Recently in Movies Category

I know that there have been posts before about The Proposal, but I really just feel like I need to rant.

So, I finally went to see The Proposal with a couple of friends of mine. I really liked it, it was cute and funny and had a love story and happily ever after, etc. etc. I think romantic comedies are adorable, but it's also difficult to watch them because as a feminist, you inevitably find things you don't quite appreciate.

When the movie opened, for the first few scenes, I thought Sandra Bullock's character, Margaret, was awesome. I respected her for being strong and not taking crap from anyone. I especially respected her for continuing to do what she wanted despite the fact that everyone called her "it" or a "witch".

But the movie paints her out to be a complete bitch. Why does every strong woman have to be portrayed as a bitch? And why are strong men portrayed positively? I just didn't like that just because she did not take crap from people, all of a sudden it makes her a horrible, horrible person.

Also, the movie makes it seem like she was basically cured by love. Here's a strong woman who falls in love and then proceeds to let out every vulnerability she's ever had. Like the time she cried in the bathroom when someone called her a bitch. Really?? So, the people who made the movie wanted to portray her as either a bitch or not a strong woman at all.

And the entire time, Ryan Reynolds' character Andrew is trying to rise above her. Because heaven forbid a woman ever be more powerful than a man.

And finally, when he is trying to convince her that they love each other, blah blah blah, and she tries to protest, he yells for her to shut up. And then, when he's kissing her, someone in the background says, "Yeah, show her who's boss, Andrew."

Margaret is also painted as an incredibly lonely woman. Why in the world does her life suck so much when she's a strong woman who doesn't take crap from anyone and all of a sudden brightens up when she unravels all of her vulnerabilities, etc.? I'm not saying that if you are vulnerable or cry that you are not strong. No, not at all. But apparently, that's what the creators of the movie think because at the end, she doesn't even have power over her employees anymore. No one is scared of her now.

And what's also frustrating is that when I left the movie, I mentioned to my friend Joanna that I liked it, but from a feminist viewpoint, I was iffy about it. She then proceeded to tell me to "shut up" and that "it was just a movie".

Yes, I know it was just a movie, and that romantic comedies don't really have the responsibility to be all socially aware, but I don't think I was wrong in being frustrated.

What do you guys think? Should I just leave it at that, that it is just a movie, or am I justified in being frustrated about all of this?

Reading through this article , I noticed that they make the same mistake as pretty much everyone else when talking about movies and entertainment- assuming women only like dramas, or romantic movies, or lighthearted fun. I'm not going to see Amelia. Why? Because it looks BORING. Amelia was an amazing person, one who I respect and admire. But if I'm going to spend money on a movie, I want something with action, comedy, maybe someone in a cape. I'm not into dramas.

The main offending comment was "Girls don't grow up reading comic books or playing video games, or with Transformer or G.I. Joe toys." What? I grew up on all of that. Well not G.I. Joe (an ex-marine father who became disillusioned with the military wouldn't have taken very kindly to those toys, not that I was ever really interested in them), but the rest I all love! Why won't anyone pay attention to the fact that some girls and women DO love video games, that we DO read comics and like robots?

But no, apparently since I have a vagina, I must want to go to a drama, and take in something deep. I must want pop stars and princesses and movies about falling for a dominating man. Which, in itself is problematic- there's no movies about heterosexual couples with the female as the dominant or strong-willed partner, and if there is it's only for comedic effect. But that's another article.

Point being, if I'm going to a movie, I want to laugh, and I want to see some car chases or fights. Hell, if it hadn't been for the really unnecessary rape scene, I would've been first in line for Observe and Report (but, you know ... there was a rape scene. So I passed).

In short, I ask that people stop pretending that women only like dramas and romance. Even feminists do this, which constantly boggles the mind. Spider-Man can't be a movie for women? Mama Mia can't be a movie for men? I think the solution here is to stop making movies "for men" or "for women" and just work on universal appeal, or at the very least drop these dumb assumptions about what males and females enjoy.

Awhile back Jessica wrote about the movie Deadgirl. Her response to it was horrified despite the fact she hadn't seen it. Then davenj, who had seen the movie, gave her opinion.

When I first read about it, I was pretty horrified but at the same time fascinated. I kept reading as much as I could about it. I wasn't sure whose side to take here. I saved the DVD on Netflix but I was torn if I was actually going to watch it. Well, I received it today and finally did see it.

After watching the trailer for "The Invention of Lying" I came to a very scary conclusion: what is essentially rape was shown over and over again to promote this movie. Y

es, I realize that the movie is a comedy and I should stop being such a femi-nazi and everyone should just laugh away, but I can't help but characterize the scene in which Gervais' character tells a woman to have sex with him or else the world will end as rape. He does not allow her to consent by giving her a false impression that she has sleep with him to save the world. Under these terms the woman thought the lives of everyone she knew were in danger, not to mention her own life was also threatened.

The fact that no one had a problem with this makes me think that most people would not consider this rape, and indeed that this was just "the art of seduction." The idea that most people would never consider something like this rape is shocking to me. I know life is not a morality contest but making someone believe their life is in danger to sleep with them is rape (to me). Now let me say that I have not seen the movie, but this scene is in the trailer (this post is late, the movie is pretty much done having any buzz) and you can infer what will happen pretty easliy. I think it is rape, but I am intersted to know what other people think about this scene.

Thoughts? Criticisms? Sorry this post isn't more topical I just made this account today. Also apologies if someone already posted on this topic! Again, first day...

I’ve been meaning to write about the new film out by writer/director Lynn Shelton ever since I saw it a few weeks ago. Humpday premiered at Sundance where it received rave reviews. I skipped it while I was at the festival because I was put off by the “bromance” descriptor attached to the film. Humpday is a lot of things but it is not your typical dick and fart joke comedy for dudes, by dudes. It’s a smart and honest film that addresses how men and women are affected by sexual and marital expectations. There are plenty of lines to make you laugh until you cry but make no mistake: Humpday is a film with a dense message… several dense messages actually.
The synopsis provided by the filmmaker is this:

I finally got around to seeing Jennifer’s Body this evening—even after all the negative hype, I was a little excited to see a film that featured the lines, “You’re killing people!”/ “No, I’m killing boys.”  Wow! I thought.  Now that’s different…

Of course, this conversation wasn’t actually in the movie.  Maybe they cut it to make room for the unscripted make-out scene between Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried, which was clearly necessary to advance the “plot”. 

Writer Diablo Cody was going for some sort of feminist homage to the mean-girl teen movie plus the horror flicks she loves, and in my opinion failed miserably.  The relationship between Jennifer and Needy is not completely unbelievable, but is totally underdeveloped. Over at Jezebel, Dodai writes, “What if your best friend — who already thinks she can get any guy she wants — became an actual man-eater? While Jennifer was slightly under-developed as a character, it seemed like that was the point: She was a vain, slightly mean airhead before she turned into an evil creature, and, thanks to her indestructibility, became even more vain, cruel and drunk with power afterward.” 

My husband works as an aircraft mechanic in the military and some days they are incredibly busy and other days they have nothing to do. Today was one of the days where there was no work to be done so everyone sat around in the break room and watched a movie.

My husband texted me and said he walked out of the break room because they were watching Last House on the Left which I personally found to be a disgusting movie. It was a typical horror movie- tons of violence, beat the young women, molest them, rape them, see some nudity...

My husband said he sat through the violence and nudity (a topless woman) and when they held a girl down and molested her he started to get disgusted and packed up his things. Then when it got to the actual rape scene they showed the girl being held down and her clothing was ripped off then they fast forwarded through the rest of that scene. My husband said he was really upset and felt like throwing up so he walked away.

I felt really sad that my husband did not make a scene and demand that they turn the movie off and when I asked him about it he said there were two women in the room as well and they didn't seem bothered by it so he didn't want to cause a scene.

I'm not sure of what my point is in posting this, I guess I'm just really disgusted that someone would think this was a good choice for a movie to bring into work and play in the break room. I have thought about contacting people at the base he works at, but I do not want to step in on an issue that upset my husband that I wasn't there for. I am just shocked and disgusted that a movie like this would be acceptable at work. Are there laws against this kind of thing? I also feel frustrated that my husband would take the easy way out and just walk away instead of standing up for something he found upsetting.

Any thoughts for me? I feel sick to my stomach and wanted to vent.

I finally saw the movie "Julie & Julia" and something amazing happened: the audience broke out in applause at the end. I've only witnessed this twice before: after Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11" and George Clooney's "Good Night and Good Luck." The twenty or so of us in the theatre stayed in our seats through all the credits until the lights came on. As I sat in the dark, I couldn't help but wonder what had captured the audience's heart. Was it Meryl Streep's amazing performance, the charming Parisian setting, the refreshing portrayal of a happily married couple? Or is the movie's success thanks to its celebration of cooking and enjoyment of food?

We live in a society where food is often considered a negative word. Food is the nemesis behind rising obesity rates and is blamed for a host of medical issues. Eating is intertwined with Weight Watcher points, fat grams, and carbohydrates. Diet class mantras such as, "Eat to live, don't live to eat" and "A moment on the lips, forever on the hips" are familiar to most. Yet in "Julie & Julia" we are shown real life characters who love to eat.

Julia Child's delight while in restaurants is striking. Here is a woman who truly enjoys food. When her husband asks what she is good at, she replies that she loves to eat. Although she laughs while answering, she isn't laughing in shame or embarrassment, but rather joy. We don't see Julia counting calories, hiding her food, or denying herself a second bite. Instead, we witness eating and pleasure. Images like this are rare.

We know all the horrible statistics about eating disorders and the number of young girls who are on diets in elementary school. According to the Centers for Disease Control and National Association of Eating Disorders (NEDA), 42 percent of first-third grade girls want to be thinner and more than 50% of teenage girls are on diets. There is emotion tied in with eating. Denying those emotions is what leads to sneaking food and lying about food intake. Consciously or not, many believe enjoying food is wrong, making them bad. In "How to Get Your Kid to Eat," dietician Ellyn Satter writes, "Normal eating is being able to use some moderate constraint in your food selection to get the right food, but not being so restrictive that you miss out on pleasurable foods."

In 2005 TV's "Sesame Street" changed Cookie Monster's focus so that he wouldn't be so enamored with cookies and would eagerly devour fruits and vegetables too. Fortunately, Cookie Monster still eats cookies, which he absolutely adores, and appears content with his decision. We don't see him telling his friends, "I can't believe I just ate that." He doesn't finish his cookies with his head down in shame or tell himself that he needs to run an extra mile on the treadmill.

Certainly I'm not advising people abandon healthy eating, but it is noteworthy that Julia Child's "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" reached the number 1 spot on the "New York Times" Bestseller list on Aug. 30, almost 50 years after it was first published. Here is a cookbook void of low fat recipes where butter is used in abundance. Julie Powell, the woman who takes on the challenge of making all 524 recipes in Child's book, writes "I was drowning and she [Child] pulled me out of the ocean. Both of us were saved by food."

Saved by food. What a notion. Many people think of food as evil, tempting. Think of how many times we say we're "battling" our weight or how many articles discuss winning the "war" against food. Yet this movie presents another idea: food as nourishment to our bodies and our souls.

A few years ago, my ninety-something great aunt ordered dessert at a restaurant. When the creation arrived, it was huge. Aunt Jane didn't apologize for her selection, proclaim she couldn't eat it all, or gasp at its size. She simply took a bite and enjoyed her dessert. In celebration of her, Julia Child, and all those cooking from Child's cookbook again, Bon Appetit!

Tyler Perry has racked up a lot of anti-woman points in his portrayals of Black women. From movies that condone violence against Black women (A Family that Preys and Daddy’s Little Girls), to portrayals of Black professional women as emasculating and unable to balance career with family (Why Did I get Married? and A Family that Preys), to say that his portrayals of women have been unkind is an understatement. While his recent portrayals of women in I Can Do Bad All By Myself , mark progress, it seems that Black women’s portrayals are at the expense of Black men’s.

A few things to note about I Can Do Bad All by Myself: It exposes the role of sexual violence in the lives of Black women. It affirms the need to believe survivors of sexual violence. It resolves that the cycle of not believing survivors can be broken. These are important steps for the man that currently has a monopoly on Black filmmaking to take.
For what it’s worth, it’s also important to note that Black women of all sizes, ages and complexions have had prominent roles in his films and particularly age and complexion diversity is a feature of I Can Do Bad All By Myself. It is my hope that a leading lady with locs or natural hair is in the works.

On the other hand, in the words of Mary J., an actress and soloist in the movie, I Can Do Bad… “ain’t all roses.”  The movie plays to the fears of some Black men that for every step forward Black women take, Black men must take two steps back. The movie portrays the lead character of “April” played by Taraji Henderson as complex, making sense of a traumatic past. Her partner “Randy,” played by Brian White, is the villainous, brutal buck, Black male who cheats on his wife (with April) and preys on younger women. There is no context provided for his behavior or his actions other than he is just another ain’t shit Black man. The depiction of Randy is worsened because he is juxtaposed with the light-skinned, Latino, “Sandino,” played by Adam Rodriguez who assumes the role of father and husband that the seen, and unseen, Black men in the film do not.

I truly believe that making a movie that exposes the realities of sexual violence against Black women doesn’t have to accompany towering negative portrayals of Black men. Positive Black male partners could have shown up opposite Gladys Knight or Mary J. Blige. Black directors who want to offer complex portrayals of Black masculinity must develop the practice of giving visibility to perpetrators of sexual violence in our midst and seizing opportunities to include Black men that model feminist behavior. I am genuinely glad that a man of color exhibited this behavior. I am also glad that I Can Do Bad… featured an intra-minority romantic partnership against the backdrop of America’s sometimes-sordid state of Black and Brown relations. But it means something that despite all the footage under his belt, Tyler Perry has yet to produce a film with a Black feminist couple, that features how they succeed in their careers while making equal contributions to their households as parents and partners. Tyler Perry must aspire to make that movie.

After much anticipation, I finally got to see the movie 'Taking Woodstock' last weekend. I was very excited about the film (Demetri Martin and Emile Hirsch and Woodstock?! Swoon!) but if we're honest, I expected a lot of cheesiness and overuse of the word "groovy." I expected to enjoy it a lot, but I didn't expect it to be what one would call a well-made film.

I could go on and on about the quality of the production (better than expected!) but here I want to say that I was very pleasantly surprised at how LGBT-friendly it was.

-WARNING: SPOILERS-

For those of you who aren't familiar with the (based-on-a-true) story, it follows Elliot (Demetri Martin), a young man who's reluctantly agreed to stay in White Lake, NY for the summer or 1969 to help out his parents at their dumpy motel. Gradually, his plans for his annual summer music festival (which usually consists of a band of 15-year-olds playing terrible covers) develop into the beginnings of Woodstock. The movie follows him and his parents, mainly, as well as the people involved in planning the festival.

I recently saw the new Charlyne Yi movie because I am always up for a good love story and the added bonus of supporting a woman of color’s screenwriting debut. But the hybrid-documentary, “Paper Heart,” was totally disappointing. The sometimes subversive nature of the film’s portrayal of a dynamic woman not looking for love was overshadowed by her inability to be more inclusive when exploring perspectives on love from couples and singles in the US.

Considering that our culture is full of films about romance where women are preoccupied with being loved by men who are off tending to their expanding careers, the film starts with great potential. It’s Charlyne’s career we see expand. She is the comedian/musician making a film that documents her entrance into film making as much as it explores her existentialist questions about love.

Our journey with her takes us to Tennessee, Georgia, Oklahoma and Arkansas — to name a few. From scientists to divorce judges, biker clubs and a kitschy Elvis impersonator/wedding officiator, interviews on love from white folks are copious. While her interracial romance with Michael Cera is a central subject of the film — it's anyone's guess whether they are acting or not — people of color and their love experiences are dramatically underrepresented.

I am decidedly non-plussed at the trailer for the film adaptation of one of my favorite books, The Blind Side.

The book is an analysis of the evolution of the left tackle position, using as illustration the story of why seemingly every rich white person in West Memphis was willing to bend over backwards for a young, disadvantaged man who perfectly fit the physical specs of an LT. It tells the story of Michael Oher, a black teen who out of sheer luck ends up at a nearly all-white prep school. His coaches and other school parents see his potential as a pro athlete and take him under their wing.

I loved Michael Lewis' book for a couple of reasons. First of all, I love football, and offensive linemen are my favorite unsung heroes of the game, so the fact that Lewis focused on their work was fascinating for me. But the book also brings up some pretty heavy issues for discussion (though certainly not as in-depth as I would've liked), namely: if Michael Oher weighed 90 pounds soaking wet and showed zero athletic ability, would the well-off families who helped him still have put so much effort into his rescue? Would his adoptive parents and school officials have worked so hard to get him into college? Had the family who wanted to pull him out of his horrific upbringing NOT been wealthy, influential and white, would they have been able to quasi-adopt him?

There are several places in the book where Michael is torn between returning home to his estranged mother and staying with his adoptive family. He also wants to play basketball, but his benefactors push him into football because he's such a perfectly prototypical left tackle. (Football FYI: after quarterbacks, left tackles are, on average, the highest-paid offensive players in the NFL.)

After reading the recent blogs on Deadgirl, I was thinking about my favorite horror films and trying to see if there was any feminism in the stories. I'm partial to Asian horror films and one of my favorites is The Eye 2 from Hong Kong. This isn't exactly a sequel though. The Eye* is about a blind woman receiving a cornea transplant and is seeing ghosts. The Eye 2 does not follow the same characters as the original, rather it also deals with seeing ghosts and is also written by the Pang brothers.

[Warning: May Contain Spoilers after the jump.]

***Humongous, Ginormous Trigger Warning***

Recently there has been a Feministing thread, started by Jessica, about the new movie "Deadgirl", a horror film making its way through the festival circuit currently and possibly slated for some sort of theatrical release in the future. As is the case in many of these instances the original poster was working off of secondhand knowledge (plot synopses, reviews, marketing campaigns, etc.) in order to try to understand the film, and came to a rather negative conclusion about the film. A lot of people don't have the time, volition, or ability to watch a film like "Deadgirl" because it's only on the festival circuit and because even if one got a copy it's a really tough movie to sit through.

I did watch "Deadgirl", though, and this is the most feminist movie I've seen this year. That's no small statement, either. I review movies for my college paper, and on average see at least one new movie a week, but usually two or three. I sit through everything. It's part of the perils of being an entertainment writer, albeit a volunteer one, and occasionally you get a big surprise when a movie you expect to be one thing turns out to be something else entirely. I expected "Deadgirl" to be like other schlock horror I sit through all the time. Not so. The film is the most nuanced, and most horrifying, look at manhood in a misogynistic culture I've ever seen. It's scary precisely because it pulls no punches.

Why is this?

***Spoilers Below***

Has anyone seen this movie? I hope no one posted about this movie already!

My partner and I rented Nothing But the Truth last night. I was expecting little more than the average CIA related drama, but it was actually surprisingly good, in my opinion.

The story is that Rachel Armstrong (played by the wonderful Kate Beckinsale) is a journalist for the Sun Times. She writes a story outing a CIA operative, Erica Van Dorn (Vera Farmiga). Since outing a CIA operative is illegal, the federal government needs to know who Armstrong's source was...but Armstrong refuses to give it up. Throughout the movie, Armstrong is pressured greatly to give up her source, but refuses; instead she chooses to protect both her source and her integrity as a journalist.

Just thought I'd let ya'll see the evidence. Cuz I doubt we'll ever see them admit to it again soon.

Here’s the thing about being a feminist: sometimes, it really kills your buzz.

Now, I have a confession: I love (and I mean LOVE) romantic comedies. As someone who has spent time studying film and defending it as an art form, there’s certainly a good deal of shame in my admitting this.  But no matter how much I love Kubrick and Renoir, there’s nothing that comforts me like watching two people make up, make out, and live happily ever after.  

I’m not even talking about the great screwball comedies of the studio era, where ladies like Claudette Colbert, Rosalind Russell, and Katherine Hepburn showed up with moxie and smarts and wound up in the arms of Cary Grant or Jimmy Stewart.  No, I’m talking about the trite, glossy, dime-a-dozen movies that perhaps were at their best in the late eighties and early nineties, and pander to the chickiest of chicks. I am a sucker for Julia Roberts and Meg Ryan, Hugh Grant and Colin Firth.

These movies are an excuse to go out at 10 PM with my sisters and my mom, eat a nauseating amount of Junior Mints and popcorn, and float away into another, prettier universe for an hour and a half.  But lately, something keeps dragging me back to the reality of the dingy movie theater even while I try to live vicariously through the glowing people on the screen.

I’ve seen a lot of movies this summer: (500) Days of Summer and Away We Go, two sweet and vaguely funky indie love stories, almost satisfied by need for romance. Both told modern stories about couples that I actually felt like I knew, and while gender roles weren’t necessarily turned on their heads, they weren’t set in stone either.

But these movies didn’t boast the superficial glow of The Proposal and The Ugly Truth, so of course I had to go see those too.  I can always watch Sandra Bullock, and Ryan Reynolds isn’t hard to look at either, so the former seemed like an easy choice. Parts of the movie were kind of funny, and it was nothing if not cute (the key word when it comes to rom-coms, of course), but instead of leaving the theater feeling chipper, I was just frustrated.

[Removed at request of author]

See full article at On The Issues.

(cross-posted at The Feminist Texican)

Basically every feminist website is avoiding this one like the plague, but I actually went and saw The Ugly Truth opening night.  With my parents.  Don’t ask.

The movie poster pretty much sums it up for you:

Abby (Heigl) is a producer at a floundering television network.  Like all smart, beautiful career women, she’s also an overbearing cat lady with zero romantic prowess who hasn’t gotten laid in a year.  Her assistant is even more pitiful, living vicariously through Abby’s occasional interrogations dates since she has no chance of ever finding a man of her own.  As for Abby, her dream man is smart, handsome, well off, loves wine, and likes dogs, but prefers cats (she’s a cat lady, remember?).

At work, Abby’s production team puts on smart stuff that gets no ratings, so her boss ends up hiring Mike (Butler) to give “ugly truth” romantic advice on air in a last ditch effort to drive up the ratings.

I've spent quite a few days now, since seeing the newest Harry Potter movie, in a bit of a snit over Emma Watson and her portrayal of Hermione.

Its not that Watson isn't a talented actress, she is; nor is she unappealing in any way. Actually, Watson is perfectly qualified to act the part of Hermione and perfectly lovely as well which, in a way, was my issue. Watson is undeniably pretty, beautiful even, and for awhile now I've been mad that the hair-and-makeup crew, the producers of the movie, even Watson herself did nothing at all to hide that fact. Nothing at all in spite that fact that Hermione is supposed to be the smart one of the trio, the talented and ambitious one... not the pretty one.

Then I read this :

A number of reviewers have been particularly put off by the lovely and lithe Emma Watson, who plays brainiac Hermione, complaining that her good looks make it impossible to accept her character's nerdy persona. It's as though we live in a society where women aren't supposed to be sexy and sharply intelligent at the same time--oh wait, we do live in that society. [...] But both the folks crying foul and salivating over Hermione's good looks ought to go back to the source material and feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

JK Rowling may not be perfect in terms of writing gender roles, but she does a great job illustrating how Hermione's intellectual assertiveness blinds the men around her to her growing attractiveness. In the fourth book, when Hermione dresses up in a gown, the boys who are her best friends literally don't recognize her because they've de-sexualized her. That's why Hermione's blossoming, and the other characters' eventual acceptance of her as both brilliant and womanly, has made her into a patron saint for girl geeks around the world who want to be proud of who they are without being pigeonholed as asexual.

I've been making Hermione something she was never intended to be; the heroine of my awkward and unattractive (at least in my own mind) adolescent self - someone not pretty, like me, who still had friends and had value as a person, who even found love all while not being a knockout.

In all honesty its been a long while since I've read the books so I can't say, with any accuracy, what Rowling may have intended or not intended for us to think about Hermione's looks. What I can do, however, is ask myself: why does it matter so much? Why am I so attached to my image of Hermione as a perpetually average looking, bushy-haired teenage girl?

Rowling broke major ground in terms of preteen and teenage girl's self esteem - giving them a role-model who can be both intelligent and visually appealing. My problem with the movies exists because that specific insecurity didn't apply to me;  as a small girl who preferred books to people quite naturally for a long time it never occurred to me that hiding my intelligence was a tactic that could make me more appealing to the peers that I found myself isolated from.

Today I watched a trailer for Tucker Max's movie "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell." Instead of just focusing on the content, I want to tie the film to the larger topic of (Un)feminist guilty pleasures*. First, I'll describe how while I mostly like feminist-friendly media now, my guilty pleasures tend to be things from my youth, and then I'll go into how this trailer complicated that dichotomy. 

I tend to be fairly critical of the media I consume today, and if something strikes me as misogynistic, racist, homophobic, etc, it usually makes my skin crawl. However, it hasn't always been this way. As an illustration, I'll share a recent example. A few days ago I walked into the living room, and asked my roommate what he was watching. He responded by saying "Enchanted. I think you'd really like it." This prediction was 100% understandable, given the fact that I have a Twilight poster in my room and several disney princess movie soundtracks on my iPod. (I know Twilight isn't that old...but I did read the first book ~2 years ago, and I'm only 21...so it seems like a long time ago :P). However, while I still enjoy those movies/books from my past, it's not that I actually appreciate or like their themes, but rather that my nostalgia usually wins over my feminism. With "Enchanted", there was no nostalgia, only nausea. 

Now, about Tucker Max. Although he might seem pretty far removed from Disney princesses, he too was someone I liked when I was younger: I started reading his website when I was 15. For those of you not familiar with his work, he wrote online stories and later books about his various drunken adventures, usually involving lots of sexism, fatphobia, ableism, etc. I loved them. There were numerous occasions where strangers would look at me funny after I burst out laughing while reading his stories in public. So, I did just about the same thing as my roommate: when I found out Max was making a movie based on one of his stories, I thought, "A Tucker Max movie. I think I'll really like it." 

Not so much. The first scene in the trailer depicts Tucker Max trying to pick up a girl by joking about how a fat girl across the room needs to die, since "Everyone knows fat girls aren't real people." It was difficult to watch. It was a weird moment where I felt a familiar comfort in his brand of humor, however I could still discern how horrible it was. I think I felt both reactions at the same time because although the trailer content was strikingly similar to that of his stories, the switch from writing to film made it seem new enough that my vision wasn't clouded by memories. 

"I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell" comes out in September, and I'm excited to read more articles/posts about the movie as the date draws nearer. I'm also interested to see if any other feminists have read (maybe even enjoyed) his work. 

*Thanks to Miriam to introducing me to this term. 

Oh dear gods where to even begin with this movie. Oh, and spoilers below.

First of all, if you were annoyed by the tropes in the first movie, don't even bother trying to see this one, they've multiplied in numbers and intensity at least 5 fold.

For instance, one of the things I liked about the first one is that at least the lead female character you know DID SOMETHING. She drove a huge truck backward and was AWESOME. In this one? Same lead female does NOTHING. You know except scream a bit here and there and get rescued and such. Bleh.

In the same vein, the running while holding hands trope of action movies was alive and well. This has become a huge irritant for me. Have you ever tried to run while holding someone's hand? Your arms can't help you out anymore and you go along really slow and really awkward. Yet they insist on doing this in these movies and in this one it was all over the place. WHY?! JUST RUN DAMN IT!

I never really thought of these robots as having a sex. I mean, they did, obviously, they all have male voices. But I guess I'll give a point to social conditioning for being successful in my not really thinking about it. But I have now, because there are female robots (for 5 seconds)! They're motorcycles with hot female voices who metallic boobs when they stand up. Yay! I mean motorcycles are cool and all but couldn't we just give some of these same big bulky cars female voices? Do they have to be SO gendered for anyone to consider that?

Also, since when are these robots "Terminators"? Why was there a perfectly human looking Decepticon? WHY?! I mean the "my gf walks into my college dorm right as this chick kissed me!" trope is bad enough but seriously did we just throw everything we know about these bots in the process? Was it worth it Michael Bay? Oh, also, in a very "Species"ish move this bot kills people either with a tail which creeps out all dangerously sexy from under her very short skirt or...with her tongue. Oy.

Another fun observation? The Black character has no lines. If you saw the first one you will remember a Black military dude character. He was somewhat important to that movie and had lines and stuff. Well, he's in this movie too. But his lines basically consist of "uh huh".

And my FAVORITE are these two walking robot black face caricatures! I guess maybe someone decided we needed "diversity" in the movie so we get chick robot motorcycles and these two guys. The faces themselves are ridiculous, they look like minstrel show posters, huge lips and googly eyes and I'm not even joking huge buckteeth one of which is GOLD in the front. And they talk like the most glaring MTV "ghetto Black" stereotype you've ever seen. My mouth hit the floor when I saw these two.

All in all, I can't even say I was entertained by this movie. I was alternately annoyed, astonished and bored. The action sequences were cool and it had it's moments, but these tropes just ruined it.

Hey all, I just thought I'd alert you all to this sweet (and by sweet, I mean cool) documentary about women and leadership called What's Your Point, Honey?  I thought all you awesome Feministing users would appreciate it. Since these are pretty difficult economic times, it's nice to get a little free entertainment/education.

It was so interesting to watch these 7 or so women (plus a group of teens and a group of older women who are interviewed) come at the meaning of the word leadership in her own way. I really envy that they seem to all have these great supportive families that they can talk to about their dreams and goals, since my own parents aren't as progressive or generally as positive as these women's parents. I think talking out your future with your family could be a great resource for tips and encouragement on taking on whatever ambitious projects you're up to. The movie also helped me to better understand why inter-generational feminism is so important.

The kids in the movie were too adorable in this movie. I wondered as they were asking various people whether they would vote for a female president, if the strangers would have given a different answer had the interviewers been male or older.

The movie brings up another good point -- why do men often feel threatened by a sig. other or mother getting involved with feminism, while they feel a daughter getting involved with it is a great thing? They want their daughters to have the best, but for some reason are not able to see their wives or mothers as someone's daughter. Don't they want the best for their wives, mothers, friends, etc. too?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts in the comments!

(Cross posted at WireTap Magazine )

I've always taken an interest in how women, particularly women of color, are represented in toys and media that are targeted towards children: everything from the release of Mattel's Diwali Barbie in 2006 to Dora the Explorer's makeover. So it should come as no surprise that I've been reading about and mulling over Disney's new princess movie, "The Princess and the Frog," which features the company's first black woman as the lead character .

I'm already cringing about the movie, set in 1920s New Orleans, where the better portion of the princess' on-screen time is spent not as a human, but as a frog. The prince is a light-skinned man of color and one wonders why Disney wasn't willing to portray a black man in the role of charismatic and masculine Prince.

Despite Disney's racist representations of people of color throughout the years, it remains troubling to see the impact of these movies on young people , and the company's inability to adequately show racial diversity in their films.

On one hand, there are complaints about the racialized components of the movie : the Princess is finally a black woman, but the backdrop of the film continues to drudge up tired racist stereotypes about the black community, attempting to separate cultural components of African-American history from the violence of slavery and racism.

On the other hand, there are complaints about the fact that Disney continues to build female characters around traditional gender roles and notions of femininity. They may be spunky or brave or portray qualities of heroism, but the lead women are still pretty princesses who are saved by a happy heteronormative ending. This has been an issue raised more recently with the release of Pixar's "Up" where adventure and action can take place for male leads, but not for women. Pixar's first movie to feature a female lead will release in 2011 and guess what the story is built around ? A white princess who gives up her royal title to become an archer. Apparently, the only way to portray young women with agency in movies is to characterize them around that familiar princess theme.

When the two questions floating around children's movies are "When will people of color be adequately represented?" and "When will girls have leads to look up to that aren't princesses?" I have to wonder where and when young girls of color will find justice in media representation. A part of me honestly feels that all women should have an equal opportunity to be pitted into the princess role by Disney. Another part of me thinks that girls of color deserve better than to settle in this way. The rest of me thinks that if we can't find justice in children's films, how can I expect to see justice in the rest of the mainstream media ? So perhaps the question we should continue to ask ourselves, and encourage the media to consider is "How can we appropriately show diversity in children's films so that they are inspiring and humorous and memorable?" Diversity in the media cannot be limited to race or gender - it has to consider both, and more. After all, identity is complex and multifacted - and creating characters that can be relateable and seen as heroic shouldn't depend solely on how they look or where they are from or who they love.

--Nina Jacinto

http://ninajacinto.wordpress.com

Like any good, self-proclaimed geek, I went out to see the new Star Trek movie this past weekend. It was very enjoyable. The writers put in plenty of tributes to the original series ("I'm a doctor, not a physicist!" lol) as well as some witty lines. The special effects were awesome without being overdone, and the storyline was easy to follow even if you were never a Trekkie.

Also, there weren't *that* many plot holes. I always expect a few plot holes here and there in a movie, but get frustrated when there is one every five minutes. That didn't happen here. Good job, J. J. Abrams.

However, there is one subject that I take issue with. And that is the characterization of Uhura. As many may know, Uhura is famous for being a black woman on the original Star Trek, played by Nichelle Nichols, and also for sharing one of the first interracial kisses with Captain Kirk on tv.

*****SPOILER ALERT!!!!!******

After a feminist rant from a friend about the film “He’s Just Not That Into You “, I decided to put myself through the certain torment of watching this film based on a book based on a line from a hit TV show.

Over the last few years this book has been recommended to me and I have heard it’s praises sung by women who are so glad to have been told “how it is.”  This book is held up as some kind of Holy book filled with spiritual mantras to repeat to ones feminine brain when it becomes too laborious to think for ones self (as all Emotional Women have experienced from time to time).

If He’s Not Calling You… He’s Just Not that Into You.

If He’s Not Sleeping With You…He’s Just Not that Into You.

If He Doesn’t Want to Marry You… (everyone now!) He’s Just Not that Into You.

I have several problems with this book and now movie.  To begin with,  my personal opinion is that popular culture self help books are crap (I’m looking at you Dr. Phil ).  They are written by people who are making piles of cash off of your personal suffering and are in no way held accountable for the information they provide.

Second, these types of books are written in broad terms to apply to as many people as possible.  They are like those online quizzes that claim they can tell you deep secrets about yourself based on what colours you choose and in what order you choose them.  The results are so sweeping that everyone can find something in the resulting paragraph that relates to themselves and so they believe that the internet quiz is the only thing that truly knows them, even better than they know themselves.

My main problem with this title rests outside the genre of self-help and falls heavily on the fact that “He’s Just Not That Into You ” relies on one pillar of Capital “T” Truth,  Men are Rational and Women are Emotional.  This brand of essentialism has divided women and men for centuries and in that essentialism Rational Men are superior to the inferior Emotional Women.  The authors of this book claim that they wrote it to help women but it seems their idea of help has more to do with putting down women and their intelligence than talking about communication with potential partners.

I just went to see the movie Monsters vs. Aliens with my brother. I knew nothing about the movie walking in except that it was marketed almost exclusively to the middle-school-aged male demographic. Walking out, I wondered why this movie hasn't been marketed to girls.

The story focuses on Susan, "Ginormica", and her transformation from blindly romantic bride to superhero. When her character is first introduced I grumbled to myself, assuming it would be a movie about a woman who needs saving all of the time. Instead, Susan becomes a powerful woman who doesn't need her ex-fiance, or anyone else, to save her. Like most movies for kids, there was a teamwork aspect to the "rescue" and Susan needed the help from fellow monsters, but they were a team with equal members.

So my real question is, why wasn't this movie marketed to girls? A lot of girls would benefit from, and enjoy, this movie. I know it's the kind of movie I would have liked to watch as a 12-year-old. I enjoyed it today. But in commercials, Susan is barely mentioned. I don't know if I ever even heard her voice. Why can she star in the movie but not the commercials?

She was far more beautiful in person than one can imagine.  Far more delicate, with a presence more regal than most of her film and stage roles. 

She was quiet and alert, seemingly familiar with the world’s duplicities and exaggerations and on guard for their appearance—in others or herself.  One had no trouble seeing her as a movie star, but less trouble understanding her as a wife and mother—roles she embraced as callings and maintained with privacy, dignity and relish.

She was reared to be someone who could take on identities:  that of actor, or Brit, or woman of impeccable manners.  And she grew to be more:  a three- dimensional human being with indisputable ability to love and connect, a woman with more to her life than the celluloid pseudo-living that could have been hers.

For the rest (including video of her with mom Vanessa Redgrave), click here.

Trigger warning

(Crossposted + Full Review at RIOTgamer)

Feminist Critique of The Watchmen

Despite the inclusion of women superheros, including lesbian superheros, The Watchmen somehow managed to exclude any real possibility of anything feministically sound. Near the beginning of the movie, I was at first taken with the two (yes, two) lesbian superheros. Their on-screen kiss was later redeemed for heterosexists, however, when an image was presented of them both murdered, lying next to each other sideways on a bed. Their positioning on the bed and the tears in their clothing implies (intentional or not) that they may have been sexually assaulted. From this view of their corpses, the camera pans up to show "LESBIAN WHORES" scrawled on the wall in blood above the headboard. Their murder is never really addressed other than a later comment from Rorschach's narrative that they were "Killed by their own depraved lifestyle". To me, this would be an interesting area to address. While the film did show the dead bodies of other superheroes after their "fall", I have a hard time understanding how two superhero(in)es could be killed (and possibly raped) by what appear to be ordinary men.

I just got back from seeing The Uninvited. I have no qualms about the film itself but three of the trailers left a bad taste in my mouth. Two of them: Fired Up and I Love You Man have been ranted about earlier by CourageDog. So I will focus on Miss March

Miss March is about a guy who was going to sleep with his girlfriend on prom night but gets knocked out and put into a coma before he gets to. Four years later, he wakes up. By the looks of the trailer it's because his friend hits with a baseball bat. Yeah, way to be a friend. The girlfriend is now a Playboy centerfold, so the guys decide to take a road trip to the Playboy Mansion so he can sleep with her now. But that's not the part of the trailer that really bothered me. At one point they hitch a ride on a rapper's tour bus. The main character is "obligated" to sleep with one of the groupies (he wanted to save himself for his old girlfriend) but while in the backroom the bus stops and the woman flies out the window. Does he do anything about this life-threatening accident? No, he just walks out of the room. Then the two are kicked off a bus and hitch a ride with a "lesbian" couple. I use quotes because their behavior isn't what real lesbians do. The guys are driving their car and they are making out in the backseat.

I posted a comment on the YouTube page for the trailer expressing my disgust at these two parts. I got this as a response:
you realize its a comedy movie and theyre making fun of them. get a sense of humor. lol
this is 2009
Exactly, it's 2009. We should be civilized not to objectify women and laugh when they are in life-threatening accidents. But unfortunately we are not. I'm not going to laugh at entertainment portraying fake lesbians that give real lesbians/bisexuals a bad name.

I just wanted to give a quick shout out to an article written by Lauren A.E. Schuker of the Wall Street Journal entitled "Stripping Your Way to Success".

The article starts off talking about how Marisa Tomei has been nominated for an Acadamy Award for playing a stripper in "The Wrestler", and is doing so joins a long list of recent actresses who've been nominated for playing similar roles. 

"Four years ago, Natalie Portman was nominated for playing a young stripper in Mike Nichols's steamy drama "Closer," and just a year earlier Charlize Theron won an Oscar for her role as a real-life prostitute-turned-serial killer (in "Monster"). In the decade before that, Elisabeth Shue, Mira Sorvino and Julia Roberts all became Oscar nominees (or winners) for playing women who sell their bodies but guard their hearts -- one of Hollywood's longtime fascinations."

The article goes on to point out that:

"The very first actress to win an Oscar from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences played a woman reduced to prostitution. In 1929, the Academy awarded its highest acting accolade to Janet Gaynor for three different roles, including a sympathetic woman imprisoned on a one-time stealing charge while out soliciting in Frank Borzage's 'Street Angel.'"

Hero narratives are an important part of our story telling. A concern of these hero narratives is to establish definitions of masculinity according to cultural ideals, which might change and require a redefinitions of masculinity as well. This piece is an attempt to apply this perspective to two movies of 2008: 'Slumdog Millionaire' [Sd M] and 'Kung Fu Panda' [KFP].

It's important to identify the mythical structure in the plots of both the movies which serves to build the hero narrative. Once the hero and the struggle have been identified, both movies establish the hero as the winner through leaps of logic that are more characteristic of myth than fiction. While this might be apparent in KFP, where the Panda 'figures out' the magical 'Wushi finger' hold to beat the unbeatable Tiger, it might not be so in Sd M. But watching Sd M critically, asking how the protagonist came to have efficient reading skills without tutoring, or how all the questions asked on the game are linked to the most dramatic experiences of the protagonist's life, brings home the mythical structure that serves to complete the hero narrative.

The narratives are also concerned with the hero's masculinity. The happy endings themselves establish a definition of the masculine as the winner who 'takes it all'. This is why in Sd M, it is not enough that the protagonist just resolves the central conflict of the plot, that is, his separation from his beloved. In the end, through strokes of luck that sacrifice the story's plausibility, he not only has love but also wins fame and money.

The hero's masculinity is established in other ways as well. In KFP, the protagonist represents the 'cool guy' archetype. Contrasted with Tigress, Panda is carefree, jokes around, and gets a lot of laughs from those around. Here, you also see how Tigress serves to represent femininity in opposition to which Panda’s masculinity is constructed against. Certainly not good with jokes, Tigress is a ‘good girl’, a diligent student devoted to earning Master Shi Fu’s approval. She is the opposite of ‘cool guy’, who wins without any diligent devotion. A different but more traditional approach to this same end is seen in Sl M, in which the hero of the narrative saves the archetypal ‘damsel in distress’. The hero here represents more the anguished warrior who, as he comes of age, gets to reclaim his manhood by getting back his childhood sweetheart and becoming the winner.

But both the movies are also concerned with constructing a newer, ‘softer’ form of masculinity. The hero of Sl D is a low-income ‘chai wala’, who does not mind being laughed at for his occupation, and is only playing the game so that his beloved can see him, and not interested in winning. He also avoids a direct confrontation with the captor of his beloved. Similarly in KFP, the hero does not mind showing and talking about his feelings, and struggles with self-esteem issues. This makes sense because of the changing cultural paradigms that are redefining masculinities. Is that because of feminism or the ‘emasculation of the collective’ in late capitalism? Whatever the reason though, feminism has still a long way to go because we are still obsessed with the archetype of the masculine hero.

Movies are using leather-clad women to promote a movie that has a MAN as the protagonist? Noooo. For Shame, G.I. Joe movie. I will not be seeing you.

I just came back from watching Bedtime Stories . While I thought the movie was okay overall, it really annoyed me that the female character Adam Sandler attempts to save in all of his fantasy stories was a Barbie-doll type blonde heiress who looks young enough to be his daughter. Her sole purpose seemed to be to appear in every scene in an extremely sexy outfit in slow motion for male satisfaction. This might not have struck me as surprising if it weren't for the fact that this was a children's movie and they could have still kept her character virtually the same (pretty, princess type) without the overt sexualization. It's as if the men taking their children/nieces/nephews to the movie, need some type of reward. It's telling that there's no male equivalent. In fact, all of the male characters are buffoons (but they all get the pretty women). At the end of the film, Sandler amazingly discovers that the slightly older, bookish brunette type is the "fairest of them all."

Ah, the movies, where one can escape from stress and forget all the problems we face, such as sexism and - oh wait... let me start over. Ah, the movies, where sexism and stereotypes are as common as goldfish at a carnival.

So the first trailer up is called "F.U- Fired Up!" Haw haw, F.U! Get it? It's...it's a pun see? Already the hilarity is too much to handle. So the basic plot seems to be two star footballers, who are all MANLY and into THE BABES, come up with a brilliant idea: go to cheerleading camp to score chicks! I mean, what a zany plan! No dude would ever go to something so girly except to get laid! Obviously it'll be all funny seeing them do giiiiirly things, but it's cool guys! They're doing it in the name of getting hawt cheerleaders!

The second batter up is "The Proposal," about a career woman (read: bitch) who needs to marry one of her employees to keep from being deported (she's from Canada...so it's cool coz she's white!). Ahh... how culturally sensitive... So this will probably be a tale about how a bitc- err... business woman finds that it's just so much more rewarding to settle down with a nice man than run a company!

Third up (we've got some real winners this time around!) is "I Love You Man," about a guy who has to make a guy friend to be his best man (he has plenty of girls who are his friends, but asking a girl to be one's best man is ridiculous!!). Thus he goes out on "man-dates!" (HAAAW) but of course some guys think he's into...you know...that gay stuff (EEEWWWW!) So hilarity ensues. And then he meets the perfect friend...a man's man who talks about farts and screams and lets his dog shit everywhere.
Ahh...these shining gems bring stupid to a whole new level.

Doubt is an excellent film that portrays complex characters handeling a crisis during a time of change in one of the most male-dominated, sexist institutions in history--the Catholic Church. This film takes place during the 1960s when liberal Catholics were making progress by creating a Church that was modnern in its outlook. The film portrays the different ways men and women use their power in the Church and how a conflict between a man and woman is resolved with the imbalance of power.

The priest, Father Flynn, is the character who thinks the Church needs to be more open and welcoming. The priest is the one who tries to make the sermons relevant to modern life and it is he who avoids simplistic black and white views of morality and faith. The priest is the only one who goes out of his way to build a relationship with the first black boy in school (who is gay).

Last night I was watching the third Mummy film with my parents. I found it really empowering that the young love interest in the movie is a girl who's an un-killable, two-thousand fucking NINJA who guards the Mummy's tomb and has done so successfully for a couple of millenia... and yet she still got captured and had to be heroically rescued by, of course, a man.

Isn't it lovely and refreshing to be told that no matter how kickass we are, we'll still always need a man to save us.

I'm not really sure what to think.

Thoughts?

I was procrastinating/looking at some movie trailers, when I came across this gem, a trailer for the movie "The Ugly Truth" The poster itself is very classy, featuring the bathroom icons for female and male, with little hearts in them.  The heart for the female is in her head, and guess where the heart for the male is? Yup in his crotch, echoing the old myth that women love emotionally, whereas men love with their groin.  The movie itself looks like a heap of misogynistic doodie, the basic plot featuring a woman who is way too picky (tsk, doesn't she know she just needs to suck it up and settle down) and thus left "hopelessly single" (oh no she might become an old maid! AIIEEE!) Fate has it that she is a tv producer, and a new show she must manage stars a slobby looking sexist guy telling the ladies how to get a man (with shining examples of class such as "get on the treadmill!") Obviously by the end she'll probably realize he was the one for her all along. Now excuse me while I go barf up a storm. 

(Yes I know one can't judge a book by its cover, but seeing as trailers are extensively detailed these days, I think I get the jist of the movie.) 

My sister is going to a themed costume party after Christmas, and the theme is "Superheroes." My sister is not an avid reader of graphic novels or watcher of superhero films, and so she was asking me who she could go as.

"Wonder Woman?" No, her friend was going as Wonder Woman. "Batgirl or Catwoman?" Hmm, she wasn't really a Batman fan, besides which, she wanted to be a villain if possible. "Silk Spectre out of Watchmen?" What's Watchmen? No one will know who she is! "Then, er ..."

Two degrees between us and we came up with four choices. And they were all from the DC universe. It was mother who solved the problem in the end; by suggesting my sister go as Claire from the TV series Heroes, the reason for the famous tag line "Save the cheerleader, save the world." My sister is happy with that, but as someone who loves superhero movies and is just discovering the joys of the graphic novel I found it depressing. When I was thinking about it later, I realised that virtually every famous superhero is a man - we've all heard of Batman, Superman, Spider-man, the Incredible Hulk, Iron Man... why the endless suffix of "man"? The X-Men contain a number of female characters, but who is it that everyone knows best? Wolverine, I bet.

In comparison to the three Spider-Man movies, two Batman movies (plus four made in the 90's) the Iron Man and Incredible Hulk franchises, female superheroes (at least when they're not part of a superhero team) are mostly represented by "Elektra" and "Catwoman," which - let's be honest here - sucked. Female superheroes are no less cool and heroic than their male counterparts, but it seems that they're far less famous and far less bankable as a result. Women in superhero franchises seem to exist in order to be the hero's girlfriend (don't even get me started on the upcoming "Spirit" movie) which I find very sad.

Why is this? Why aren't female superheroes as well known as their male counterparts? I accept that graphic novels and comics up until recently (and still are) a male-dominated industry, but characters like Wonder Woman and Batgirl have been around just as long as other stalwarts like Spider-man, so why aren't they having movies made about them? (Actually Joss Whedon was going to direct Wonder Woman - bliss - but that didn't work out and it's stuck in development hell for the time being). But it seems even women with superpowers need to fight for gender equality.

So I guess for now my sister will have to dress up as a cheerleader. At least said cheeleader made sure a would-be rapist got what was coming to him ...

 There are 3 types of movies that make me want to scream because of how they portray women:

#1 (the mildest kind): the Manic Pixie Dream Girl (term coined by Onion's AV club and analyzed on Jezebel)  --think of Natalie Portman in Garden State, or my least favorite, Maggie Gyllenhaal in "Stranger than Fiction," whose character, after somehow "scraping" into Yale Law School (because she can't just be smart) dropped out and became a baker because she liked bringing cupcakes to study sessions so much.  Then, of course, she spends the whole movie supporting Will Farrell's character development, because she's so nurturing.  But enough has been said about this type already.

#2 : the evil bitch-woman. Movies like the new version of "Stepford Wives" and "Michael Clayton" both feature heinous women who are supposed to be particularly despicable as evil characters because they are women. (Don't get me started about "Stepford Wives," where it's considered funny that Nicole Kidman's character is shot at in the first scene by a crazy antifeminist man who's angry at her feminist TV shows (and nobody even asks if she's okay!)   Tilda Swinton's character in "Michael Clayton" disturbed me because, even though the movie was about a whole evil corporation, only Swinton, the PR rep, ended up symbolizing that evil, and the movie gave only her character a deep, humiliating comeuppance because of her evilness.  Only Swinton's character is shown sweating, uncomfortable, in unflattering underwear.  We're supposed to hate her because she is human enough to sweat. And, mind you,  she is the only woman of any importance in the movie.  Another movie: "Live Free or Die Hard," the wonderful movie where Bruce Willis refers repeatedly to having killed the bad guy's "dead Asian hooker bitch girlfriend," Maggie Q, who is once again, the only woman (except Bruce Willis' lame daughter character) in the movie, who is pure evil with no motivation except having an evil boyfriend, Her extended fight-to-the-death scene seems to take extreme pleasure in violence against her.

I'm having a sleepover/retreat for my feminist group. We're going to paint potter, eat food and watch my favorite movie, Iron Jawed Angels . Also we're going to do some bonding activities, since that's kind of the idea of having the sleepover. Does anyone have any suggestions for good feminist bonding activities, or just good general ones?

My friend said The Duchess was boring, but I found it rather moving. Despite the plot being quite predictable, it did make me cry for several times. Why would a story set in the 18th century compel? Because it still applies. Not saying that this movie is the special case that tells a message by presenting what might happen in the past. There are numerous examples, be it creative, academic or whichever type on whatever topic, that try to speak today's problems by depicting yesterday's. This happens because, no matter how many times we are reminded, there are always fragments of human nature that are prone to unacceptable deeds (that are often accepted ).

Last night I went to the theatres and saw "Quarantine" with a group of my girlfriends. Here's the trailer, if you don't know what I'm talking about.

I had a hard time being terrified of anything in this movie except for the behaviour of the female main character. While she's screaming, panicking, screaming "Oh my god!" over and over and hyperventilating, the male characters are all calm. They're quarantined in the building and, er, scary things are happening (I won't give any spoilers in case someone wants to see it) and we're expected to believe that all the men are calm and relaxed. Their voices aren't even the least bit shaky. 

After the movie we talked about what we thought about it. I brought up that I didn't like the way they'd portrayed the woman, as being the only one who was "weak" and terrified. My friend said "Well that's just how women are." I said to her, "Shouldn't we expect the men to be terrified in that situation too?" Apparently not!

I've been thinking about the last few disaster movies I've watched. I think I am turning into one of those people who can't 'turn off' their hot-button issues, even when engaging in totally mindless entertainment. One of my favorite professors from undergrad used to talk about this in the context of 24. She LOVED the show, but was infamous among her group of friends for yelling at the tv whenever something really sexist or rape-friendly happened (she works with a lot of sexual assault stuff on campus). I think she was half proud half exasperated by her own rape-o-meter.

Spoiler Alert

Watch this movie. This film was incredibly awkward, funny at times, and heart-warming to the point of tears. I watched it last night with three of my girlfriends, two of which cried when the real doll died. The story of Lars is simplistic yet fantastical. He lives in the garage next to his brother and his wife who live in the house. Lars has a delusional disorder and throughout the process of the movie, he becomes closer to a whole human and slowly allows other people to touch him, something he describes as burning. Although Lars has a condition that hinders his development, he is like many men across the world today. Many men are going online to buy these anatomically correct Real Dolls that function as girlfriends and sex toys. In the movie, the doll, Bianca, is religious and stays in the house with his brother rather than with Lars, so that aspect of the doll is removed for the most part. Lars created Bianca on the internet and then proceeded to give her a history, personality, and friends. The small town came together to help Lars through this apparent transitional period and accepted Bianca as a new member of the town and the church. Their efforts paid off as well as the incredible patience and persistence of one of Lars' coworkers.

The film was absolutely amazing and I would recommend it to anyone. I would also recommend But I'm A Cheerleader! as well. I saw that one on Friday with a room full of ex- Queer Theory students. So funny!

With the summer movie season, a lot of people have *the movie* that they want to see on opening night with several friends. For me, Mamma Mia! was that movie. I appreciate that some people don't like Abba or musicals or "chick flicks." And several reviewers had problems with Mamma Mia's plot (or near absence of) - fair enough. Here's what I enjoyed about the movie (some of this also applies to the musical and look out if you don't like spoilers.)

- I'm not wild about the expression "girl power" but Mamma Mia! is all about girl power. Donna (Meryl Streep) is a single parent and runs her own business. She and her awesome girl friends were in a band back in the day and while they're not as young as they used to be they are still fabulous. One of them is a famous writer!

I just walked out of a movie; this was the first time. I wanted to see "Wanted" for an admittedly shallow reason - it has James McAvoy in it, and I think he's hot. I didn't expect that the movie would be so awful I'd rather pay for a ticket to get out of seeing it. I only regret that I didn't walk out sooner. (Possible spoilers ahead, if you care about that.)

My first clue that this would not be an enjoyable experience was in the very first scene. McAvoy's character is standing in an office watching his boss stuff her face. His boss is an approximately 300 pound woman who he characterizes as extremely annoying, also describing her sarcastically as "anorexic." Isn't that great? In the very first scene we get a whole heaping helping of stereotypes.

Whenever my friends and I discuss movies (which is often), and we approach the subject of animated features, I passionately start to sing the praises of what I consider to be an enormously underrated movie, Beauty and the Beast from Disney. It's gotten to the point that this has become a running joke with my friends, and they tease me about it often. I figure it would make a good subject for my first Feministing-community blog-post.

(I should make it clear that it is actually not my favorite animated movie, that honor belongs to Grave of the Fireflies . It is, however, my favorite American animated movie, and my favorite animated movie that doesn't make me want to kill myself, which Grave of the Fireflies does)

(By the way, this essay is going to be somewhat lengthy. Apologies for that. As I said, I've argued this many times, so I tend to ramble on. And I do belive it's interesting, but I guess I'll let you be the judge of that.)

Why do I love this movie so much? Well, it has all the traditional elements that the classic Disney-features should have: the songs are great, the artwork stunning, the characters engaging and the jokes are funny. In my opinion, it does all those things better than pretty much any other Disney feature in existance. That alone would make it pretty fantastic.

However, the main reason I love it so much is because of the feminist message that's deeply embedded in the heart of the movie. As I'm sure many of the readers of this fine site would recognize, traditional fairy-tales (especially those Disney makes into movies) often have deeply rooted sexist messages in them. It's always the Damsel in Distress who leads a miserable life, only because she is unable to find her True Love. Look at Cinderella, just waiting for the Prince to discover her in her miserable situation, and Sleeping Beauty, cursed with sleep until her Prince comes and kisses her and wakes her up. I mean, just think about this: the woman is literally unconcious until she is found by a man! Her life is literally nothing if she is not the wife of some handsome man (who she presumably will spend her life waiting on).

Grease was on TV on Wednesday and it got me thinking...

I saw Grease for the first time when I was three years old. My parents were completely unaware of the content rating as I held my boombox microphone to the TV and recorded "Summer Nights" and "Blue Moon," memorizing the hand jive as the movie progressed. When I was six, I wanted to marry Danny Zucco. When I was ten, I wanted leather pants, Grease's official symbol of conformity and change...all to please the boy. When I was twelve, a girl in my seventh grade class and I sang that final number, which marks the demise of Sandy's individuality, when she interrupted, "Grease is just so sexist!"

I did not understand how a movie I saw as such a positive romance could coincide with a word that spouted patriarchal venom and encouraged outrage. Thanks to my bad-ass classmate, I have never seen Grease the same way. Sandy starts out as an innocent idealistic high school student coming to a new school where her kindness is a fault (especially according to the Pink Ladies' very own "feminist" Rizzo) when trying to win over the bad boy. Pretty soon, she learns that in order to win over the guy who treats her like crap and is ashamed to introduce her to his friends, she has to pick up a cigarette, some leather pants, and become utterly unrecognizable. She becomes a new Sandy, transforming for the sake of the Rydell High patriarchy.

This is not to say that I have boycotted Grease since the seventh grade. However, I have watched it with open eyes, peering through my feminist glasses at this truly sad message. The only way to fight this sexism is to tell those three year olds watching Grease for the first time (I'm sure I wasn't the only one) that they should not change for the benefit of anyone but themselves.