the Turkish man behind the counter asked which size I wanted for the tea: large or small. I asked to see them both to gauge the difference.
"This is large."
"OK. And what is small?"
And then he smiled, "Me." I immediately thought, he's not advertising himself well. English is not his first language I am guessing, but I would think in every language a man would rather be large.
2.) I smell like men's perfume. Some call it cologne. But let's face it, the guys who do not spray Axe/Lynx all over their bodies but spray something on them nevertheless like to smell pretty. I wouldn't call it musk.
Anyway, the guy next to me on the bus smelled a bit fruity. And just a half hour ago, a neighbor who is leaving today hugged me (shocker!) and basically smeared it all over me. I smell like him now. What a souvenir.
3.) On an episode of "Rome" (2005-2007) that I watched last night, Lucius Vorenus (Kevin McKidd) was complaining to friend Titus Pullo (Ray Stevenson) about how his wife won't let him "couple" with her. Is she just angry at him? Is she not satisfied? To summarize, Titus suggested Lucius find the g-spot. But, as this is ca. 50 BC, there wasn't an exact word for it.
What is the best bit is the look Lucius gives Titus. "How do you know this about my wife?"
"Chill, Lucius, all women have them. Trust me."
1.) At the cafe yesterday where I enjoyed some Earl Grey and a white chocolate fudge-covered biscuit, the Turkish man behind the counter asked which size I wanted for the tea: large or small. I asked to see them both to gauge the difference.
"This is large."
"OK. And what is small?"
And then he smiled, "Me." I immediately thought, he's not advertising himself well. English is not his first language I am guessing, but I would think in every language a man would rather be large.
2.) I smell like men's perfume. Some call it cologne. But let's face it, the guys who do not spray Axe/Lynx all over their bodies but spray something on them nevertheless like to smell pretty. I wouldn't call it musk.
Anyway, the guy next to me on the bus smelled a bit fruity. And just a half hour ago, a neighbor who is leaving today hugged me (shocker!) and basically smeared it all over me. I smell like him now. What a souvenir.
3.) On an episode of "Rome" (2005-2007) that I watched last night, Lucius Vorenus (Kevin McKidd) was complaining to friend Titus Pullo (Ray Stevenson) about how his wife won't let him "couple" with her. Is she just angry at him? Is she not satisfied? To summarize, Titus suggested Lucius find the g-spot. But, as this is ca. 50 BC, there wasn't an exact word for it.
What is the best bit is the look Lucius gives Titus. "How do you know this about my wife?"
"Chill, Lucius, all women have them. Trust me."
Saturday, May 19, 2007
you look like you could be my friend
I keep forgetting to mention this. I have a profile on MySpace, but I never log in. Well, almost never. A couple of weeks ago I checked in to see what was going on. It only takes two seconds because not much does happen between the months I log in. Anyway, I am getting to the point.
A couple of weeks ago, when I logged in I saw that I had about four or five friend requests from what we would call "pretty girls." Oh, I'm going to stereotype now and it's not fair: they definitely looked like they belonged in sororities. They probably party a lot and are the kind of girls that my brother would find, shall we say rather nicely, "attractive."
Usually, friend requests come from really bad bands. Not individuals. I didn't understand why these girls would look at my profile and think that we have something in common. That we should be friends. And then I looked at my photo.
My photo is of me with my former hairstyle, the A-line. Taken on the day I had it done because that was the only time that it was bone straight and sleek. I think I might also be wearing a v-neck shirt that accentuates my breasts. Just as one of the hairdressers said when I had it styled, I look like I'm ready for the club. This must be why the girls want to be my friend.
Funny, even girls get the wrong idea.
A couple of weeks ago, when I logged in I saw that I had about four or five friend requests from what we would call "pretty girls." Oh, I'm going to stereotype now and it's not fair: they definitely looked like they belonged in sororities. They probably party a lot and are the kind of girls that my brother would find, shall we say rather nicely, "attractive."
Usually, friend requests come from really bad bands. Not individuals. I didn't understand why these girls would look at my profile and think that we have something in common. That we should be friends. And then I looked at my photo.
My photo is of me with my former hairstyle, the A-line. Taken on the day I had it done because that was the only time that it was bone straight and sleek. I think I might also be wearing a v-neck shirt that accentuates my breasts. Just as one of the hairdressers said when I had it styled, I look like I'm ready for the club. This must be why the girls want to be my friend.
Funny, even girls get the wrong idea.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
too serious an issue to have a pun for a title
I just read an interview from Advocate.com with Barbara Walters on her upcoming segment of "20/20" on transgender children and their families. It wasn't so much that Babba Wabba was covering this issue on such a widely-watched news show that made me cry. It was more about my admiration for people--no matter how young--who know who they are and thus know who they definitely are not. To come to terms with, embrace, and feel comfortable with one's transgender identity, as Barb says, takes a lot of courage. To read about how these parents have embraced their transgender children has given me hope.
But having said all this, I think the last line of the program ("No one can imagine what these special children go through to be who they are. They and their families struggle simply to be accepted. What if, one day, your child said, 'I am in the wrong body'? Could they accept it? Could you?"), which Barbara thinks is compassionate, is rather sensationalist in a National Enquirer sort of way. I understand it's supposed to make viewers reflect on their own lives, but it falls flat on me personally. I know what my answer would be to my child.
But having said all this, I think the last line of the program ("No one can imagine what these special children go through to be who they are. They and their families struggle simply to be accepted. What if, one day, your child said, 'I am in the wrong body'? Could they accept it? Could you?"), which Barbara thinks is compassionate, is rather sensationalist in a National Enquirer sort of way. I understand it's supposed to make viewers reflect on their own lives, but it falls flat on me personally. I know what my answer would be to my child.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
getting in touch with my american side
The fascination with my Americanness continued after being asked to fill out those cross-cultural questionnaires.
Yesterday a very nice girl in my Spanish cultural studies class presented on a topic we hadn't covered: fashion. More specifically, she told us about how Madrid has banned size 0 models from their catwalks, and the rest of the country (and even Milan) have followed suit. [Pun intended.] Size 0 means size 4 in the UK, and I have no idea what it is in the U.S., which is probably the first time I can't find an equivalent in the States for something as universal as clothes. I've been here too long.
In any case, her topic instigated an hour-long discussion that reached such topics as fashion trends, body image (for women AND men), and health issues like anorexia. A size 0 model had collapsed and died on the Madrid catwalk because she had been eating only lettuce leaves for months, which I think really drew attention to the seriousness of the issue of teeny tiny models for Spanish cultural/fashion/health officials.
However, I do have to say that I did not like how the presenter said that "since most fashion designers are gay men, their ideal of the female form is rather boyish." Something tells me that this is not even true. There are many female fashion designers and a minority of straight male designers, too. Who said that gay men think the female form is "boyish" and why would that be the reason for clothes only being designed to fit walking hangers? Plus, she has linked homosexuality with pedophilia. Does she think all gay men prefer "boyish" men and/or boys?
But I digress.
In the discussion, they asked me about fashion trends in the U.S. If people have such anxiety over their weight and size and body image and finding clothes that fits them. What did I contribute? This: "Well, whatever I have to say is very subjective. Because I am so short, I have to find ankle-length or petite bottoms. This is a very hard thing to do." How insightful, I know. I had the opportunity to say some of the differences between how people want to look here and the image people want to or unintentionally project at home. And I didn't take it. Oh well.
And in my French film class, le prof was interested in where Les Amants du Pont-Neuf (1991) fits in critically and commercially in "North America." (I hate it when they call it that; I cannot speak for all of America let alone for all of Canada and Mexico and Guatemala and Nicaragua and etc., too.) He asked me this because people in the class were curious to how it relates to Diva (1981) and Subway (1985), if this film is also part of the cinema du look phenomenon. Plus, Les Amants is a very famous film, and he assumed that it was so in the U.S., too. And yes, I think cinephiles and foreign film-lovers would know it, so I said that it ranks with Krzysztof Kieslowski's Trois Couleurs: Blue (1993), White (1994), and Red (1994). Yeah, I still think that's about right.
Figures people would only become interested in my Americanness in the last week of classes.
Yesterday a very nice girl in my Spanish cultural studies class presented on a topic we hadn't covered: fashion. More specifically, she told us about how Madrid has banned size 0 models from their catwalks, and the rest of the country (and even Milan) have followed suit. [Pun intended.] Size 0 means size 4 in the UK, and I have no idea what it is in the U.S., which is probably the first time I can't find an equivalent in the States for something as universal as clothes. I've been here too long.
In any case, her topic instigated an hour-long discussion that reached such topics as fashion trends, body image (for women AND men), and health issues like anorexia. A size 0 model had collapsed and died on the Madrid catwalk because she had been eating only lettuce leaves for months, which I think really drew attention to the seriousness of the issue of teeny tiny models for Spanish cultural/fashion/health officials.
However, I do have to say that I did not like how the presenter said that "since most fashion designers are gay men, their ideal of the female form is rather boyish." Something tells me that this is not even true. There are many female fashion designers and a minority of straight male designers, too. Who said that gay men think the female form is "boyish" and why would that be the reason for clothes only being designed to fit walking hangers? Plus, she has linked homosexuality with pedophilia. Does she think all gay men prefer "boyish" men and/or boys?
But I digress.
In the discussion, they asked me about fashion trends in the U.S. If people have such anxiety over their weight and size and body image and finding clothes that fits them. What did I contribute? This: "Well, whatever I have to say is very subjective. Because I am so short, I have to find ankle-length or petite bottoms. This is a very hard thing to do." How insightful, I know. I had the opportunity to say some of the differences between how people want to look here and the image people want to or unintentionally project at home. And I didn't take it. Oh well.
And in my French film class, le prof was interested in where Les Amants du Pont-Neuf (1991) fits in critically and commercially in "North America." (I hate it when they call it that; I cannot speak for all of America let alone for all of Canada and Mexico and Guatemala and Nicaragua and etc., too.) He asked me this because people in the class were curious to how it relates to Diva (1981) and Subway (1985), if this film is also part of the cinema du look phenomenon. Plus, Les Amants is a very famous film, and he assumed that it was so in the U.S., too. And yes, I think cinephiles and foreign film-lovers would know it, so I said that it ranks with Krzysztof Kieslowski's Trois Couleurs: Blue (1993), White (1994), and Red (1994). Yeah, I still think that's about right.
Figures people would only become interested in my Americanness in the last week of classes.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
if only they were all as sexy as carmen miranda
As promised, I will now discuss the lecture/seminar I attended last night. I think the speaker came all the way from Victoria, Australia, to give this talk among doing other things in the UK, too. She might have been jet-lagged, so please keep this in mind while I write about the experience. Superficially speaking, I think she was very nervous. In some parts, she spoke too fast and/or stumbled. She was also very expressive with her hands. I appreciate people who talk with their hands (they won't be restricted to expositing only with their mouths), but it was a bit distracting, like fireworks or an interpretive dance.
The lecturer spoke on the kinds of representations women and femininity receive in contemporary Brazilian cinema. She focused on Me You Them (2000) and Central Station (1998). I have only ever seen Central Station, and that was years ago, but I remember it surprisingly well, especially as she talked about it. So, any of my thoughts regarding the first film were pretty much based on what she gave us in her lecture. I had heard of Me You Them before and have always wanted to see it, but I had no idea it revolves around a woman who finds in three different men what she wants: a home and security from her--albeit oppressive--husband, a friendly and compassionate helping hand from her husband's cousin, and a passionate and corporeal relationship with a younger man who works in the fields with her.
When it came time to the Q & A section of the talk, I asked if it is possible to read the protagonist, Darlene, as a feminist figure. I had gotten this impression of her because she isn't framed, according to the speaker, as a slut even though she sleeps with various men and has children with the two men that are not her husband while she is still married to him. She wants all three of the men, and the system--this postmodern or non-traditional family structure--does work. Also, the previous question asked how female directors in Brazil approach (re)constructing Brazilian female sexuality in the face of the stereotyped but ultimately accepted view of women as being hypersexual. This discussion led into my question, I think, especially since the director (Andrucha Waddington) is a man and the screenwriter (Elena Soarez) is a woman.
In short, the lecturer did not think my interpretation had no grounds, but she doesn't think she is that great a feminist figure because her husband, at the very end of the film, registers all four of her children--none of which he fathered--as his children, under his name. Legally, this means he retains ownership of them, just has he has over Darlene because she is his wife. The speaker thinks this move is his way to of re-affirming his authority, now making it impossible for Darlene to ever leave him for the youngest man because she would never leave her children.
To write Darlene off as not being a feminist figure for this reason supposes that in order for her to be feminist she must be the most powerful force in the house. Can she not be a feminist for finding a way around patriarchal norms, for finding two men that fulfill her needs in addition to what her husband has provided her with (food and shelter)? She is subverting his power over her body when she sleeps with these other men. She is re-claiming it for herself. That she does not leave him because of the legal binding he has wrapped her in is just realistic, I suppose. In my opinion, the film suggests that gender equality is not something that happens overnight.
The film apparently does not have full closure. You don't see how they adjust to what he has done, but the speaker agreed with me that just because he has registered the children under his name does not mean that they cannot go on living like this in the poor rural Northeast.
All in all, she did not convince me that Darlene isn't an allegorical feminist figure. I have to see the film for myself.
Moving on: at first I found the speaker's examination of Central Station problematic. When discussing the lead character, Dora, I thought she was saying that she was not feminine. Maybe in the strict hyper-feminine way, she is not, but Dora is neither masculine. In listening to her further, I came to better understand what she was talking about.
The film charts Dora's transformation from a bit of a "cynical" loner to a more feminine maternal figure for a boy who she is trying to reunite with his father and brothers following the sudden death of his mother, one of the illiterate people Dora would write letters for in the central station. I agree with the lecturer's interpretation that Dora's journey to maternal figure is at the expense of her sexuality. She may become more feminine--she wears lipstick to appear pretty for a truck driver while she and the boy are on the road--but she never gets laid.
I am not saying her attempts are fruitless (who knows what will happen when she returns home to Rio; she might get a date!), but it is her conformity to heteronormative social patterns that I find distressing. It doesn't help that she arrives at this transformation following the encouragement of the boy who, let's face it, at his age can recognize normal gender roles and appearances, but does not necessarily understand how they are a social construction, and that he's just policing appropriate gender behavior. Figures this film was made by men (director Walter Salles and screenwriters Marcos Bernstein and João Emanuel Carneiro).
Very anti-climatically: I think I am done.
The lecturer spoke on the kinds of representations women and femininity receive in contemporary Brazilian cinema. She focused on Me You Them (2000) and Central Station (1998). I have only ever seen Central Station, and that was years ago, but I remember it surprisingly well, especially as she talked about it. So, any of my thoughts regarding the first film were pretty much based on what she gave us in her lecture. I had heard of Me You Them before and have always wanted to see it, but I had no idea it revolves around a woman who finds in three different men what she wants: a home and security from her--albeit oppressive--husband, a friendly and compassionate helping hand from her husband's cousin, and a passionate and corporeal relationship with a younger man who works in the fields with her.
When it came time to the Q & A section of the talk, I asked if it is possible to read the protagonist, Darlene, as a feminist figure. I had gotten this impression of her because she isn't framed, according to the speaker, as a slut even though she sleeps with various men and has children with the two men that are not her husband while she is still married to him. She wants all three of the men, and the system--this postmodern or non-traditional family structure--does work. Also, the previous question asked how female directors in Brazil approach (re)constructing Brazilian female sexuality in the face of the stereotyped but ultimately accepted view of women as being hypersexual. This discussion led into my question, I think, especially since the director (Andrucha Waddington) is a man and the screenwriter (Elena Soarez) is a woman.
In short, the lecturer did not think my interpretation had no grounds, but she doesn't think she is that great a feminist figure because her husband, at the very end of the film, registers all four of her children--none of which he fathered--as his children, under his name. Legally, this means he retains ownership of them, just has he has over Darlene because she is his wife. The speaker thinks this move is his way to of re-affirming his authority, now making it impossible for Darlene to ever leave him for the youngest man because she would never leave her children.
To write Darlene off as not being a feminist figure for this reason supposes that in order for her to be feminist she must be the most powerful force in the house. Can she not be a feminist for finding a way around patriarchal norms, for finding two men that fulfill her needs in addition to what her husband has provided her with (food and shelter)? She is subverting his power over her body when she sleeps with these other men. She is re-claiming it for herself. That she does not leave him because of the legal binding he has wrapped her in is just realistic, I suppose. In my opinion, the film suggests that gender equality is not something that happens overnight.
The film apparently does not have full closure. You don't see how they adjust to what he has done, but the speaker agreed with me that just because he has registered the children under his name does not mean that they cannot go on living like this in the poor rural Northeast.
All in all, she did not convince me that Darlene isn't an allegorical feminist figure. I have to see the film for myself.
Moving on: at first I found the speaker's examination of Central Station problematic. When discussing the lead character, Dora, I thought she was saying that she was not feminine. Maybe in the strict hyper-feminine way, she is not, but Dora is neither masculine. In listening to her further, I came to better understand what she was talking about.
The film charts Dora's transformation from a bit of a "cynical" loner to a more feminine maternal figure for a boy who she is trying to reunite with his father and brothers following the sudden death of his mother, one of the illiterate people Dora would write letters for in the central station. I agree with the lecturer's interpretation that Dora's journey to maternal figure is at the expense of her sexuality. She may become more feminine--she wears lipstick to appear pretty for a truck driver while she and the boy are on the road--but she never gets laid.
I am not saying her attempts are fruitless (who knows what will happen when she returns home to Rio; she might get a date!), but it is her conformity to heteronormative social patterns that I find distressing. It doesn't help that she arrives at this transformation following the encouragement of the boy who, let's face it, at his age can recognize normal gender roles and appearances, but does not necessarily understand how they are a social construction, and that he's just policing appropriate gender behavior. Figures this film was made by men (director Walter Salles and screenwriters Marcos Bernstein and João Emanuel Carneiro).
Very anti-climatically: I think I am done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
