I suppose it's worth noting that so far less than twenty-five percent of the people on this board who've voted thought it was a bad movie.
)
The film is aptly named, it's exactly what it is. Showdown reviewed the movie and stated the movie's morals, something I agree with.
Are you saying that the monstrous majority of critics who hated it didn't "get it" either? I find that pretty hard to believe. I'm guessing it's probably not as deep as you think it is and I'd also wager that it goes about making its point in the most ham-fisted way possible.
That's called assuming your audience are stupid and can't "get" a movie unless its message is explicitly stated (in lieu of an actual story that would allegorically relate that message). And as far as messages go, it's pretty weak too, and goes something like this: "When you see an action movie, be aware that it's not real, but that it should inspire you to fight for what's right in your own boring life, somewhat like the main protagonist." So he has the main protagonist imagine elaborate and pointless action set-pieces that have no real relevance to the "plot" and that symbolize her actually really boring struggle (which would, ironically, have had more emotional resonance, had it been filmed at all).
I'm on my way to bed, so I'm too damn tired to write a proper analysis of the film, but I will say this for now.
The film is about the objectification of women, the patriarchy and how men's sexualization and minimalization of women imprison them. It's about the ways women can defeat that, partly through accepting their sexuality on their own terms outside of the male gaze, but also how the power of the patriarchy is borderline impossible to defeat. The only way it's defeat can happen is through the unique bond women can have with each other, but also in ensuring we don't pass down our culture's hateful and spiteful view of women to the next generation.
Snyder took the images of some of the most popular of blockbuster entertainment and used them in an attempt (albeit, seemingly unsuccessfully) to lure the audience that would be least susceptible to this message, and "sucker punched" them with it. There's no other logical purpose of the title except to imply what it's intent is towards the audience...the one in the film, the one watching the film, which are one and the same.
The film isn't entirely successful in it's message, there are some elements of the film that I feel undermine it's true intent. If that's due to Snyder's flaws as a writer or the studio's demanded cuts to the film, I suppose the director's cut on DVD will answer that. But it was a valiant attempt, one I'm sure Snyder knew was a risky move.
The film is no way stupid, or mere popcorn entertainment. It's arguable the film failed at it's message, but to completely ignore it's attempt and claim the movie is stupid or has nothing to say is either disingenuous or cognitive dissonance. For a lot of people, I really believe the latter.
There isn't a moment of the film that's in reality. Not the beginning, not the end. It's a story being told in and of itself, it's about it's message and how it tells and what it uses to tell it. It's as much about the struggle of femininity as it is about the devices we use to propagate the weakening of it...that is the media, in this particular case, cinema. The film opens with the drawing of a curtain on purpose.
The message of the film is most important for the people in this thread saying things like "there's hot chicks in it, I'll go." Please do. With open ears and an open mind.
The film is about the objectification of women, the patriarchy and how men's sexualization and minimalization of women imprison them. It's about the ways women can defeat that, partly through accepting their sexuality on their own terms outside of the male gaze, but also how the power of the patriarchy is borderline impossible to defeat. The only way it's defeat can happen is through the unique bond women can have with each other, but also in ensuring we don't pass down our culture's hateful and spiteful view of women to the next generation.
Snyder took the images of some of the most popular of blockbuster entertainment and used them in an attempt (albeit, seemingly unsuccessfully) to lure the audience that would be least susceptible to this message, and "sucker punched" them with it. There's no other logical purpose of the title except to imply what it's intent is towards the audience...the one in the film, the one watching the film, which are one and the same.
The film isn't entirely successful in it's message, there are some elements of the film that I feel undermine it's true intent. If that's due to Snyder's flaws as a writer or the studio's demanded cuts to the film, I suppose the director's cut on DVD will answer that. But it was a valiant attempt, one I'm sure Snyder knew was a risky move.
The film is no way stupid, or mere popcorn entertainment. It's arguable the film failed at it's message, but to completely ignore it's attempt and claim the movie is stupid or has nothing to say is either disingenuous or cognitive dissonance. For a lot of people, I really believe the latter.
There isn't a moment of the film that's in reality. Not the beginning, not the end. It's a story being told in and of itself, it's about it's message and how it tells and what it uses to tell it. It's as much about the struggle of femininity as it is about the devices we use to propagate the weakening of it...that is the media, in this particular case, cinema. The film opens with the drawing of a curtain on purpose.
The message of the film is most important for the people in this thread saying things like "there's hot chicks in it, I'll go." Please do. With open ears and an open mind.
T'Baio was referring to the target audience, not the critics. People wanting to see a fun, popcorn action movie weren't going to expect a moral.
I disagree. I posted what I think the moral is earlier:
So, the best way to show women how to fight objectification is to make a movie that is entirely loaded, front to back, with women as objects? Are you aware that the audience that went to see this was like 110% male and 95% under 18 for in many cases the sole purpose of watching sexy chicks scantily clad fighting samurai, robots, penises, etc? How is this in any way making a point? Don't they even take orders in their fantasy world from a man? Again, I haven't seen it yet, but I find it hard to believe that this has anything to say about how not to objectify women, even ironically.
Linky?
Edit: Oh I see, it's not a site.
I pretty much said the same thing ("fighting for what's right" can equal "helping a friend"), except with less respect.
^ Um his post is like four pages back of this thread. Not gonna repost it again. Bishop, if you've not seen the movie but are gonna continually rag on it without any basis then what's the point of doing that? To me that's essentially trolling. You've no basis to support any of what you're aruging because you've not seen the movie.
Did you read my post? First, the movie is not "showing women" anything. It's for the audience you describe. I also stated that the intent of having scenes with "sexy chicks scantily clad fighting samurai, robots" was exactly to lure that audience in so that it could "sucker punch" them with it's message. Third, whether the women in the film are depicted as objects is one of the debatable tenets of the film I thought may undermine it's message, as anything depicted on film is in some way a glorification, but that is an arguable point. And they're not exactly "taking orders" from Scott Glenn's character, I took him as a redeeming male presence in a film about an unfortunate lack of them, a gleam of hope.
It's kind of ridiculous to debate it if you haven't seen it, though.
^ I thought you already saw this opening day and yes he's following this up with Superman.
It's hilarious to seriously consider reading a feminist message into something from the guy who did slo-mo soft-core equivalents of porno positions (including, as I recall, the reverse cow-girl) in his previous 2 films. Any faux-feminist message present here merely serves to make the guy seem like less of a hack for making a movie about Victoria's Secret models avoiding giant swords in a manner that conveniently shows off their panties.
Except that all the cast has reinforced that message in their interviews...
I have no idea if this is true or not, I'm just postulating...but are people not allowed to change anymore? Maybe the guy had a conversation with his wife where she expressed her disappointment in his objectification of women in his movies? Whatever movies he's made in the past shouldn't have much bearing on what he's attempting to do now. It's how women are represented in his future movies that will tell us is if he's a hypocrite or not.
And the actors in the Star Wars prequels espoused the virtues of the movies they were in too when they were marketing them.