 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 16, 2011 - 5:22 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
Militant feminists running Hollywood?
- I guess that's why only one of the year's 10 biggest movies to date is about women, and even that one is about a wedding. How often do women in movies have concerns outside men, relationships, weddings, babies, etc?
- I guess that's why the biggest movie of the year's women are limited to: a model whose role is to look hot, a mother whose role is to be a joke, and a real actress who starts of promisingly but then gets to watch the action unfold on video screens while the men do all the heroing.
- I guess that's why in X-Men: First Class, a movie in a franchise with liberal themes about equality between all people, three of the four female characters get to parade around in lingerie within 30 seconds of appearing on screen, and at the end every single female mutant is on team Bad Guy while team Good Guy is all white men. Even the woman with an actual character arc: her conflict is based around how to look, and more than that, about whether she should choose to look how one man wants her to look, or how another man wants her to look.
Yes, Hollywood dramas and comedies (and Superbowl commercials) do have an annoying amount of deadbeat and idiot boyfriend characters, but Hollywood also features men as the heroes and protagonists and majority characters in probably at least 90% of movies, while the women mostly get to be supporting roles (if they even really are roles rather than just props for the men to look or leer at). The hypothetical "anthropologist on Mars" studying our society solely through the lens of Hollywood entertainments would hardly come away with a militant feminist idea of our gender and sex roles, but rather an idea that our population is 87% men, that men make almost all the important decisions while women fuss about relationships and have babies for them, etc. Hollywood is hardly a bastion of feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dario Argento and his most recent films of MOTHER OF TEARS and GIALLO. I'm constantly amazed they're from the man behind TENEBRAE, SUSPIRIA and OPERA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 17, 2011 - 3:06 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
KubrickFan
(Member)
|
Back In Action wasn't perfect (why they can't just let Bugs and Co have fun on their own instead of having to always pair them with humans is beyond me), but it was definitely better than Space Jam, which I know Dante despised and wanted to make up for.
Ironically, he ended up making a movie every bit as crass, soulless and jam-packed with shameless product placements ("Gee, nice of WALMART to give us all this stuff from WALMART just for saying WALMART a bunch of times...!"  ) as Space Jam. And any "comedy" with Brendan Fraser is guaranteed to be crap. Goldsmith's score was fun, and I liked all of the cameos by 50's movie monsters in the "Area 52" sequence, but otherwise, it was terrible. The Looney Tunes characters died with Mel Blanc. 
Come on, you didn't see the joke of the Walmart bit? Even the score was in on that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
