|
|
Post by drivebyluna on Aug 4, 2011 23:25:56 GMT -5
The same sort of discussion has been going on about NBC's new show about Playboy Bunnies: jezebel.com/5827456/producer-of-the-playboy-club-claims-the-show-is-about-female-empowerment"The icing on the cake is that Hodge says that the show is about "buoying women up and giving them the power" because men weren't allowed to touch the Bunnies. How many waitresses do you go around touching? Is that really the ultimate message of empowerment? To be afforded the privilege of something that should simply be a right? Or rather, to hold men to some of the most basic rules of social etiquette? However Holmes does point out an interesting silver lining here:" |
|
|
|
Post by broox on Aug 5, 2011 10:35:12 GMT -5
Where does this message of female empowerment come from? (in regards to sucker punch). I haven't read anything about the movie so I don't know if the director was selling it as such, but I certainly didn't get that message from watching the movie. I thought it was more about an "escaping a bad situation by disappearing into your own mind/imagination" sort of thing. And while the situation they were in (or not actually in, I guess) was certainly exploitative and adult, there is no actual sex or nudity in the movie. Not even a hint of it. 300 and Watchmen were way more gratuitous.
|
|
wilson
Robot Monkey
Posts: 154
|
Post by wilson on Aug 5, 2011 12:08:09 GMT -5
I was kind of thinking the same thing, Brooks. Just because it has women as its protagonist doesn't mean that it is aimed at "female empowerment". This very obviously was aimed at a male audience (in my humble opinion).
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Aug 6, 2011 7:49:21 GMT -5
I like the movie, but I agree with the criticism. This falls in a category I like to call "Exploitation With Apology". The movie gets sold for its base appeal but they work a positive message into the story that's supposed to forgive it. It doesn't just apply to women, though.
Comedies do it the worst. Every Farrelly Brothers movie pokes fun at some kind of disability but ends with a positive message so you don't feel bad about laughing. In that Johnny Knoxville movie he pulls a Cartman and pretends to be a stereotypical retard trying to win the Special Olympics. But he learns a lesson at the end, so it's fine.
I miss the 70's and the 80's; movies were exploitative but not pretentious. It's like how movies have shower scenes without nudity. The vocabulary of exploitation is still there, but they've forgotten the point.
Even in this movie, which is billed on ass-kicking chicks in thigh highs and miniskirts, would never dream of featuring full-on nudity and overt sexuality because it's riding a line between exploitation and art.
|
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Aug 7, 2011 4:29:06 GMT -5
I don't think I really heard much talk about this movie being feminist either to be honest, but Joe Wright obviously did and I'm sure he would know. I'm always up for a directorial dirt-fight in Hollywood. Maybe he was just trying to start something. But you do hear a lot of male directors try to pull this crap so I'm willing to believe that it actually happened.
When I saw the poster I didn't think feminist either, I thought "awesome robots and dragons and shit, I'll watch that."
I was watching "The Hunger" today, with "the excitement of David Bowie" wetting himself, and amused by how 80s it is. It takes only about 2 minutes into the film to show boobies. I was laughing so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Aug 7, 2011 7:43:18 GMT -5
I can appreciate that. I'm not saying every movie should have boobies, but an exploitation movie today is like a stripper, everyone's trying to pretend that they're just regular girls putting themselves through college or something, but the exploitation of the 70's and 80's were hookers, there was no debate over what they were. That's not even a good analogy, because a stripper is at least a rated R sort of thing. Most of these movies are PG-13. PG-13 exploitation is more analogous to a Hooter's than a strip club.
I think that absolute separation is safer, because by blurring the line over what is exploitation, we're also blurring the line as to what is healthy sexuality. Otherwise we're subtly telling girls that "this is what every girl should be like", especially if (by direct intent or implication) we're saying that unlocking your hidden sexuality is the key to personal empowerment.
We're reining in exploitation so that it's acceptable in the mainstream, which is just allowing the same adult themes to be accessible to younger audiences. Sucker Punch doesn't have nudity so it's a PG-13 movie. I'm not making a judgment as to whether it's appropriate for young teens and I'm certainly not saying that movies should be censored on the basis of the thematic elements of the story, but they made the choice to sell us this above the clothes sexuality so that they could market it to a larger base. And then someone (not necessarily the filmmakers themselves) bills it up as a positive story. I think the movie had a good story and a good message, but that still doesn't make it appropriate for younger audiences. It does deal with a lot of strong sexual themes.
This is why I think a strip club is more honest than a Hooter's. You can't take your kids to a strip club, but because Hooter's takes it to the very limit of what you can do without crossing the line, they're somehow a family restaurant. That blurring of the line to me is more damaging than to have a separate exploitative environment that is identified for what it is. Kids respect that what goes on in a place like that is not part of the mainstream philosophy of appropriate behavior. But if the lady who brings my chicken wings is dressed like a Playboy bunny and has to hoola hoop on command, then maybe that's the way we're supposed to treat all women.
|
|
|
|
Post by broox on Aug 7, 2011 20:56:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Aug 7, 2011 22:00:36 GMT -5
This is the IMDB for Vampyres;
"A lesbian vampire couple waylay and abduct various passer-byes, both male and female, to hold them captive at their rural manor in the English countryside in order to kill and feed on them to satisfy their insatiable thirst for blood."
I was in by the first 10 syllables.
Actually I'd like to add that this movie is called "Vampyre Orgy" on IMDB. Like the stripper Gilbert is so enamoured with, this movie has right up front what it's all about.
|
|
|
|
Post by broox on Aug 8, 2011 10:42:00 GMT -5
apparently there was a whole subgenre of lesbian vampire movies in the 70's that was pretty popular
|
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Aug 8, 2011 18:08:55 GMT -5
They're coming back, and every damn one of them features failed Australian pop-singer turned plastic-face Sophie Monk.
|
|
|
|
Post by broox on Aug 10, 2011 20:04:08 GMT -5
plastic face?? not sure if I want to see these movies...  |
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Aug 10, 2011 20:54:54 GMT -5
If you saw her face you'd understand
|
|
