#1: So yeah, there was this guy, like, like, like Brad Pitt, and he had hair like her [pointing at me], and he was wearing this really tight pink dress shirt, like a woman's shirt and short short, like woman's shorts.
#2: Brad Pitt!
#1: Fucking faggot.
#2: Yeah, yeah. What did you do?
#1: It was ugly, man, fucking faggot!
Gender-normative privilege means never having to be viscerally relieved you look like you conform at a given moment.
Why?
I don't recall reading a movie review in which a male director's credentials are questioned in this manner. No one would expect a male director of a biopic to be a pilot or a fighter or a sea captain or whatever the subject of the film was about. Nair, whose films tend to be interesting failures, has taken on a pretty broad array of subjects in her films, and there's always this undertone in reviews of her work that's "why is the Indian woman making movies about things that aren't Indian?" which, you know, also makes me want to punch people in the face. Additionally, even assuming directors are required to stick to subjects of personal relevance to them (something that only seems to be asked of PoC and female directors), anyone who doesn't get why an Indian woman has a great deal to say about the lot of a woman in the Regency-era (Nair directed Vanity Fair a couple of years back), doesn't know the period. Or India.
Also, "she keeps a tidy screen"? Really? Nice to know Nair can handle cinematic housework. Or something. When we review men, this comment is usually "the film is workman-like" and that would have been an appropriate way to level the criticism that seems to be being made. Alas, no. Girls are tidy!
Additionally, a fascination with a sanitized and gleaming past should hardly be laid at Nair's doorstep in general or because she's a woman. It's a film-affliction in general, and one that I might argue is a valid creative choice in a film presumably meant to feel like it's about the future even as it's about the past.
The whole review is riddled with sexism both about Nair and Earhart (who is, historically, actually considered to be a mediocre pilot, although I don't know enough about the reality of planes of that period or flying them to say whether this assessment is fair -- luck was such a large part of the game back then), including the Times's assertion that the letter Earhart wrote to her husband before their wedding was remarkable. It read: "I shall not hold you to any medieval code of faithfulness to me nor shall I consider myself bound to you similarly. Please let us not interfere with the other’s work or play." OMG! A woman wanting something other than "traditional" fidelity! How can it be?!
The whole review is appalling.
(It is worth noting that her mother gave me pajamas for Christmas last year that three different people have remarked, apropos of thing, "OMG, did Jack steal those from the Doctor or what?")
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →
October 23 2009, 15:46:46 UTC 2 years ago
The report smacked so much of "it's a shame because she was beautiful and thus had potential (we really wouldn't have cared if she was fat and/or ugly)" to me.
October 23 2009, 15:53:48 UTC 2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
October 23 2009, 15:58:29 UTC 2 years ago
just wondering
The "ch" in your name, is it hard like "church" or soft like "champagne"?October 23 2009, 15:59:16 UTC 2 years ago
Re: just wondering
Like champagne.October 23 2009, 15:59:25 UTC 2 years ago
I am older than you, and I doubted that anyone younger than me would remember.
October 23 2009, 16:45:15 UTC 2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
October 23 2009, 16:12:12 UTC 2 years ago
Sexist, racist, Western/American-centric and other stuff that get shat onto people who aren't "the default". Gross!
The script may have looked odd because dream state (in almost all people) happens in portions of the brain in which reading comprehension doesn't exist.
October 23 2009, 16:13:13 UTC 2 years ago
2 years ago
October 23 2009, 16:21:28 UTC 2 years ago
Quite a movie review... complaining about Hilary Swank having great teeth?
Soupy Sales! I don't remember him very much - my dad was a fan - but his sons were all over rock in the 80s.
October 23 2009, 17:12:10 UTC 2 years ago
Me, too. And now I'm a little squicked because the sad fact of it is that I was lulled into that expectation because I'm heteronormative and white and middle class and INVISIBLE.
October 23 2009, 16:40:06 UTC 2 years ago
October 23 2009, 17:36:32 UTC 2 years ago
She also has some, shall we say, interesting issues with other women.
2 years ago
October 23 2009, 16:44:16 UTC 2 years ago
(I'm still amazed every time I'm allowed to read afterelton, or afterellen, or pinknews, etc., shhh...)
October 23 2009, 17:04:38 UTC 2 years ago
October 23 2009, 16:46:31 UTC 2 years ago
Sounds like a sort of intersection between Shakespeare and Samuel Beckett's Play. Weird, as you say.
October 23 2009, 16:51:13 UTC 2 years ago
October 23 2009, 16:53:54 UTC 2 years ago
As for .gay, I'm against on the basis that I can just see the expectation being that anything queer should be hemmed in to the .gay ghetto, leaving the rest of the Internet nice and tidy and safe for Regular Upstanding Citizens. Yeah, no thanks.
I was unaware of that Earhart letter. Scandalized newspapers aside, I dig the sentiment, and like that she's someone else one can point to when it comes to a history of people in differently negotiated relationships.
October 23 2009, 16:54:46 UTC 2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
October 23 2009, 17:21:30 UTC 2 years ago
And that I love Mira Nair and don't think all of her films are 'interesting failures'. If you mean in the US box offices-- then yes, technically they are...but as films I find them to be very risky and enlightening.
October 23 2009, 17:28:33 UTC 2 years ago Edited: October 23 2009, 18:02:03 UTC
As much as Vanity Fair drags in the middle and there was a lot of noise about the way she changed the book, I thought it was quite compelling for its ideas if nothing else.
So the random dismissal of Amelia, which I'm sure is probably interesting on some level, because Nair isn't a white guy directing it just leaves me shaking with rage.
(and thank you! I always feel like the mishmash is too random, but it keeps me from posting 100 times a day, and hey, something for everyone!)
2 years ago
October 23 2009, 18:10:28 UTC 2 years ago
I wish the critical establishment would get over their obnoxious no-girls-allowed crap, which was old when Molly Haskel excoriated it in 1974. I think a lot of cinema critical studies is still too indebted to the Cahiers du cinema crowd and their studied contempt for women and "women's pictures" (which, one must note, was Hollywood's bread and butter in the days before Jaws and Star Wars).
October 23 2009, 18:13:37 UTC 2 years ago
It may soothe you to know that I knew who Soupy was before I read this post. And I'm 22.
Also: polyamourous celebrities make me very giddy, and I didn't know about either of those! Thank you.
October 23 2009, 18:15:42 UTC 2 years ago
If anything, I suspect the kink may become more common, but what a great question. I hope someone somewhere decides to study _that_.
2 years ago
2 years ago
October 23 2009, 18:25:05 UTC 2 years ago
My coworker is pregnant with her second child. The only way in which she could possibly "flaunt" this is the fact that she's due in about 7 weeks, so is All Belly right now.
October 23 2009, 18:40:49 UTC 2 years ago
The rest of their criticism might or might not be accurate, I haven't seen the film, but if you open your review by saying you don't think a biopic should focus on the person's actual life...
October 23 2009, 18:43:54 UTC 2 years ago
My dog is TOTALLY appropriate!
Calvin dressed as a pimp
October 23 2009, 19:00:56 UTC 2 years ago
W.T.F.
October 23 2009, 19:51:54 UTC 2 years ago
Even from my perch here as a very happy parent I can see how the term "breeders" can seem attractive.
*assumption
2 years ago
October 23 2009, 19:03:35 UTC 2 years ago
Nobody said anything like that when Attenborough made Cry Freedom, or Zwick made Glory...
October 23 2009, 19:56:54 UTC 2 years ago
October 23 2009, 20:19:46 UTC 2 years ago
"And Elaine would not gloat and triumph over her again. [...] It is always so with women... those women who have sons think every they are the betters of any women who is barren. The wife of the swineherd, in her childbed, no doubt thinks with scorn and pity of the Queen who cannot give her lord so much as a single son."
And so on, and so. Clearly NY times = spoiled teenage Queen!
October 23 2009, 20:21:04 UTC 2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
2 years ago
October 23 2009, 20:34:21 UTC 2 years ago
Or is it OK if the director is Indian raised in the UK because, < sarcasm >you know, that's where they all go anyway. < /sarcasm >
The only way in which Dargis serves as any sort of accurate metric as to whether or not I will like a film is that if she hates it, I will love it. Make of that what you will.
October 23 2009, 21:09:40 UTC 2 years ago
October 23 2009, 22:03:01 UTC 2 years ago
Also, "she keeps a tidy screen" - that sounds like a line I would have expected from a male reviewer about a female director 25 years ago.
October 24 2009, 01:40:00 UTC 2 years ago Edited: October 24 2009, 01:40:42 UTC
One day, Dad's hanging out over J's when her phone rings. J picks up. Without even saying hello or identifying himself, Soupy Sales asks her, "What do Cher and Seattle Washington have in common?"
J replies, "Uh, I don't know?"
"Neither one of 'em fuckin' sunny." And he hung up on her.
October 24 2009, 08:38:43 UTC 2 years ago
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →