((Okay. So...I think I'm calm while I'm responding to this. If I don't, I apologize.))
The first issue you raise about Columbian stereotypes: basically, it doesn't claim to be a documentary, it doesn't claim that it's fact. It's an action movie, simple as that. "Offensiveness" is really subjective, and unless the movie is blatantly racist and portrays the Columbian characters as LESS than the American/Euro characters, then I think it's irrelevant. People who are bothered by it don't have to see it, and I don't think it's an objective criticism. The point isn't to portray Columbia really is.
Guns are not that heavy. They really, really aren't. If Saldana couldn't lift a real pistol, she probably has trouble shifting her clutch, opening heavy doors, and any number of day-to-day activities. One of my very good friends is one of the shortest, thinnest, most adorable people in the world and she can hold a big damn Glock like it's NOTHING. I know I'm kind of a more muscular girl, but when my family hunted I would hike all day in the woods toting a high caliber rifle...when I was 11/12. It's not so unbelievable to me. Plus, Zoe Saldana isn't thin, she just doesn't have a very beefy musculature, but she appears to be in good shape and have a very wiry muscle build. Being thin doesn't mean weak. There are all different types of bodies.
As for the next part...I'm going to address this in terms of logic, since one issue is entirely dependent on another. The "why warrior women" question is ENTIRELY dependent on the reasoning behind the first question you raised, which was "Why warriors". "Why warriors" Is the foundation reasoning upon which the other is based.
Why Warriors: I think part of it is tradition. However, most of the people who enjoy seeing characters who fight and are strong will never pick up a sword or a gun themselves. Instead, that warrior is more symbolic of strength, integrity, and willingness to risk your life for a cause. I think that most people can relate to warrior characters at some point, because it helps them find empowerment and bravery in their own lives. In short, I don't think that most 'warrior' fiction is about the warrior or the fight itself, but about the bravery and the INNER strength needed to commit your life to something. Plus, sometimes, violence is necessary. I think some action movies speak to the anti-intellectualism in our culture, but...there's also something to be said for a movie with cheap thrills. Most people are never going to experience those things, some of those things are physically impossible, and because we can't experience those things, they're fun. I understand that they're not everyone's cuppa, but they are a valid expressive form.
Re: Reply pt. 1fearedeyepatchAugust 29 2011, 18:30:44 UTC
Most of this I actually do somewhat agree with, or at least consider valid though I may disagree with it.
As for the gun thing. Alright, guns aren't that heavy sometimes. Pistols I do believe she could carry. Carrying isn't the issue: Most guns have massive recoil, especially machines guns, which also have a lot more metal bullets which makes them quiet heavy. Sometimes it looks like she's carrying a gun almost as tall as she is with a ton of bullets. There are just several actress it's hard for me to take as action heroes. Keira Knightly only works in the Pirates movies because she wears heavy clothes. I understand there are different body types, but when I see that women in shorts and a tank, she looks like she's about to starve. It doesn't look healthy to me, let alone action hero status. What also bothers me here is it feels like a time when there's actually a double standard for men. It's almost like, well, they deserve some double standards, wah, but at the same time I read interviews with like Hugh Jackman about all the stuff he has to do to buff up to play certain characters, and you see that a lot with male action heroes. But you don't hear that from women action heroes at all. They can be as skinny as they like because it's considered "attractive."
"n short, I don't think that most 'warrior' fiction is about the warrior or the fight itself, but about the bravery and the INNER strength needed to commit your life to something." I do agree with this. It makes some sense but at a certain point shouldn't our society be able to move past that? You don't need a sword to have inner strength as seen by countless individuals like Gandhi or various scientists. Violence can be necessary, I agree, but really as a very, very, very, very last resort. The reason I have issues with warrior/assassin characters is part of me is going, every time they kill someone, they're killing a brother, son, father, they're ending someone that someone loves. Is that really worth it? There are times it is. But in a lot of fiction it sorta isn't.
There are things to be said for movies with cheap thrills. I like superhero movies, I like the Ocean's 11 set, but most action movies I don't always like. They do speak to anti-intellectualism in our culture, but they also tend to be deeply sexist, violent for the sake of violence, and have a whole host of other problems. Sometimes it's nice to turn your brain off, but it's a very disturbing trend at the same time. They usually prompt sexualizing women, even when they give them weapons. There's just this level of putting women's as sex objects that disturbs me in most "cheap thrills" movies. It's actually why I like superhero movies more, since they *tend* to be better about this. Thor honestly has some of my favorite female characters for how little they sexualize them, and how intelligent they are, though Natalie Portman's character is devoted to her work and intelligent while still being feminine.
Alright, here's the issue you raised that I flat out disagree with passionately. "basically, it doesn't claim to be a documentary" and the rest of that paragraph.
I'm sorry, but after reading about the country, meeting people from it, being taught history by someone from that country, watching actual documentaries from it, I can't believe they're making an action movie about it in the first place. Because it's not a documentary it can take an entire country through the mud? Because they don't treat the characters worse than Americans, they can do whatever they want to them? I'm actually going to talk to Lopez about this film when school starts back up because I'm curious, but in general, if something is insulting to the people it portrays, that's a bit hint something's off. I don't really believe entertainment is just entertainment and gets off scot free. Being someone who studies literature, which was most generations form of popular entertainment, and someone who also spends a lot of time dealing with films as history, I don't buy into that idea. Entertainment says a lot about a culture, and cultural mores.
Re: Reply pt. 1qualapecAugust 29 2011, 20:40:13 UTC
I think that Keira Knightly and Zoe Saldana are very different types of thin. Saldana strikes me as all muscle instead of just anorexic.
You do raise a good point about the double standard --- men are more muscular and women practically starve themselves. HOWEVER some male models that look very muscular and healthy are also suffering from rather extreme anorexia. It's not uncommon for that to be the case, either.
Again, guns really are not that heavy or hard to fire or lift. Something doesn't need to be a huge caliber to be deadly, and in fact, most special ops type things are a relatively low caliber.
You raise some good points about the problems with mainstream action movies. Those are very true, and they do reflect the same kind of thoughtless violence and misogyny that I'm arguing adamantly against. I do hate those kinds of action movies. I'm saying they don't have to. I'm saying that action movies can be thoughtful and have a PURPOSE and well-developed characters.
"The reason I have issues with warrior/assassin characters is part of me is going, every time they kill someone, they're killing a brother, son, father, they're ending someone that someone loves. Is that really worth it? There are times it is. But in a lot of fiction it sorta isn't."
This is true, I tend to like characters that don't kill anymore than they ABSOLUTELY need to. And, again, it's one reason why I hate the American WWII mythos, and that's because I feel the same way you do about the soldiers that are killed. I think that, yes, sometimes characters need to die, sometimes even anonymous soldiers need to die, but I think the gravity of those actions need to somehow be reflected in your hero. One reason why I love the Megaman series is because X always looks back on all the destruction he's dealt and wonders if it's really worth it--- by the end of the series, he's practically a pacifist (which, let's admit, ultimately makes for a pretty lame video game).
I mean, look at Oblivion. Without people like us (who want to find the rationale for the character's behavior) it's just a bunch of pixels bashing another bunch of pixels that represent other characters. When you play the game, you have a character monologue running, giving a reason behind those things. That's what I'm talking about.
"Being someone who studies literature, which was most generations form of popular entertainment, and someone who also spends a lot of time dealing with films as history, I don't buy into that idea. Entertainment says a lot about a culture, and cultural mores."
Perhaps this is true, but really, people can choose to be offended by ANYTHING. To me, 'racism' is very cut and dry. Unless it is directly used to talk down to Columbia as a country, I really don't care. This is probably another difference in world view. I don't think that fiction has the responsibility to do anything other than treat people of race and gender as equals. Peoples' interpretations of their own cultures differ CONSIDERABLY, and I'm not going to bother being offended for someone else except in very extreme circumstances.
Re: Reply pt. 1fearedeyepatchAugust 29 2011, 21:16:42 UTC
They look the same to me, especially when you see them both wearing things that bare their shoulders and upper arms. Maybe it's not the same but it looks it an awful lot to me. Yes, male models suffer from eating issues too, and the entire model culture is unhealthy. Honestly, acting can be such too, for men and women, but there's a double standard.
Action movies can be thoughtful and with a purpose. They are just very, very rare. Superhero movies on average tend to be this more often than other action movies, but it's still rare enough.
The gravity of death needs to be reflected in characters. There are many video games, most action movies and even superhero movies that don't do this. Superhero movies, again, have a better track record on keeping their characters from killing their villains ((Sometimes to silly extremes)) but their bystander death count tends to be astronomical.
... Your last point is clearly a difference in world view. The idea of not being offended for others is one that honestly shocks me. The world and human rights is slightly more than just being treated equally, though that's the foundation of it. Is it alright to insult people then if you insult both them and Europeans? Either you insult everyone or no one? Is that how it works? I don't understand.
I think fiction has a lot of responsibility, especially to groups that have suffered.
The first issue you raise about Columbian stereotypes: basically, it doesn't claim to be a documentary, it doesn't claim that it's fact. It's an action movie, simple as that. "Offensiveness" is really subjective, and unless the movie is blatantly racist and portrays the Columbian characters as LESS than the American/Euro characters, then I think it's irrelevant. People who are bothered by it don't have to see it, and I don't think it's an objective criticism. The point isn't to portray Columbia really is.
Guns are not that heavy. They really, really aren't. If Saldana couldn't lift a real pistol, she probably has trouble shifting her clutch, opening heavy doors, and any number of day-to-day activities. One of my very good friends is one of the shortest, thinnest, most adorable people in the world and she can hold a big damn Glock like it's NOTHING. I know I'm kind of a more muscular girl, but when my family hunted I would hike all day in the woods toting a high caliber rifle...when I was 11/12. It's not so unbelievable to me. Plus, Zoe Saldana isn't thin, she just doesn't have a very beefy musculature, but she appears to be in good shape and have a very wiry muscle build. Being thin doesn't mean weak. There are all different types of bodies.
As for the next part...I'm going to address this in terms of logic, since one issue is entirely dependent on another. The "why warrior women" question is ENTIRELY dependent on the reasoning behind the first question you raised, which was "Why warriors". "Why warriors" Is the foundation reasoning upon which the other is based.
Why Warriors: I think part of it is tradition. However, most of the people who enjoy seeing characters who fight and are strong will never pick up a sword or a gun themselves. Instead, that warrior is more symbolic of strength, integrity, and willingness to risk your life for a cause. I think that most people can relate to warrior characters at some point, because it helps them find empowerment and bravery in their own lives. In short, I don't think that most 'warrior' fiction is about the warrior or the fight itself, but about the bravery and the INNER strength needed to commit your life to something. Plus, sometimes, violence is necessary. I think some action movies speak to the anti-intellectualism in our culture, but...there's also something to be said for a movie with cheap thrills. Most people are never going to experience those things, some of those things are physically impossible, and because we can't experience those things, they're fun. I understand that they're not everyone's cuppa, but they are a valid expressive form.
Reply
As for the gun thing. Alright, guns aren't that heavy sometimes. Pistols I do believe she could carry. Carrying isn't the issue: Most guns have massive recoil, especially machines guns, which also have a lot more metal bullets which makes them quiet heavy. Sometimes it looks like she's carrying a gun almost as tall as she is with a ton of bullets. There are just several actress it's hard for me to take as action heroes. Keira Knightly only works in the Pirates movies because she wears heavy clothes. I understand there are different body types, but when I see that women in shorts and a tank, she looks like she's about to starve. It doesn't look healthy to me, let alone action hero status. What also bothers me here is it feels like a time when there's actually a double standard for men. It's almost like, well, they deserve some double standards, wah, but at the same time I read interviews with like Hugh Jackman about all the stuff he has to do to buff up to play certain characters, and you see that a lot with male action heroes. But you don't hear that from women action heroes at all. They can be as skinny as they like because it's considered "attractive."
"n short, I don't think that most 'warrior' fiction is about the warrior or the fight itself, but about the bravery and the INNER strength needed to commit your life to something." I do agree with this. It makes some sense but at a certain point shouldn't our society be able to move past that? You don't need a sword to have inner strength as seen by countless individuals like Gandhi or various scientists. Violence can be necessary, I agree, but really as a very, very, very, very last resort. The reason I have issues with warrior/assassin characters is part of me is going, every time they kill someone, they're killing a brother, son, father, they're ending someone that someone loves. Is that really worth it? There are times it is. But in a lot of fiction it sorta isn't.
There are things to be said for movies with cheap thrills. I like superhero movies, I like the Ocean's 11 set, but most action movies I don't always like. They do speak to anti-intellectualism in our culture, but they also tend to be deeply sexist, violent for the sake of violence, and have a whole host of other problems. Sometimes it's nice to turn your brain off, but it's a very disturbing trend at the same time. They usually prompt sexualizing women, even when they give them weapons. There's just this level of putting women's as sex objects that disturbs me in most "cheap thrills" movies. It's actually why I like superhero movies more, since they *tend* to be better about this. Thor honestly has some of my favorite female characters for how little they sexualize them, and how intelligent they are, though Natalie Portman's character is devoted to her work and intelligent while still being feminine.
Alright, here's the issue you raised that I flat out disagree with passionately. "basically, it doesn't claim to be a documentary" and the rest of that paragraph.
I'm sorry, but after reading about the country, meeting people from it, being taught history by someone from that country, watching actual documentaries from it, I can't believe they're making an action movie about it in the first place. Because it's not a documentary it can take an entire country through the mud? Because they don't treat the characters worse than Americans, they can do whatever they want to them? I'm actually going to talk to Lopez about this film when school starts back up because I'm curious, but in general, if something is insulting to the people it portrays, that's a bit hint something's off. I don't really believe entertainment is just entertainment and gets off scot free. Being someone who studies literature, which was most generations form of popular entertainment, and someone who also spends a lot of time dealing with films as history, I don't buy into that idea. Entertainment says a lot about a culture, and cultural mores.
Reply
You do raise a good point about the double standard --- men are more muscular and women practically starve themselves. HOWEVER some male models that look very muscular and healthy are also suffering from rather extreme anorexia. It's not uncommon for that to be the case, either.
Again, guns really are not that heavy or hard to fire or lift. Something doesn't need to be a huge caliber to be deadly, and in fact, most special ops type things are a relatively low caliber.
You raise some good points about the problems with mainstream action movies. Those are very true, and they do reflect the same kind of thoughtless violence and misogyny that I'm arguing adamantly against. I do hate those kinds of action movies. I'm saying they don't have to. I'm saying that action movies can be thoughtful and have a PURPOSE and well-developed characters.
"The reason I have issues with warrior/assassin characters is part of me is going, every time they kill someone, they're killing a brother, son, father, they're ending someone that someone loves. Is that really worth it? There are times it is. But in a lot of fiction it sorta isn't."
This is true, I tend to like characters that don't kill anymore than they ABSOLUTELY need to. And, again, it's one reason why I hate the American WWII mythos, and that's because I feel the same way you do about the soldiers that are killed. I think that, yes, sometimes characters need to die, sometimes even anonymous soldiers need to die, but I think the gravity of those actions need to somehow be reflected in your hero. One reason why I love the Megaman series is because X always looks back on all the destruction he's dealt and wonders if it's really worth it--- by the end of the series, he's practically a pacifist (which, let's admit, ultimately makes for a pretty lame video game).
I mean, look at Oblivion. Without people like us (who want to find the rationale for the character's behavior) it's just a bunch of pixels bashing another bunch of pixels that represent other characters. When you play the game, you have a character monologue running, giving a reason behind those things. That's what I'm talking about.
"Being someone who studies literature, which was most generations form of popular entertainment, and someone who also spends a lot of time dealing with films as history, I don't buy into that idea. Entertainment says a lot about a culture, and cultural mores."
Perhaps this is true, but really, people can choose to be offended by ANYTHING. To me, 'racism' is very cut and dry. Unless it is directly used to talk down to Columbia as a country, I really don't care. This is probably another difference in world view. I don't think that fiction has the responsibility to do anything other than treat people of race and gender as equals. Peoples' interpretations of their own cultures differ CONSIDERABLY, and I'm not going to bother being offended for someone else except in very extreme circumstances.
Reply
Action movies can be thoughtful and with a purpose. They are just very, very rare. Superhero movies on average tend to be this more often than other action movies, but it's still rare enough.
The gravity of death needs to be reflected in characters. There are many video games, most action movies and even superhero movies that don't do this. Superhero movies, again, have a better track record on keeping their characters from killing their villains ((Sometimes to silly extremes)) but their bystander death count tends to be astronomical.
... Your last point is clearly a difference in world view. The idea of not being offended for others is one that honestly shocks me. The world and human rights is slightly more than just being treated equally, though that's the foundation of it. Is it alright to insult people then if you insult both them and Europeans? Either you insult everyone or no one? Is that how it works? I don't understand.
I think fiction has a lot of responsibility, especially to groups that have suffered.
Reply
Leave a comment