Two movies, two very different messages
So last night, Chris and I watched The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (English language version, with Daniel Craig) and this afternoon we saw Lincoln. Guess which one I liked better?
On the one hand, TGwtDT was well-made, well-written and suspenseful. Objectively, it was a good film. Subjectively, I am tired to death of storylines that are driven by rape. And that not only include characters whose chief motive in what they do or what they've done in the past being rape but who are even SHOWN being raped in the present, during the film.
Is this really necessary? It's like those two rape-related episodes of Numb3rs I watched back to back, which made me think, "Is there nothing else writers can think of to motivate their characters other than rape?" (At least the Numb3rs episodes didn't SHOW the rape, though, unlike TGwtDT. I haven't resumed watching the show, though.)
I'm not even the sort of viewer who is triggered by such scenes, I just find them unnecessarily graphic and violent and cringe on behalf of all of the people who I imagine watching the same thing who will in fact find it triggery. It also reminds me of the recent "critic" of a fantasy writer choosing not to include rape in her books, which the critic thought would be more realistic than NOT having any of the characters experience rape. Women: we're nothing but holes waiting to be violated, didn't you know? Nothing else about us matters!
Oddly, this wasn't the chief criticism of the book that I recall hearing about; complaints that I've seen about the book (well, the whole series) were centered on the main character's being depicted as God's gift to women in bed, which, frankly, I think I can forgive a lot more easily than every major female character's motive for murder, attempted murder, mutilation, and fleeing the scene of a murder (and then the country) being rape. I'm surprised that didn't come up more often as a criticism. (I still don't feel like reading these books, now that I know about the rape issue, even though the improbably sexually-appealing main character might not be an issue for me.)
There's no evident emotional fallout from the rape we see firsthand; the young woman who recently experienced anal rape (and who exacted vigilante revenge upon the rapist) nonchalantly strips off and initiates sex with Daniel Craig's character with no prior sexual interest shown on either side (despite the fact that she was also shown kissing and in bed with a woman, so I was pretty confused about why a lesbian was suddenly sleeping with a man, and yes, I know about the existence of bisexuals, but this aspect of her character kind of came out of the blue). She had no apparent issues involving this act after her horrendous experience with the rapist (who also forced her to perform a blow-job on him earlier). It seems that rape as a motivational factor is cool as long as it doesn't actually interfere with the character having sex with men. Can't have that. Got it.
So, while there was a lot about this film that I found well-done, objectively, I was incredibly irritated by it, subjectively, and do not wish to see any more stories taking place in this universe, read the book series upon which this was based, or otherwise subject myself to any work stemming from the work of the book author. Do. Not. Want.
Lincoln, on the other hand, was spectacular in all respects. There was even an incredible restraint shown with regard to what could have been a very violently dramatic moment:
Rather than showing Lincoln (Daniel Day Lewis) being shot at the Ford Theatre, we saw his youngest son attending a performance of a show at a different theatre, which was then interrupted when someone came onstage to shout about the President having been shot at Ford. After that we only see Lincoln on his deathbed, surrounded by a number of people, including his son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and a doctor who officially pronounces the President dead. There is then a dissolve to what I assume is the second inaugural address, so the film does actually end with a living, breathing Lincoln.
I appreciated the lack of sensationalism, the fact that they didn't want to make the movie about an actor shooting the President and the ensuing drama and chaos at the Ford, or the pursuit of Booth. It is presented as a tragedy that it occurred but the assassination is not what the film is about, and rightly so.
What the film was really about was the debate over the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, which was necessarily passed before the rebellious states were absorbed back into the Union. What was shockingly familiar were the arguments on the anti-side stating how unthinkable it was because then black people might *gasp* VOTE, and we can't have that! And, of course, there was even more of an uproar in the House chamber when the idea of WOMEN voting was raised!
In some ways, it reminded me of our current political climate, in which there is a surprising amount of open and unabashed racism being displayed by people like Bill O'Reilly and Mitt "Sore Loser" Romney. The chief irritant to me recently from the mouths of these people has been the extremely generalized opinion that the only reason the President won re-election was because of people voting for him who want "stuff". There are several things wrong with this view of our political life:
1. Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Romney make statements about Democrats wanting "stuff" out of the President as if this never once crossed the minds of people casting their votes not for Barack Obama but Mitt Romney, as well as other past GOP candidates. Are you implying, Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Romney, that Republicans don't promise "stuff" to their potential supporters (lower taxes, flag-burning amendments, justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, prayer in public schools, science textbooks that include Creationism and cast doubts on evolution, etc.)? And that those votes aren't cast, ever, by people who want YOUR stuff, the stuff the GOP is promising people? Because I find that incredibly difficult to believe. Everyone wants stuff; different stuff, perhaps, but stuff, nonetheless.
It is disingenuous to imply that one party is the party of selfishness and self-interest and the other is all about just Making This Country Great Again, especially when the supposedly unselfish party is the one supported by CEOs who claim that they need to cut their workforce and/or go out of business rather than pay people a living wage or give their employees decent health benefits, while the executives are making millions and laughing all the way to their Cayman banks. What is wrong with this picture?
2. The so-called "stuff" people supposedly want from the government that prompted them to re-elect the President is "stuff" that isn't really that extraordinary, or shouldn't be: good schools; equal pay for men and women; a military that recognizes the gifts of all of its members, regardless of sexual orientation; the continued ability of middle-class families to send their children to college; the ability to get health insurance even if you have a "pre-existing condition", and the ability to continue to give your children insurance until they are 26 years old, plus women being able to use their insurance to acquire prescription contraception; a robust FEMA to help people when they need it, as when Sandy socked New Jersey and NYC; and so much more that we don't even think about on a daily basis, including things like public television, which more people probably ARE thinking about now.
Much of the "stuff" GOP candidates seem to want (and that is, by implication, wanted by their supporters) is not positive but negative stuff: the ability to deny equal rights to sexual minorities; the ability to deny women access to health care through Planned Parenthood; the ability to inflict a particular religious point of view on others, whether in the public square or in public schools; the ability to ship jobs oversees and be rewarded, not penalized, for it; the ability to pollute as much as possible, as long as the bottom line for a polluting business still means that the executives are able to line their pockets (at the expense of their employees and anyone living in the destroyed environment, naturally); and the ability to marginalize immigrants, women, sexual minorities, veterans, the elderly, the poor and those of certain faiths (or no faith) with no penalty, and indeed, with encouragement from our political leaders.
3. Ironically, for a group collectively vilified on Fox for being self-centered and just wanting "stuff", this same group also came together to vote in favor of marriage equality in Maine, Maryland and Washington state, as well as increased taxes in California to pay for education. So--how is that wanting "stuff" for yourself, instead of simply doing what you think is right and just and good for the future of your state? Simple--it isn't selfish to vote to expand the rights of a group of which you are not a member, or to vote to tax yourself even more to pay for something you feel is vitally important to society as a whole. It's damn selfless and noble and good. It's the opposite of what the national GOP currently stands for.
Watching the arguments in Lincoln against the Thirteenth Amendment and then watching the role-call and the actors playing those who voted for the Amendment was oddly like watching election night coverage, and hearing the arguments against the Amendment were an eerie echo of the current racist bloviating, especially with regard to states seceding from the Union. The last time this happened, it was fueled by racism. There is ample evidence that that is also the case now, as if the word "secession" itself weren't a clue. Four years ago I feared that the President's victory could possibly mean MORE overt racism, not less, and I have seen even more than I feared might occur. This needs to be called out more, not less, and labeled for what it is.
You, Mr. O'Reilly are racist for whining about white males no longer having a monopoly on power in this country. You, Mr. Romney are racist for the statements you have made about the people voting for the President only wanting "stuff". The bigotry and blatant racism displayed in this election are shameful, from snide cracks about the President to references to his supporters being lazy, irresponsible "takers" and "jokes" about the border with Mexico and "self-deportation".
People who do not appreciate what Lincoln did nor the significance of who just won this election are crapping all over his legacy with their talk of "secession". Lincoln did everything in his power, while he lived, to assure that government of the people, by the people and for the people did not vanish from the earth, as it might have if there were still a Confederacy, separate from the Union, and also did everything in his power to lend our country the dignity of a modern world people that does not tolerate the heinous and barbaric institution of slavery.
And he did it all as a Republican.
On the one hand, TGwtDT was well-made, well-written and suspenseful. Objectively, it was a good film. Subjectively, I am tired to death of storylines that are driven by rape. And that not only include characters whose chief motive in what they do or what they've done in the past being rape but who are even SHOWN being raped in the present, during the film.
Is this really necessary? It's like those two rape-related episodes of Numb3rs I watched back to back, which made me think, "Is there nothing else writers can think of to motivate their characters other than rape?" (At least the Numb3rs episodes didn't SHOW the rape, though, unlike TGwtDT. I haven't resumed watching the show, though.)
I'm not even the sort of viewer who is triggered by such scenes, I just find them unnecessarily graphic and violent and cringe on behalf of all of the people who I imagine watching the same thing who will in fact find it triggery. It also reminds me of the recent "critic" of a fantasy writer choosing not to include rape in her books, which the critic thought would be more realistic than NOT having any of the characters experience rape. Women: we're nothing but holes waiting to be violated, didn't you know? Nothing else about us matters!
Oddly, this wasn't the chief criticism of the book that I recall hearing about; complaints that I've seen about the book (well, the whole series) were centered on the main character's being depicted as God's gift to women in bed, which, frankly, I think I can forgive a lot more easily than every major female character's motive for murder, attempted murder, mutilation, and fleeing the scene of a murder (and then the country) being rape. I'm surprised that didn't come up more often as a criticism. (I still don't feel like reading these books, now that I know about the rape issue, even though the improbably sexually-appealing main character might not be an issue for me.)
There's no evident emotional fallout from the rape we see firsthand; the young woman who recently experienced anal rape (and who exacted vigilante revenge upon the rapist) nonchalantly strips off and initiates sex with Daniel Craig's character with no prior sexual interest shown on either side (despite the fact that she was also shown kissing and in bed with a woman, so I was pretty confused about why a lesbian was suddenly sleeping with a man, and yes, I know about the existence of bisexuals, but this aspect of her character kind of came out of the blue). She had no apparent issues involving this act after her horrendous experience with the rapist (who also forced her to perform a blow-job on him earlier). It seems that rape as a motivational factor is cool as long as it doesn't actually interfere with the character having sex with men. Can't have that. Got it.
So, while there was a lot about this film that I found well-done, objectively, I was incredibly irritated by it, subjectively, and do not wish to see any more stories taking place in this universe, read the book series upon which this was based, or otherwise subject myself to any work stemming from the work of the book author. Do. Not. Want.
Lincoln, on the other hand, was spectacular in all respects. There was even an incredible restraint shown with regard to what could have been a very violently dramatic moment:
Rather than showing Lincoln (Daniel Day Lewis) being shot at the Ford Theatre, we saw his youngest son attending a performance of a show at a different theatre, which was then interrupted when someone came onstage to shout about the President having been shot at Ford. After that we only see Lincoln on his deathbed, surrounded by a number of people, including his son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and a doctor who officially pronounces the President dead. There is then a dissolve to what I assume is the second inaugural address, so the film does actually end with a living, breathing Lincoln.
I appreciated the lack of sensationalism, the fact that they didn't want to make the movie about an actor shooting the President and the ensuing drama and chaos at the Ford, or the pursuit of Booth. It is presented as a tragedy that it occurred but the assassination is not what the film is about, and rightly so.
What the film was really about was the debate over the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, which was necessarily passed before the rebellious states were absorbed back into the Union. What was shockingly familiar were the arguments on the anti-side stating how unthinkable it was because then black people might *gasp* VOTE, and we can't have that! And, of course, there was even more of an uproar in the House chamber when the idea of WOMEN voting was raised!
In some ways, it reminded me of our current political climate, in which there is a surprising amount of open and unabashed racism being displayed by people like Bill O'Reilly and Mitt "Sore Loser" Romney. The chief irritant to me recently from the mouths of these people has been the extremely generalized opinion that the only reason the President won re-election was because of people voting for him who want "stuff". There are several things wrong with this view of our political life:
1. Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Romney make statements about Democrats wanting "stuff" out of the President as if this never once crossed the minds of people casting their votes not for Barack Obama but Mitt Romney, as well as other past GOP candidates. Are you implying, Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Romney, that Republicans don't promise "stuff" to their potential supporters (lower taxes, flag-burning amendments, justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, prayer in public schools, science textbooks that include Creationism and cast doubts on evolution, etc.)? And that those votes aren't cast, ever, by people who want YOUR stuff, the stuff the GOP is promising people? Because I find that incredibly difficult to believe. Everyone wants stuff; different stuff, perhaps, but stuff, nonetheless.
It is disingenuous to imply that one party is the party of selfishness and self-interest and the other is all about just Making This Country Great Again, especially when the supposedly unselfish party is the one supported by CEOs who claim that they need to cut their workforce and/or go out of business rather than pay people a living wage or give their employees decent health benefits, while the executives are making millions and laughing all the way to their Cayman banks. What is wrong with this picture?
2. The so-called "stuff" people supposedly want from the government that prompted them to re-elect the President is "stuff" that isn't really that extraordinary, or shouldn't be: good schools; equal pay for men and women; a military that recognizes the gifts of all of its members, regardless of sexual orientation; the continued ability of middle-class families to send their children to college; the ability to get health insurance even if you have a "pre-existing condition", and the ability to continue to give your children insurance until they are 26 years old, plus women being able to use their insurance to acquire prescription contraception; a robust FEMA to help people when they need it, as when Sandy socked New Jersey and NYC; and so much more that we don't even think about on a daily basis, including things like public television, which more people probably ARE thinking about now.
Much of the "stuff" GOP candidates seem to want (and that is, by implication, wanted by their supporters) is not positive but negative stuff: the ability to deny equal rights to sexual minorities; the ability to deny women access to health care through Planned Parenthood; the ability to inflict a particular religious point of view on others, whether in the public square or in public schools; the ability to ship jobs oversees and be rewarded, not penalized, for it; the ability to pollute as much as possible, as long as the bottom line for a polluting business still means that the executives are able to line their pockets (at the expense of their employees and anyone living in the destroyed environment, naturally); and the ability to marginalize immigrants, women, sexual minorities, veterans, the elderly, the poor and those of certain faiths (or no faith) with no penalty, and indeed, with encouragement from our political leaders.
3. Ironically, for a group collectively vilified on Fox for being self-centered and just wanting "stuff", this same group also came together to vote in favor of marriage equality in Maine, Maryland and Washington state, as well as increased taxes in California to pay for education. So--how is that wanting "stuff" for yourself, instead of simply doing what you think is right and just and good for the future of your state? Simple--it isn't selfish to vote to expand the rights of a group of which you are not a member, or to vote to tax yourself even more to pay for something you feel is vitally important to society as a whole. It's damn selfless and noble and good. It's the opposite of what the national GOP currently stands for.
Watching the arguments in Lincoln against the Thirteenth Amendment and then watching the role-call and the actors playing those who voted for the Amendment was oddly like watching election night coverage, and hearing the arguments against the Amendment were an eerie echo of the current racist bloviating, especially with regard to states seceding from the Union. The last time this happened, it was fueled by racism. There is ample evidence that that is also the case now, as if the word "secession" itself weren't a clue. Four years ago I feared that the President's victory could possibly mean MORE overt racism, not less, and I have seen even more than I feared might occur. This needs to be called out more, not less, and labeled for what it is.
You, Mr. O'Reilly are racist for whining about white males no longer having a monopoly on power in this country. You, Mr. Romney are racist for the statements you have made about the people voting for the President only wanting "stuff". The bigotry and blatant racism displayed in this election are shameful, from snide cracks about the President to references to his supporters being lazy, irresponsible "takers" and "jokes" about the border with Mexico and "self-deportation".
People who do not appreciate what Lincoln did nor the significance of who just won this election are crapping all over his legacy with their talk of "secession". Lincoln did everything in his power, while he lived, to assure that government of the people, by the people and for the people did not vanish from the earth, as it might have if there were still a Confederacy, separate from the Union, and also did everything in his power to lend our country the dignity of a modern world people that does not tolerate the heinous and barbaric institution of slavery.
And he did it all as a Republican.