The fact she looks so life like must garner this film a Best Make-Up nom

Sex and the City 2 is such a maligned movie.

I’m sure you’ve heard it: anti-Muslim, privilege flaunting, weak premise, and deplorable characters.  If you haven’t, read Roger Ebert’s take down here because it sums it up: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20100525%2FREVIEWS%2F100529986.   And I have to agree, except that the last part where it will be “deliriously enjoyed by its fans.”   Because this is not the show—AT ALL.  The premise of the once enjoyable Sex and the City is done—dead—and this film just raises sad specters of what has past.  And, in the end, sometimes dead is better.

But, I’ll admit it.  It’s sad and I mourn along with others. The Sex and the City of old has gone.  Before, Carrie and company were asking questions that women with post-feminism confusion were asking.   We all “wanted it all” with the career, the sexual liberation, the professional and personal carpe diem usually assigned to males yet we still had this messy terrain of tired gender roles in our baggage.  What was worse was that we had no new defined roles and were making it up as we went, which were where Carrie and company gratefully stepped in.  They gave some answers: sometimes the answers were a little too pat and pretty and sometimes the answers were right on.  We were all in it together.  But now…it’s over.  Carrie has made her choice about all of that post-feminism confusion and that’s the ending. That’s it.  She is married, Charlotte is married, Miranda is married and Samantha is still having tons of sex.  With that decision, she is no longer the tabula rasa that she once was.  And, isn’t that the way it should be?

Now Sex and the City, without its female writing staff and lone Michael Patrick King at the helm, has been brought back to “life.”  Without Carrie as what she once was, it’s a whole new ball game.  The premise is shot, the writers that held the questions of feminism are no longer there, and, somehow, one has to keep some aspect of the show going to make tons and tons of money of its fans.  It has to rely on its characteristic sense of style, shock value, fantasy, and humor that were backdrops of the series.

However, those put together without an empathetic protagonist or actual plot do not a movie make because they are all surface without a heart, a soul, or a life.  Because, clothes are inanimate objects and don’t need a movie to be explored, the culture has changed to incorporate all the characters (including Ms. Jones) so anything they say is not shocking, and the fantasy is rude in this era of recession and the humor…  Well, let me tell you, the humor wasn’t that funny when it aired.  Samantha had some great shock lines once in a while and Miranda could also throw in but Carrie was not the comedic Diana Ross-type everyone in the show made her out to be.  So, seriously, what does that leave us?  All shell and nothing else.

And, so, here comes the zombie…

The poster was not a wasted opportunity. I'll give it that.

After being captivated and kept up one night with the movie Edgeplay: A Film About The Runaways, I immediately understood the draw for the upcoming film The Runaways.  It had such a dramatic and compelling story:  the band in-fighting, the stormy Japan tour, Kim Fowley as a domineering manager and sometimes pedophile, and all of the rock and roll regulars of sex and drugs for the youngest girl rock band.  I mean, yeah, duh, it’s a no brainer.  Not only was dramatic opportunity written everywhere, but there was even greater opportunity to fill out more of the diverse and universal feminine storyline.

However, sadly, that dramatic and sociological opportunity was wasted and not a good or ironic in The Runaways kind of way.  Nope.  Instead, it was disappointing, slow and quick to gloss over the more dramatic and compelling conflicts of the true story that would actually hook an audience.  For instance, they cut out that one of the band members quit in the middle of the Japan tour sending them onstage with a new band member for one of their biggest shows.  How does one cut that incredible conflict out?  I don’t know.  Additionally, they cut out that Kim Fowley had a 2 year sexual relationship with Cherie Currie.  Again, how do you cut that out?  It is part of the lives that these women lived when they were 15/16/17 years old making their female story confusing, complex, great drama and a great mirror for the sociological question about how we sexually exploited young women then and how we do it to them similarly now (anyone remember the popular count down for the Olsen Twin’s 18th birthday??).

Well, some might think that’s a good thing, particularly with young girls in the mix like 15 year-old actress Dakota Fanning and the viewers (most likely Twi-hards).  In fact, one article even asks in its title: Has Dakota Fanning grown up too fast?  (http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/03/19/dakota-fanning-in-the-runaways/)  However, honestly, I find that a hard sell.  What is the point of telling a true story if not to tell the whole story?  Why not just invent a band like they did in Ladies and Gentlemen, The Fabulous Stains and carry it on from there?  If you want to show a fictionalized band, then do it.  If you are worried about losing money without name recognition with Joan Jett, then say that the band was based on The Runaways, keeping that name recognition and draw, while sidestepping the mess of gutting the actual story to save the audience and/or one of the stars from the actual experiences.  There, that, in fact, seems like a no-brainer.

However, alas, that was not to be.

But, even without my fore knowledge with Edgeplay, The Runaways still unfortunately disappoints. The Runaways, as a film in its own right, was slow in the beginning and lacked any sustained conflicts that could have drawn the audience into the film.  Sure, the girls gave the camera pouts and Kim did tell them to “think with their cock” but, the tension didn’t sustain.  Kim, the source of many of the conflicts, stayed away from the band for most of the movie, only talking to them over the phone, and thus conflict did as well.   As an audience member, I couldn’t, even if I tried, feel drawn into the film.

So, if you want a more in-depth and compelling story of The Runaways, watch Edgeplay.  Seriously.   Joan Jett might be absent in Edgeplay, but apparently she was present in the making of The Runaways, so maybe that is an unfortunate positive.

'The Hurt Locker' has 97% on RT. Yeah, she deserved it.

Her speech in 'Precious' and at the Oscars made me tear up. Also, loved the tribute and flower for Hattie.

The man adapted 'Precious.' Give it up!

Do you know how my boyfriend proved his love for me? He watched this movie with me.

It’s hard to say which quote from this movie really sums it up, but, I think my favorite is from Ashton Kutcher’s character when he said, “It’s Valentine’s Day!  You don’t think, you do!”  Yes, Mr. Kutcher’s character (name escapes because, really, did it matter?  Who really needs to remember a humanizing name when one fits so nicely into the should-be-in-a-relationship-with-best-friend-but-will-figure-that-out-after-unworthy-fiance-dumps-you-for-not-being-a-right-fit type of a human?  Really.).  Ahem.  Anyway.  Yes, Mr. Kutcher’s character, that is what this movie is about: not thinking, just doing.

Sigh.

Okay, so, this movie…  Not only is it not good for women but just not good for a-n-y-o-n-e.  It relies so heavily on made-for-romance stereotypes so it can “overview” this day of love with packed in story lines that it ends up feeling like a soul-suck.  Is this really what romance is?  These stereotypes and one-dimensional portrayals?  No, it’s not.  But it’s out there.  Out there–over the whole country–over all of it.

Sorry.

That just made me sad.

Anyway, here’s a breakdown of the “characters” to show you how much you will not miss by not seeing it:

• Jessica Alba: girl-that-doesn’t-know-what-a-great-catch-she-has-and-will-dump-him-to-go-after-her-career
• Kathy Bates: saucy-employer-that-forces-unromantic-employee-to-take-part-in-romance-based-assignment-to-set-employee-up-for-possible-romance
• Jessica Biel: slighted-unbelieving-and-lonely-girl-ready-for-love-that-will-find-it-when-she-least-expects-it
• Patrick Dempsey: cheating-asshole-that-will-romance-and-dupe-a-naive-girl-that-just-wants-love-TRUE-LOVE
• Jamie Foxx: unfortunate-said-employee-of-Kathy-Bates-to-find-love-somewhere-in-his-crazy-day
• Jennifer Gardner: naive-girl-that-just-wants-love-TRUE-LOVE (guess who she is with…)
• Topher Grace: guy-who-just-doesn’t-get-how-to-actually-love-but-learns-how-to-actually-love-in-the-end
• Anne Hathaway: covert-sex-phone-operator-for-money-and-really-wants-a-relationship-but-works-a-lot-for-hiLARity-and-an-embarrassing-reveal-to-that-will-test-her-man’s-love
• Taylor Swift: airhead-pretty-girl-with-hot-boyfriend-because-he’s-hot-and-I’m-pretty-comic-relief
• Bradley Cooper: reveal-for-other-character
• Eric Dane: token-gay-guy-that-the-viewing-audience-wouldn’t-have-guessed-was-gay-cause-he’s-a-football-player!  (And Bradley Cooper for the reveal…)

Ugh.  I can’t go on.  I’m sorry.  That’s not all of the cast, but I can’t continue.  It has sucked out too much of my soul to try to do more.  But, no matter how much I talk, some of you will still want to go see it.

But, DON’T.  Seriously.  Don’t.  Overall, just it’s a commercial.  Straight and simple, it only has the insight into love and romance that a commercial does.  You know all of those cheesy commercials that tries to tie you to their product by tugging on your heart strings with soldier-makes-it-home-to-see-family-for-the-holiday story or old-couple-still-has-the-fire-for-each-other story or kid-has-a-cute-not-creepy-school-crush-on-his-teacher story?  Just line those up, maybe throw in some Taylor Swift, but just line those all up and edit them all together and you will have all the stereotypes and story lines that fill up this one movie.

I mean, you’ve seen this movie.  And, if you still want to see it, don’t.  Just don’t.  Go see He’s Just Not That Into You if you really must see an ensemble lovefest.  HJNTIY might not be The Apartment or Annie Hall but it spends more time with characters and their stories or understandings of love than this one.  It’s like candy that you still feel sick after eating but you don’t regret it like you lost your soul.

Unlike Valentine’s Day.

Oh, man.  Anne Hathaway, what were you doing?

It’s exciting to see these films with central women characters that learn to become strong in themselves (and not through men) get nods and recognized.  Very happy.  Of course, it’s still sad that Kathryn Bigelow is the ONLY female nominated for Best Director and, even sadder still, is just the fourth female nominee ever.  Wow, takes you back a bit, right?

Probably going without saying, I hope Kathryn wins.  I loved Inglorius Basterds and hope that Quentin gets his due someday, but not this day.  This day should be Kathryn’s mainly because The Hurt Locker was an intense, must-see-in-the-theater experience that left me feeling like I had experienced war, but also for the whole being the first woman thing.  I mean, COME ON, Hollywood.  Recognize us!  We kick fucking ass.  Need I pull out Lone Scherfig or Jane Campion or Nancy Meyers or Norah Ephron or, to a somewhat lesser extent, Sofia Coppola to remind you?  The way to bring even more awesome female voices out of oblivion is to actually reward our work and bypass what could be considered a genital tripping point.

Bring new blood in, a new point of view and you might actually get more people (not just demographics) into the seats of the theater.  It might even become interesting to sit through more movies than some of those that are out there now.  Besides, storytelling, just like other commodities, needs new and unique voices to survive commercially.

Overall, though, I’m happy.  Pretty happy, at least.  We’ll just have to see what happens on Oscar night.

Do what's right, Academy, and no one gets hurt. (I think that might be my worst caption yet...)

More than just a puppet

James Cameron.  All I had known from him was Titanic.  Yeah.  Watched it 3 times in the theater, cried when Jack died but also laughed when the guy spun off from the propeller.  Needless to say, I was the only one on that last one.

So, fortunately but unfortunately, I hadn’t seen Aliens and Terminator (neither 1 or 2).  Sure, Titanic, had Rose, a modern woman in another time, but I felt I had seen that story and character before so James Cameron’s writing for women didn’t impress me.  I didn’t know how groundbreaking as, apparently, James Cameron can be with women characters.  Consequently, I went into Avatar blind and, thus, it impressed me even more.

Surprisingly for me, Avatar was dense with strong female characters.  First on the scene is Sigourney Weaver as Dr. Grace Augustine.  She smokes, she intimidates intimidating scientists and she challenges the corporate ethics degrading her work and the indigenous population.  Loved her but was a little concerned: Was she just a token woman?  Was she just a character that was written like a man and then just given breasts?  Then we get introduce to Trudy, played by Michelle Rodriguez.  She’s tough; she likes weapons.  It felt like I was being begged to believe it was taking women “seriously.”  Weapons = serious, right?  Eye rolls followed (how could they not?).  But, really, how little I knew about James Cameron.

Yes, Dr. Grace and Trudy seemed a little too hard-boiled to be true or respectful to a sincere woman’s journey; however, then we get to the Na’vi.  In grand fashion, the Na’vi and the story hold great respect for women and, without a hint of sarcasm, treats them equally.  For instance, the love interest, Neytiri, comes in strongly by holding her own in a fight, but she also shows strength in valuing her culture, eradicating her own prejudice and protecting those that she loves.  However, the respect does not stop there.  The Na’vi, as a group, have a man and a woman in leadership positions.  Delightfully, both are respected for their positions and their abilities.  Equal respect reigned supreme and it was lovely.  I was in heaven.

In addition, Cameron also chose not only to present women equally but also gave them equal presence in advancing the story.  This was great.  In a story where rebellion and ethical strength were important, Cameron had women share in the fight and, in a way, makes up for the fact that the two female women seemed like men with breasts.  Actually, they were characters with revealing decisions to make: Trudy shows down with the human commander she disagreed with ethically, Dr. Grace attempts to help the Na’vi alongside Jake (the main human character), Neytiri mentors Jake to become a Na’vi through example and even the deity that assists the indiginous Na’vi through out the fight, Ewya, is a woman.  However, my favorite example would have to be when the spiritual leader of the Na’vi, Moat, cut the ropes for Jake and Dr. Grace.  At this moment, we see a woman doing a pro-active action.  Instead of just being back up or a deity, a woman made a distinctive choice without consultation with a man or anyone else.  Without regret, she helps Jake and Dr. Grace.  With such a strong decision made by a physical woman in front of the audience, especially since it frees the freedom fighters and continues to plot along, Cameron proved to me that he was serious with his feminism.  Fantastic.

Overall, Avatar was feminist to the core.  It didn’t give lip service to the idea and showed women in the fight–physically and emotionally.  It surprised me and, honestly, I can’t wait to see his other franchises.

Cheers to James Cameron from A Film Fatale.

Pucker up

I loved The Princess and The Frog and I didn’t know if I really would.  I mean, it’s a Disney princess film.  Would they ever listen to the cries of women asking for a Princess that could stand on her own two feet (sorry, Ariel) and have a life outside of her relationship?  Well, they did it.  Yes, they did it.  However, that is not all that TPATF did for women.  Not only did it present us with an active and hard-working woman that happens to fall in love, it changed the idea of what it takes to fall in love and broke racial boundaries.

One of the elements that I loved most in the film was the fact that the Prince falls in love with Tiana and vice versa while frogs.  Usually, the Prince chooses the Princess based off of her beauty or singing voice (which is so essential in married life).  However, this time, the Prince’s love does not rely on the fact that Tiana is beautiful.  Of course, he saw her to begin with, but it was her attitude and humor while they were frogs that really attracted him.  In a great move, instead of making the woman valuable to a man based off of her appearance, Disney has now given us a more mature love story that follows what is really important in a loving relationship: respect, rapport and intimacy.

Obviously, however, this is not the only new ground Disney has broken.  Disney has also finally produced a film with a black princess.  Finally.  It surprises me that Disney could ignore such a large racial segment for so long, but, finally it didn’t.  I’ve been reading stories where women, now mothers, recount how disappointed they were to only have white Princesses to look to and how happy they are that their daughters don’t need to do that anymore.  It makes me happy.

However, hopefully, Disney will continue to build on the diversity they have introduced and not rest on their laurels with this one.  I really hope that Tiana does not remain the “token” black princess.  Disney must continue to extend their storytelling to include further stories from even further lands.  In fact, not only for racial justice, but also for entertainment.  Seeing the same story with the same type of people in it gets boring and that is another reason TPATF was such a great movie.  Its story, although somewhat similar to other Princess stories, was different and had to be with its different subjects in mind.  To see such a beautifully drawn and high budget story lifts the spirits.  There is more to explore and more to experience.

So, overall, TPATF = a breath of fresh, feminist, and fun air.  Definitely one to show to your daughter.

Bella? Alone? Does that happen?

New Moon.

*Sigh.* It’s pretty hard to escape it, right? A huge domestic opening weekend box office (#3 of all time behind #1 Dark Knight and #2 Spider-Man 3) and millions of screaming female fans that are screaming either “Team Edward” or “Team Jacob” are pretty hard to ignore. So, of course, I had to see it. However, enjoying it was difficult to muster.

The story is fairly… inactive. (SPOILER ALERT: if you don’t want to know what happens, I wouldn’t continue. However, just know that 2/3 of the movie is devoted to Bella crying and wishing for Edward so there is not really that much to ruin. Wait… was that meant to be a surprise?) Anyway, I’ve read a good amount of sites where to criticize the writing or the plot of New Moon invites a litany of equal criticism to the critic and post, so I understand that the plot of the movie is supposed to be about Bella crying over Edward and feeling purposeless without him. However, should it be? Either writing- or feminism-wise?

First of all, writing-wise, to watch someone just cry and mope and cry over one reason, especially if that reason is not compelling, is not good cinema. Sure, I understand that for Bella the separation from Edward is hard, but, the audience member needs to see that emotional connection or we have to assume that it is superficial and only based on looks and vampireness. And it’s really hard to be involved or care about superficial characters. It’s really, really hard.

But, then, I think about the fact that New Moon is a book for children and teenagers. Perhaps, as adults, we have been spoiled by Harry Potter with its intricate plots and involving characters because, come on, think of the Hungry Caterpillar–it’s just hungry, right? Perhaps superficial characters are just the name of the adolescent fiction game? But then, I look back at the books that I devoured in my past after the Hungry Caterpillar, Sweet Valley Twins and all ilk. Even though these books might look preposterous on screen, I have to say that they would probably not be as bad as Bella and her crew. In Sweet Valley, the twins, Jessica and Elizabeth Wakefield, were not

See? They fought over being the better ballerina.

one-dimensional characters with storylines devotes only to their boy-chasing; they also had other adventures and interests not dependent on boys. I mean, does anyone know what Bella does or likes besides moping and attracting boys? (SPOILER ALERT: it doesn’t include shopping.)

So, New Moon has one-dimensional characters with superficial goals, so what? Well, for instance, that is one of the reasons it doesn’t compare with Bright Star, that’s for sure. Fannie is definitely not a one-dimensional character and, thus, her story shows the power of love for an actualized human being. That helps me delineate that distinction for me. But, more importantly, this leads to the second question about watching New Moon as a story featuring a woman crying and yearning for men: should this story be ingested for the sake of women? Is its message, in anyway, feminist?

In my gut, I say no. Instead of showing the power of love within a fulfilled woman’s life, it is intent on venerating a superficial love story. Regardless, even though Bella could be considered a personification of every human’s deepest desire to be loved and accepted, the movie still portrays an actual woman consumed only by these concerns creating a justifiable life for girls to base their actions upon. As Rachel Simmons, author of Odd Girl Out, told Salon’s Broadsheet [http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/12/02/new_moon_girls/index.html]): “Among the cringe-worthy morals of this story: When you’re in love, the only thing that matters in life is your man. If you get dumped, your life is over, so feel free to act suicidal to get him back. Even if he tells you he never wants to see you again, manipulation and game-playing are effective ways to get his attention. Your friends are only ornaments; just kick them to the curb when he comes back.” So, obviously, not cool, New Moon. How about valuing your life beyond the sole achievement of gaining and retaining the love of another? How about depicting an actualized woman living her life beyond the reactions of male lover?

Ugh.

So, the image of the woman swooning for the man without a life of her own continues. New Moon, old problem.

Just for one fortnight

]]> http://afilmfatale.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/hiatus/feed/ 0 filmfatale81 hiatus http://afilmfatale.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/precious-precious/ http://afilmfatale.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/precious-precious/#comments Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:43:34 +0000 filmfatale81 http://afilmfatale.wordpress.com/?p=153 ]]>

Diamond in the Rough

If there is one movie on everyone’s tongues this month, it’s going to be Precious.  It has broken box office records in its debut, jumped to #3 in box office earnings this weekend, and tells a story about an African-American, overweight, poor, undereducated incest victim.

Needless to say, it’s not a movie to be or will be overlooked.

And for good reason.

Precious was a great movie.  The acting, the writing, the directing, the composition.  Fantastic.  One could even say it was a great feminist movie.  Yup.  Let me say it again, it was a great feminist movie.

Tellingly, Precious is not saved by a man or by getting a make-over, which are the traditional methods women get to escape mental and economic squalor.  Instead, Precious comes through her abuse and self-repudiation through her work.  She learns her alphabet, she learns to write and, subsequently, does write, she opens herself up to praise and love, she earns her awards, she escapes abuse with her baby, and she draws the essential boundaries for her survival.  Although one could argue that it was because her teacher Blu Rain, her classmates, and a lovely Nurse John all supported her, the support would have meant nothing without Precious’s willingness to hear the support over her abusive thoughts ground into her from years of abuse.  It was once again Precious taking the leap and finally listening that she was worth loving.  Something that many women of all colors can learn.

In an act of audaciousness, Precious humanizes Precious’s mother, Mary, in the end.  It’s an uncomfortable empathy that swells up inside of the viewer, but, this empathy acts to educate and display Precious’s courage once again.  Mary was not always a monster, but, instead of pursuing and looking for other outlets and opening herself up to love like her daughter Precious, Mary folded on top of herself.  She becomes the cautionary tale for Precious and for the viewer as well because, just like Mary, people do not see their actions as evil as a third-person the story could. Precious’s courage was also on display when Precious left after her mother’s speech.  In that act, she courageously demonstrated drawing an essential boundary for herself from her abuser who, despite all of the reasons and empathy she arouses, is still Precious’s abuser.  Her self-conservation was inspiring.

Despite these favorable feminist overtones, the only slight weakness in Precious’s story came from Blu Rain’s skin color change.  The character of Blu Rain has attracted some controversy because of her skin color change from darker African-American in the book to the creamier, lighter-skinned color of actress Paula Patton.   As disappointing as this change was, especially since Blu Rain’s color in the novel gave Precious a female paragon that resembled herself and helped her eradicate her self-inflicted prejudices, I still don’t think it destroyed the film but only reduced the effectiveness of the character’s presence.  It’s a pity, but the message of being open to support from someone else still comes through.

Overall, amazing film.  I would recommend it to everyone with a strong stomach and open heart.  So, I imagine, that would be you.  Go see it when you can.  It’s a diamond in the rough of movies out there.