HEY, YOU GUYS, LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH THIS YEAR'S OSCAR NOMS SUCK!

[bookshop]

*Best Picture 2010 nominations list*
- Avatar <-- racist, imperialist white liberal guilt fantasy (everyone, native peoples, mountains, animals, trees and tree-nerve-endings, get exploited by white people, awesome!!)

- The Blind Side <-- i haven't seen this, but true story notwithstanding the trailer just me cringe. It really, really seemed

Comments

[bookshop]

Basically, I feel like at a certain point if a movie has set me up with a bunch of problematic narrative tropes and doesn't seem to be undermining them, I get to call deal-breaker. Like, I reserve the right to say, "okay, at this point this story has not sufficiently complicated its problems enough for me to justify putting up with its crap in order to get to the end, where it may or may not resolve/subvert these expectations in a way that makes it worth my time."

And like you said, it really depends on the context ultimately, but i think the more i learn about these things, the less patience i have with waiting for a story to spin itself out and resolve its many fucked-up issues, when 90% of the time, most stories *don't.* there are some stories which i'm just not willing to engage more fully with because they hurt me at the outset.

BUT, I think that's a really troubling and messy way of being, and I don't want to be that shoot-first type of thinker, because that way lies reactionary vehemence. Which I think we both know I can do without.

So, I don't want to be closed off to re-contextualization and complications. But I also, too often, find myself ignoring the meta-narratives of stories just to be able to enjoy them. (Like I'm doing with Sherlock Holmes, basically, after having ranted about the meta-narrative and how harmful I feel it is.)

It's just, in this specific case, I got to a point that *was* a deal-breaker; and, I mean. I didn't see enough on screen to make it worth it to me to waste my patience on yet another confused career girl torn between her job and her boyfriend, because I've *seen* that story over and over again.

So, really, in the end, it comes down to something cimness said once (which i will badly paraphrase): she said she was trying to cut down what she watched to shows and films that passed the Bechdel test, because she's seen enough stories about men. I've been thinking about that a *lot*, because ultimately, that's pretty much how I feel. I don't have to be patient with this film. I've had this story told to me again and again. I bet even without seeing it I know how it ends. I'd rather go re-watch Whip It.

[regicidaldwarf]

That last paragraph is pretty much why I stopped watching Mad Men two episodes in (I don't think you've watched Mad Men, but this is something I've been holding in for awhile). I don't care if the women eventually empower themselves and stop being doormats for their men and being told to get birth control if they're going to work in a public place (and then having the doctor prescribing the medication tell them that no respectable man wants to marry a girl that sleeps around), the starting point made me so angry I couldn't stand to stick around and watch through that transition. And the main character is a complete misogynist that we're...somehow supposed to identify with, that I doubt ever really gets much better. UM. I THINK NOT. I'D RATHER GO WATCH GILMORE GIRLS FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME.

[jianna]

I have to disagree about Mad Men. Well, ok, Don Draper is a complete and total douchebag who I can't stand, I'll agree with that.

The misogyny (and I'm sure you've heard this before) is inherent to the time period, and I think the writers expect our reaction to be disgust or shock that it's jacked up.

The rest of the show though... The women absolutely positively drive the story and I don't care what the Don-Draper-relating dicks have to say about it. It is a little hard to watch because pretty much everybody on that show is miserable in some way, but I feel like all of the central cast is really fleshed out - none of them function as doormats for the development of other characters. It's just... It's just....

Sorry, I love Mad Men so much (when it's not about Don Draper. Though I do find him interesting in the very few moments when he acts like a real human being rather than an emotionless alpha male dick-bot).

I think my defense of the show just now was pretty fail. =\

[regicidaldwarf]

No but see, that's my point. I've been made vaguely aware that the women become central powerful figures etc. later in the show and I realize the misogyny is inherent to the time period. That doesn't mean I'm comfortable watching that misogyny run rampant just to watch it maybe get subverted later. And as a side note, I'm not willing to watch a show where "pretty much everybody on it is miserable in some way" - that's not enjoyable for me.

This is not to say that you can't enjoy the show or that I look down on people that do watch it. This is just my reason for opting out.

[bookshop]

for what it's worth, this is why i can't watch Big Love either, despite everyone in the world thinking the female characters are amazing/it's a great show / Chloe Sevigny who is my goddess is in it, etc etc.

like, i can't get past the starting point (HAREM!) and it just shuts down my tolerance for that kind of story. I've tried to *want* to watch it so often and I just can't.

[jianna]

When you compare it to Big Love I can understand even more why some people dislike Mad Men. I cannot stand Big Love. Perhaps my tolerance for Mad Men comes only from my appreciation of 60's fashion and wanting any excuse to watch Christina Hendricks do just about anything...

[jianna]

I actually had this big long thing typed out going on and on about what I loved about the writing of the women on the show, but then I saw that you replied and backtracked.

That's fine if it's just not your cup of tea, but I just wanted to point out that it's one of the only TV shows I've watched recently that writes it's women like human beings rather than as members of some alien species that all act the same because they're omgwomen. They've got layers. Like onions. And ogres.

It is a rough show to watch. It makes me want to punch everyone in it with great regularity and I can see why you'd wanna opt out of that.

[sistermagpie]

I love Mad Men, but I wouldn't say the women become central powerful figures. They're living in an even more sexist society than we are, they've internalized it, and they're doing the best they can is the best I can say. It doesn't stop them from sometimes being awesome, but it's not a show about the women gradually becoming more empowered. Sometimes they do become more empowered or start to question why they shouldn't be or why they're not happy, but it's not about moving in that direction any more than the gay characters or non-white characters are there to be empowered. They just happened to be living at a time where we know those things are changing.

Re: Don, I don't know how anybody could identify with him myself. I love him as a character, but he's a really screwed up guy. If I guy said he identified with him I wouldn't think "Oh, you're an alpha male?" I'd think "Oh, you grew up an unloved whore-child in the depression and are living under an entirely false identity with tons of mommy and daddy issues?"