ifeelbetter (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ifeelbetter) wrote2011-07-30 01:27 am
ifeelbetter) wrote2011-07-30 01:27 am
Entry tags:
thoughts on movies
I saw two films today. Because I am no longer a teenager, I did not theater-hop. I paid for both. I think this justifies my upcoming rant tangent digression.
I will just start by saying that my hopes were moderately high for one and abysmally low for the other. Both surprised me greatly.
Friends with Benefits.
Ladies and gents, I did not expect to like this film. I'm coming right off the heels of seeing Bad Teacher, right, and that was the sort of stock-sexism I was expecting. There's no way a film with that premise could, I don't know, live up to the promise of equal opportunity consideration of the hubbub that is romance? Right? I was so very sure. But I was a teenager in the nineties, I have residual Uber-Love for J.Timbs and I love to torture myself with painful rom-coms. So I went.
It reminded me of 500 Days of Summer, oddly. I think it does a far better job of turning the genre of romantic comedy around (so that it can actually take a good, long look in the mirror) than 500 Days did. 500 Days (love it though I do) ended up doing the same old trick--a jilted guy gets to villainize a woman who was uninterested in him without giving her her own voice or defense. This genre is aces at giving all the appearance of the woman's POV while actually twisting the audience around the male POV even tighter. Friends with Benefits weaves back and forth between the two leads, never resting solely in (or against) one or the other. And it never takes shortcuts--no vicarious-audience-stand-in-group-of-friends or easily-blame-it-on-family issues or BS like that. Instead, Mila Kunis makes a troubled relationship with her mother seem often charming, occasionally ragged, and often shockingly real. And J. Timbs is no slob either--who knew he had such comedic chops?
I was thrilled to the rafters after seeing this film.
And then I saw the other one.
Crazy, Stupid Love.
Guys. I love Emma Stone. I love her like whoa. And I have a soft spot for Ryan Gosling too--see my thoughts on Blue Valentine--and Steve Carrell is one of Jon Stewart's boys...so so many reasons for this film to be good.
And then I saw the plot-line with the teenaged boy and his babysitter.
How is this shit okay? How does no one--no editor or co-writer or directer or someone's friend--stop this sort of drivel from being released into the public? How did no one caution this writer that they were condoning protean rapist behavior with this plot-line and character? And why is it the "romantic ideal" to stalk women?
Ryan Gosling's character is the cad of the film, very much in the style of Restoration-era romantic farces. He's a rake and a libertine and, as it always has been, the love of a good woman sets him straight. We all know where the gender problems of that storyline are. We know it, everyone involved in making this film knew it and those issues are addressed. "Here comes the not cool bit," the film seems to warn, "wink-wink-nudge-nudge." And the film is lucky it has Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone in those roles. Without them, even that portion of the film that was self-aware enough to qualify its own sexism wouldn't have been there.
"Don't teach my son to objectify women," Steve Carrell's character warns Ryan Gosling's. He didn't need to worry about that. That kid was already there. And Steve Carrell's character wasn't helping when he co-opted his kid's graduation for a speech about pursuing his divorced wife forever, no matter how many times she might reject him. And the audience cheers when the teenage boy takes that as a cue to re-ignite his pursuit of his babysitter.
If a woman says stop, that means stop. I don't care if the man is child or the woman a teenager. There is no excuse for continuing harassment. And if a woman ever has to tell you that you've made her uncomfortable with your sexual advances, you've crossed a line.
I went to see both films with my roommate. She thought I was being ridiculous to be offended by the teenage boy character in Crazy, Stupid Love. She said it was about teenage boys being devoted, that it's "cute" for boys to be so devoted. That it was all harmless. I completely disagree. I think this is a token of one of the most virulent strains of misogyny out there.
In other news, I'm almost done with my syllabus for next semester. Highlights include: Exit Through the Gift Shop, My Fair Lady, George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can't Say on Television," and an article from Vanity Fair. Yes, my reading lists are eclectic. They are definitely that.
Plus, I'm trying to draft a proposal for a course for Comp Lit in the winter more geared towards my actual area of expertise, 19th century Japan-related texts. I'm thinking I might propose a course based on travel narratives on the far east, a sort of "orientalism" in practice sort of thing. That's still in the works.
Last note: did anyone see this week's So You Think You Can Dance? If you didn't, check this shiz-nit out:
Did you see that jump at 1:17? Did you see that??
I will just start by saying that my hopes were moderately high for one and abysmally low for the other. Both surprised me greatly.
Friends with Benefits.
Ladies and gents, I did not expect to like this film. I'm coming right off the heels of seeing Bad Teacher, right, and that was the sort of stock-sexism I was expecting. There's no way a film with that premise could, I don't know, live up to the promise of equal opportunity consideration of the hubbub that is romance? Right? I was so very sure. But I was a teenager in the nineties, I have residual Uber-Love for J.Timbs and I love to torture myself with painful rom-coms. So I went.
It reminded me of 500 Days of Summer, oddly. I think it does a far better job of turning the genre of romantic comedy around (so that it can actually take a good, long look in the mirror) than 500 Days did. 500 Days (love it though I do) ended up doing the same old trick--a jilted guy gets to villainize a woman who was uninterested in him without giving her her own voice or defense. This genre is aces at giving all the appearance of the woman's POV while actually twisting the audience around the male POV even tighter. Friends with Benefits weaves back and forth between the two leads, never resting solely in (or against) one or the other. And it never takes shortcuts--no vicarious-audience-stand-in-group-of-friends or easily-blame-it-on-family issues or BS like that. Instead, Mila Kunis makes a troubled relationship with her mother seem often charming, occasionally ragged, and often shockingly real. And J. Timbs is no slob either--who knew he had such comedic chops?
I was thrilled to the rafters after seeing this film.
And then I saw the other one.
Crazy, Stupid Love.
Guys. I love Emma Stone. I love her like whoa. And I have a soft spot for Ryan Gosling too--see my thoughts on Blue Valentine--and Steve Carrell is one of Jon Stewart's boys...so so many reasons for this film to be good.
And then I saw the plot-line with the teenaged boy and his babysitter.
How is this shit okay? How does no one--no editor or co-writer or directer or someone's friend--stop this sort of drivel from being released into the public? How did no one caution this writer that they were condoning protean rapist behavior with this plot-line and character? And why is it the "romantic ideal" to stalk women?
Ryan Gosling's character is the cad of the film, very much in the style of Restoration-era romantic farces. He's a rake and a libertine and, as it always has been, the love of a good woman sets him straight. We all know where the gender problems of that storyline are. We know it, everyone involved in making this film knew it and those issues are addressed. "Here comes the not cool bit," the film seems to warn, "wink-wink-nudge-nudge." And the film is lucky it has Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone in those roles. Without them, even that portion of the film that was self-aware enough to qualify its own sexism wouldn't have been there.
"Don't teach my son to objectify women," Steve Carrell's character warns Ryan Gosling's. He didn't need to worry about that. That kid was already there. And Steve Carrell's character wasn't helping when he co-opted his kid's graduation for a speech about pursuing his divorced wife forever, no matter how many times she might reject him. And the audience cheers when the teenage boy takes that as a cue to re-ignite his pursuit of his babysitter.
If a woman says stop, that means stop. I don't care if the man is child or the woman a teenager. There is no excuse for continuing harassment. And if a woman ever has to tell you that you've made her uncomfortable with your sexual advances, you've crossed a line.
I went to see both films with my roommate. She thought I was being ridiculous to be offended by the teenage boy character in Crazy, Stupid Love. She said it was about teenage boys being devoted, that it's "cute" for boys to be so devoted. That it was all harmless. I completely disagree. I think this is a token of one of the most virulent strains of misogyny out there.
In other news, I'm almost done with my syllabus for next semester. Highlights include: Exit Through the Gift Shop, My Fair Lady, George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can't Say on Television," and an article from Vanity Fair. Yes, my reading lists are eclectic. They are definitely that.
Plus, I'm trying to draft a proposal for a course for Comp Lit in the winter more geared towards my actual area of expertise, 19th century Japan-related texts. I'm thinking I might propose a course based on travel narratives on the far east, a sort of "orientalism" in practice sort of thing. That's still in the works.
Last note: did anyone see this week's So You Think You Can Dance? If you didn't, check this shiz-nit out:
Did you see that jump at 1:17? Did you see that??