|
|
Post by StarOpal on Oct 15, 2005 12:06:47 GMT -5
I agree with both of you. A very good round of crossfire. I have to ask both of you if you've ever seen Millenium Actress, The Price of Milk, Truly Madly Deeply, The Wedding Party, Safe Passage, or Sliding Doors (or even Soul Survivors, but that '[shares]so much shelf space with another genre'). I will cite one thing though... Justin: "Let me say this first: I don’t ever begrudge anyone their right to enjoy any movie or type of movie. Period." ID4 review: "This is why it's a wonder, at least in my mind, why people still claim to like this flick. "Hey, I kinda like that movie," they'll say to me, sealing their fate as I trigger the remote control to the evil nanite drones digging deep into their brainstems. I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that they're pod people and must be purged if we are to survive." Hmm....  |
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Oct 15, 2005 13:26:07 GMT -5
See this is what I'm talking about people. I can't find ANYTHING wrong with Sue's writing because she's the type of person that is so exact about everything that she even takes the care to properly include the exclamation point in the title of Moulin Rouge! UPDATE: I got you Sue, I got you muahaha! Check out the review of *batteries not included. You incorrectly spelled and capitalized the title TWICE! ;D My work now moves on to Nancy. DOUBLE UPDATE: Yes, I'm aware that since that is an old review it shows that I wasn't paying close enough attention the first time.  I guess I AM only human, contrary to popular opinion. TRIPLE UPDATE: I'm also aware that this post has little to nothing to do with the actual Crossfire article (I didn't think it worthy of its own thread), and that I've updated this post three times before ever actually submitting it the first time. I'm just weird like that. |
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Oct 15, 2005 14:07:53 GMT -5
I could be petty and point out that, in fact, my spelling is technically correct and the title itself is incorrect, but I'm not petty. You seriously spend that much time looking for itsy bitsy mistakes in reviews? You should consider a career in copy editing. I think that would be right up your alley!  |
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Oct 15, 2005 14:11:16 GMT -5
Now for a post actually relating to the article! Hope this helps Sue! ;D BladeStarr's MiniGuide to the Horror Sub-genres
Slasher: A supernaturally powered human or former human who kills many young teenagers, and sometimes people of other ages. Ex. Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, Freddy Kreuger. Creature: A monster or animal with the mind of a monster or animal that kills all humans it sees and/or family pets. Ex. , Spiders, Sharks, Aliens, and other odd creatures. Serial Killers: Psychopathic humans with no supernatural powers that normally kill adults, but will sometimes kill humans of all ages. Ex. Saw, Se7en, and Copycat. Sometimes there is an overlap, like with human/monster/animal hybrids (like The Fly) or serial killer movies that have been filmed like slashers ( Scream and Urban Legends comes to mind), but most of the time they stay in their happy little sub-genres.
Now on to Justin. While I agree with you on most of what you say, it is more because I don't think there are enough romance movies for men out there; most of these movies are made for women. I think that Hitch and Grease 2 are the only male romance movies that I've ever seen, with a male as the main lead going after a girl, and Grease 2 was a musical! That is why I don't care much for romance movies, because us men also have a romantic side, but they don't really make many romance movies for us. This is probably fair since on the flip side most action movies are geared towards men, with women getting a few here and there. This doesn't work for ME however, as you would know from the Romantic Mix CDs thread, because I'm a lover not a fighter and I HATE action movies! In the end I think for the majority of the world's populace, the way movies are right now pretty much reflects the way most of humanity wants them. It's just us weirdos in the middle that get screwed.  Interesting side note: Out of all the movies I linked to here, only The Fly does not have a review on this site!  |
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Oct 15, 2005 20:32:08 GMT -5
Hmmm... I didn't say that I didn't KNOW the differences. I said I don't SEE the differences. Messily dead people is the common thread in all horror sub-genres that I'm aware of. That was my point; an emphasis on commonality and predictability as opposed to a personal lack of sub-genre definitions. Thanks for the tutorial though! Actually, since I'm inclined to cover my face during horror movies, I literally wouldn't see the differences anyway.... |
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Oct 16, 2005 10:06:49 GMT -5
I will cite one thing though... Justin: "Let me say this first: I don’t ever begrudge anyone their right to enjoy any movie or type of movie. Period." ID4 review: "This is why it's a wonder, at least in my mind, why people still claim to like this flick. "Hey, I kinda like that movie," they'll say to me, sealing their fate as I trigger the remote control to the evil nanite drones digging deep into their brainstems. I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that they're pod people and must be purged if we are to survive." Hey, they have the right to enjoy, I have the right to destroy. Beautiful, in its own stupidity. MRFH did not receive the review rights to this particular movie, and had our old review of it deleted due to a cease & desist order by 20th Century Fox. |
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Oct 16, 2005 22:31:17 GMT -5
Are you being facetious or serious here? If you are kidding, please disregard everything below.
I've never heard of 'review rights' before, I thought that the right to review a movie was protected under the first amendment. I do know however that Fox has been adamant about protecting the Simpsons, and shutting down Simpsons websites right and left with cease and desist orders. Could they have given you one due to some graphics or screencaps that you might have had? I honestly don't think they could stop you from having a REVIEW of the movie on your website. What about all the other Fox movies on your site?
|
|
|
|
Post by Spiderdancer on Oct 16, 2005 23:39:38 GMT -5
WHAT action movies do women "get a few of"? I watch (and love) action movies by the dozen, but most are fairly misogynistic. (Yes, I own several.) What would be a "woman's" action movie? Barb Wire? One of those "lesbians shoot stuff up" films with the sex scene obviously designed to appeal to MALE audiences? Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon sure as heck is not. Yes, many of the fight scenes feature women, but look closely at the message. It's the same as nearly every action film - Chinese or American - featuring female fighters. (Alliteration. Wheee.) They can beat each other, or other women, or henchmen, but no male who is a significant character will ever be defeated by a woman. And no woman who fights will ever come to a happy end in one of these flicks. Also See: House of Flying Daggers, Twin Warriors, Hero, The Bride With White Hair. For me to consider a film a "woman's action film," it would have to contain every single one of the following: -a woman protag whose clothing is not skintight/cleavage revealing for most of the film -a woman protag who is able to beat important characters who are male as well as female -no footage of chick in shower - do action movies show Arnie in the shower? -protag does not commit suicide using something Freudian and pointy It's an impossible dream. I'll probably just go on collecting the complete filmography of Jet Li and Jean Claude Van Damme. It's not that often that you see a guy secure enough to do the splits while naked. |
|
|
|
Post by TheLuckyOne on Oct 17, 2005 0:33:26 GMT -5
It's not that often that you see a guy secure enough to do the splits while naked. Hey, I'm secure enough... the courts just won't let me anymore. -D |
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Oct 17, 2005 1:56:59 GMT -5
We're getting into it now hehe. I would say that your standards for a 'woman's action flick' are not necessarily what all women want. I believe that Charlie's Angels and its sequel are women's action flicks. They kicked all sorts of men butt, there was no shower scene and there was no suicide. The ONLY rule that it violates on your list is the first one, and the women who starred in the film in interviews explained that women don't have to be 'all covered up' to be respectful. They said that women can 'own their sexuality' and use it as a form of empowerment. Sort of being 'the full woman', all aspects of the self, including the sexual aspect. As far as men go in action movies, you mentioned Arnie. Did you forget Terminator and Terminator 3 where we ALL got to witness firsthand Arnie's FULL anatomy? (well except Mr. Happy ;D) In action movies men are almost just as naked as women most of the time. In most action movies the male lead is spending much of the time shirtless. In fact, I think it is entirely unfair that if a man is running around without a shirt on in a movie it's rated PG and if a woman does the same thing it's rated R. Is there something that is inherently more evil and wrong about the female chest than the male chest? I think we seriously need to look at our morals in this so-called 'modern' world. Caution readers that the below link leads to adult material - JustinHooray for Topfreedom!Anyways, I would give you more examples, but as I already said, I don't really watch action movies, I hate them, so I'm not really familiar with most of them. Now, let the flame wars commence! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on Oct 17, 2005 7:27:46 GMT -5
Oh please. Charlie's Angels is just as mysoginistic as some of the others, particularly the sequel, precisely because women are using their sexuality to win. (Incidentally, that doesn't speak overly well of men, either.) Sure, the women can kick butt, but they do it because it's hot, not because there's any desire to empower women or anything. If the movie was meant to appeal to women, the girls would not wander around in bikinis and dance in strip bars and all that. (And there would be more attractive guys wandering around half-naked. I fully admit that I'll shut up about inequality when Hugh Jackman rips his shirt off or something. I mean, except for the implausibility of running in stillettos and a corset, that was one thing I DIDN'T complain about in Van Helsing.) Charlie's Angels might have other redeeming qualities, but it is NOT a woman's action flick!
Shalen- what about X-Men, particularly the first one? While, granted, the women wander around in leather, most cleaveage is covered and hey, the men have to wear said tight leather as well. The girls take on the important characters as well, although there isn't really one big hero. (Wolverine might be the main focus of both films, but I wouldn't call him the save-all hero.) I don't know that I'd call it a woman's action film, and I do still wish some of the female Mutants were given meatier roles (I need to rewatch both of these for my women-in-movies stuff), but it's more gender-equal than a lot of action flicks.
|
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Oct 17, 2005 10:39:32 GMT -5
Again, I have to question our puritannical morals. Why does sexy necessarily have to be demeaning? Why is it considered demeaning for a woman in a movie to seduce a man to get what she wants? (Like in Charlie's Angels) Why does a page about the female chest have to be considered an 'adult' page? What makes a graphic of the female chest 'adult' material and a graphic of the male chest not? Topfreedom advocates are not in the wrong trying to get equal rights in this issue, since the question is not about indecent exposure of sexual organs. It is well noted that amongst the naturists there is much less sexual crimes and teen pregnancies. The same is true about breasts: seeing bare breasts in a non-sexual setting, whether through breastfeeding or toplessness, can help de-sensitize men and de-sexualize the female breast. It can therefore help lessen the obsession about breasts that pornographic publications rely on. |
|
|
|
Post by Magill on Oct 17, 2005 13:19:21 GMT -5
I don't think the problem is that its wrong for women to use their sexuality, the problem is that in movies, it seems as if all women must which is very different from men. How often do you see a male action hero prance around in a bathing suit to distract female security guards? Before anyone suggests that James Bond uses his sexuality, from my perspective he doesn't do anything--women just happen to always want to sleep with him.
The closest thing I can think of to a female action hero would be Linda Hamilton in T2, but even then there was the subplot with the creepy orderly licking her face. Would that have been necessary for a male character?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on Oct 17, 2005 13:22:18 GMT -5
It doesn't.
I heard something on the radio the other week about an image that women find sexy. You know what it was? A father with a baby cradled to his chest. (And I've gotta toss my lot in with that.) There's nothing demeaning about that.
That carries over. Being sexy doesn't have to be demeaning, it's the converse that's offensive- when being demeaned in sexy.
Because the implication is often that she couldn't get it another way, such as through the power of reason. (Or, in action movies, failing reason, violence.) Granted, it's also a pretty offensive message about men- that they're stupid enough to fall for it. (I give most of the men I know more credit than that.) But it's that implication that's offensive and demeaning, not the actual act of seduction.
Personally, I find any seduction demeaning to both parties, be it a man seducing a woman, a woman seducing a man, or someone seducing someone else of the same gender. Sex should be used for, well, sex, not for power and not for bargining. But hey, if Hollywood listened to me we wouldn't have soap operas.
As for the sexualization of the human breast:
Well, let's start with an important fact here:
The female breast IS a sexual organ.
Yes, there are non-sexual uses for a female breast, such as breastfeeding. But there are sexual aspects to the female breast as well. It's not just the media that sexualizes the breast- it's humanity, as well. I consider myself a feminist, but I see nothing wrong with sexualizing the female breasts because, simply put, they are important in sexual pleasure for both genders.
I have seen full nudity that I didn't think warranted an R or NC-17 warning, but the rest of the movie did so I didn't question it. (The movies I'm thinking of are Schindler's List, where both male and female nudity were used, and Quills, where the one scene with nudity- and male full frontal at that- was not at all sexual. But both movies certainly deserved their R rating.) But I also would question showing a scene like that to a younger child. I wouldn't be overly comfortable, that's for sure.
Also, let's think about what "adult material" means. It means "suitable for adults." However, people have different ideas of what is suitable and not suitable for kids. Now, do I think the idea of nursing is offensive? Pfft. No. I fully plan to do it. But do I plan to nurse in public, particularly around, say, my youth group? Absolutely not. It's not that I think it's an immoral act. It's that a.) I'm modest, and b.) I fully agree that the parents of these kids should be the ones to make decisions about what they see- not me. And most of the parents of these teenaged boys are likely to agree that their sons do not need to see me nursing my child. And it doesn't even have to do with sex. There are just some functions that I feel are best left discreet, and nursing is one of them.
(Disclaimer: it's very possible for women to nurse discreetly. But I'm clumsy and will be utterly new at this. Discrestion is something that requires practice!)
However, I know I'm having a boy, and we plan on having a second child. Will I always try to hide nursing from my son, just because the female breast does have a sexual connotation? Probably not- at least, not if he was 2. I might if he was 13, though, because what teenaged boy wants to see his mother's bare breasts? It's a matter of consideration for what people- both the viewer and the viewee- are comfortable with.
Of course, then you get into people saying "well, if the breast wasn't so sexualized then maybe we wouldn't have a problem with it." Perhaps, but the fact remains that our society DOES sexualize the breast, and therefore, we as a society must face the consequences. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. (Most places I go also refuse to serve a man if he's topless, so....)
Bull, bull, bull. Sure, maybe that's the statistic. But is it because these naturist men see the breast? Or is it because they have a different attitude about sex in general? I'd suspect it's the latter. The thing about statistics is while sure, they don't lie, liars do statistics. Stats can be so easily manipulated to say what you want them to say. (See the argument about global warming being directly correlated to the decline of pirates.) I suspect the lower incidence of sex-related crimes and teen pregnancies comes from better education in regards to sex and more respect towards humans in general. Plus, the link didn't work on my computer to get to the article on that.
I'm not saying that the human female breast is completely sexual or that we as women should be ashamed of them. I'm not saying that men cannot control themselves around the sight of a female breast. What I AM saying is that there is nothing inherently wrong with having sexualized the female breast, given that it is actually a source of sexual pleasure, and in that context, it is necessary to maintain some form of modesty.
So thanks, but I'll keep my breasts sexy and my top ON.
(Besides, there is no way on this earth you could convince me to go bra-less. It is NOT comfortable, especially when moving at any pace faster than a slow walk. Bras were invented for a reason, and it wasn't modesty and it wasn't sexual titillation.)
|
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Oct 17, 2005 13:39:49 GMT -5
 | Uhuhuhuhuh... you said 'titillation'.... uhuhuhuh |
|
|
I guess I AM only human, contrary to popular opinion.
