"Taken was pretty good. If you haven't seen the previews, it's about a father who has to put all his special CIA operative skills to use when his daughter gets kidnapped. Unlike other movies when a mother's child gets kidnapped and she spends the whole movie begging, pleading, and whining to get them back, this guy took the total badass route. He was deadly focused, busting heads, torturing baddies, and killing whomever he had to in order to get closer to his daughter. No wussiness here!"
i wondered how many people go to such movies and think similar thoughts. my brother is a great guy, and i'm not using his quote to downplay the movie or the excitement one may feel from watching it. i haven't seen the movie. if i saw it, i might even like it; i often like fast paced thrillers. but my sense of frustration came from the lack of critical analysis accompanying the review. i sent a response, hoping he'll listen, and i'm sure he will. he may not agree with my thoughts. the point isn't to convince him to think like me, but to share with him my point of view and to have him hear it, regardless of a change in opinion.
here's part of the comment i sent:
sometimes being critical takes away from one's full ability to enjoy a film. i remember watching xmen 3 a couple years ago. i was entertained by it, except for the side voice in my head pointing out the many stereotypes, for example, the few non white characters and how they were portrayed in the film. sometimes i'm annoyed by that voice when i just want to be sitting back, enjoying a film. but mostly i'm glad it's there because i think it's useful to have an analytical lens for viewing those subtle, extremely well rooted systems that are easy to ignore, but affect us nonetheless; it's well worth it to me to let go of some apathy, to lose a small portion of entertainment value, in return for insight into the way thought processes and popular fashion are influenced by media."it's just that i think it's important to be analytical of films, to question or challenge why and how they represent the dads or men as being 'bad ass . . . focused, busting heads, torturing baddies, and killing whomever' when they lose their children. And why they frequently, as you point out, characterize the mothers or women who lose their children as 'spend[ing] the whole movie begging, pleading, and whining,' or otherwise, depict them in an overall manner of 'wussiness.' Male characters are identified yet another time with action and violence; female characters are illustrated as overly emotional (or pathetic, which derives from the word emotion), irrational, or weak. What's gained in such descriptions? What's lost? How does it affect our society to continually see such portrayals? How does it become standardized or embedded in our expectations of entertainment?
I'm not claiming that all movies do this; I'm just trying to state how important it is to be critical of these kinds of portrayals when they occur in film. I'm also not saying there's anything wrong with enjoying these films for the sake of being entertained or thrilled. Most Americans want to be entertained when they go to the movies, especially Hollywood movies. But how does what's considered entertainment (honor and excitement in violence, for example) occur at the cost of other possible traits that could be developed and perhaps preferred as entertainment? i think viewing a film only as entertainment, without also taking the time to critically examine flat or unrealistic character depictions, can be detrimental to overall thought patterns in our society. how many real men are bad asses who torture and kill when their children are kidnapped? how many women just beg and whine when their children are kidnapped? only watching for entertainment sake can reinforce all the other arenas where such stereotypes occur, such as advertising, television, magazines, mainstream households, and so on. I just think it's essential to remember this state of critical awareness even when we're enjoying for entertainment sake."
4 comments:
I did see this movie with Chris, and after I left I worked through a lot of the same things you discuss here. I liked it -- it was an excellent thriller, very engaging, paced very well -- but I was disturbed by the way the film characterized women (like practically every other movie ever made) and the way the film dealt with one of its main themes. I'd go into it in more depth, but it's a bit of a spoiler, so I want to avoid it unless you're interested.
Anyway, I tried talking with Chris about it, and it was extremely difficult to explain that I can both appreciate/enjoy the cinematic qualities of the film while still being outraged at its irresponsibility regarding its portrayal of women and exploitation of harmful themes for its own purposes. He told me he felt like I was trying to make him not like it anymore, which was not my goal at all; I just wanted him to acknowledge my point of view, I guess. We eventually got past it, but I guess it's just difficult for some people to be critical of things that aren't misrepresenting them or people like them ALL THE TIME.
thanks for your comment, lacey; i appreciate it. it's helpful to hear your experience, others' experiences, as i try to sort it all out... as i try to identify and name my frustrations with how films can engage and manipulate simultaneously, and just how important it feels to me to not be apathetic in the intake. and, of course, how to talk about those frustrations after with other people, without that process of trying to be critically aware sounding like i'm just cutting the film down or being nitpicky about little things that don't matter and are just there for "fun." but they do matter, of course! and it's so hard for me to articulate it, so it helps to hear you talk about it too. (side note: and that's what i miss about the wombsters.)
i've been thinking about this since i read the post. i didn't see taken (though i wanted to, b/c i like liam neeson). i did, however, see that movie watchmen. with phillip. i was disappointed b/c i had expected a big action movie. i was sick and didn't want to think about anything, just watch big fight scenes--in particular, big fight scenes with a kickass female superhero.
it turned out to be more drama than action. and the female superhero totally did not kick ass. very opposite actually. she was a terribly weak character. it bothered me quite a bit. and my disappointment at the lack of big fight scenes made it difficult for me to appreciate the (probably) interesting social commentary that the movie had going on.
the point of this, though, is the conversation phillip and i had afterward about the lack of character complexity (not just the female superhero, but of one of her key love interests, too--yes, there were two). and her costume. gah! it sucked. worse than normal, i think, for a female superhero--though the thigh high boots, zippered latex jacket thing, and garters were very convenient for the superhero sex scene in the flying owl-shaped spaceship. sorry--tangent.
the conversation we had was pretty good, actually. phillip noticed the lack of complexity in the female character also. and he's the one that noted that there were only a couple other females in the movie (and all were victims of violence--violence from men). the conversation, from there, went into a more detailed discussion of female superheroes in general--their super powers, their stories, their costumes, their lack of prevalence in the larger world of pop culture (seriously big batman, superman, spiderman, x-men, etc movies in the last few years, and all wonder woman gets is an animated, straight-to-dvd thing).
so, the movie was still interesting, and phillip enjoyed it quite a bit, and i might have liked it more if i'd seen it on a different day, but it's still a terrible representation of women and, unfortunately, indicative of similar movies and how they deal with women. the important thing, like you both said, is the ability to work through the strange pairing of enjoying a movie and disliking things that the movie represents/portrays/reinforces. i think there is something more profound therein the back of my brain--something about WHY we enjoy things despite their stereotypes. i don't think it's a bad thing. especially not when there is some discussion or acknowledgment. not that acknowledging what's wrong makes everything better, but perhaps it takes some of the guilt out of the enjoyment. i also use movies mainly for the purpose of escape and/or creating a good mood. because of that being the main purpose for watching them, i think i'm more willing to forgive (or, at least, not begrudge the movie for) stereotypes, terrible characters, and cliches--as long as i've forgotten about work and real-life stresses for two hours or have laughed/smiled enough.
i guess i'm fortunate that phillip has absorbed both my need to analyze everything i see/hear/read and the feminist lens i often use to analyze things. i also should add that it doesn't always work. some things just piss me off and suck out any enjoyment there may have been.
thanks for posting, e.
i find it hard to write about this stuff these days. it so tedious to tease out the complexities. then again, it was always a pain to write it out. it's just harder now because i don't have very many people to talk it through with... to work it all out, you know? no writing center in my home. :-)
so this is just to say, i appreciated the long comment. it really helps me figure it all out and expand my ability to think about it.
Post a Comment