Maybe you'd prefer a maiden fair, isn't there a kitten stuck up a tree somewhere
Saturday, after Michelle's bridal shower and a lot of fun, girly times, Michelle, LuAnn, Scott and I went to a late showing of "Brave" at the Cinnebarre. They bring you food. This was helpful, as we'd eaten food at 3-4, and lots of sugar since then, but at 9:50 we'd yet to eat dinner.
"Brave" was fun, funny, and a great look at family dynamics as kids move into teenagerhood. So say I. Merida is a wonderful character who is feeling constrained by her proscribed role and wants more freedom, and doesn't feel her parents, particularly her mother, are listening to her wants and needs. I don't want to go into spoilery details, (JUST IN CASE: MILD SPOILERS AHEAD) but I thought it was a great flick. And it's nice, not to say refreshing, to have the main characters be female, and have their own agency, and not have any way of being female dismissed or said to be awful. No More Hatin' On Ladies Being Who They Are, is what I say. Thank you, Brave. (Yes, the queen does have specific ideas of what is necessary to "Be a Lady," but the film itself does not say that Merida is bad for not following those rules, and the film also makes it clear that although the Queen is a Lady's Lady, she is also completely awesomesauce. I like that.) And I have to say the animation was frankly fantastic, the storyline was a fresh take on several fairy tales, without forcing us to live through a romance that didn't make any sense, and the dialogue was smart and funny. And the plot jumps along quite quickly, each scene bringing us inexorably to the next, good tension and conflict building leading the story along smartly.
So I was feeling good about this movie, and the reviews that I'd read had some quibbles here or there, but each to their own. I knew there was going to be some misogynistic backlash, because Heaven Forbid We Let Ladies Have Their Own Story, but I have to say, I was not expecting it from a certain quarter. And that quarter is Roger Ebert. I don't read his reviews all the time, but when I do, even when I disagree with him, I mostly find them to be thoughtful and interesting. But not this time. It feels like he barely thought about it at all.
This review says some things about him that I really find disheartening. OK, he didn't find the movie "groundbreaking" or "brightly original". I disagree with him, but everyone has their own opinion. And he doesn't say he thought the movie was awful or anything. But his tone is pretty dismissive and the last paragraph has me baffled and angry.
"Having flatly rejected the three suitors proposed by her family, she is apparently prepared to go through life quite happily without a husband, and we can imagine her in later years, a weathered and indomitable Amazon queen, sort of a Boudica for the Scots. "Brave" seems at a loss to deal with her as a girl and makes her a sort of honorary boy."
Honorary boy? Because she doesn't want an arranged marriage? Because she wants to take some time to decide for herself what she wants? When she's what, all of 15 or something? WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN. It seems like, from this sentence, that Mr. Ebert is telling us that girls don't get to have hero journeys. Girls don't decide things for themselves. Girls don't get to decide to not marry, to be themselves. Girls who do are boys. Women are less than, once again. Women can't possibly have thoughts and feelings that are outside of some arbitrary norm. Women, the almost-man, once again.
What's worse is that the review is not a blatant attack, it's not a giant "Women, EW, go away," diatribe. It's not a movie he thought was fantastic, but was OK. But to have the entire point of the plot brushed off as that Merida is an honorary boy, is a big slap in the face. Did he even pay attention to the movie? Is he aware that statement makes it sound like he was born in the 1850s? Because it's not OK to say that. I don't care what else he said in the review, I don't care about his opinions on whether the dialogue was smart enough. I want him to rethink that last sentence, or rather, think about it at all. I want him to REALLY DISSECT whether that sentence is at all acceptable in any published article in this century. Because it's not.
"Brave" was fun, funny, and a great look at family dynamics as kids move into teenagerhood. So say I. Merida is a wonderful character who is feeling constrained by her proscribed role and wants more freedom, and doesn't feel her parents, particularly her mother, are listening to her wants and needs. I don't want to go into spoilery details, (JUST IN CASE: MILD SPOILERS AHEAD) but I thought it was a great flick. And it's nice, not to say refreshing, to have the main characters be female, and have their own agency, and not have any way of being female dismissed or said to be awful. No More Hatin' On Ladies Being Who They Are, is what I say. Thank you, Brave. (Yes, the queen does have specific ideas of what is necessary to "Be a Lady," but the film itself does not say that Merida is bad for not following those rules, and the film also makes it clear that although the Queen is a Lady's Lady, she is also completely awesomesauce. I like that.) And I have to say the animation was frankly fantastic, the storyline was a fresh take on several fairy tales, without forcing us to live through a romance that didn't make any sense, and the dialogue was smart and funny. And the plot jumps along quite quickly, each scene bringing us inexorably to the next, good tension and conflict building leading the story along smartly.
So I was feeling good about this movie, and the reviews that I'd read had some quibbles here or there, but each to their own. I knew there was going to be some misogynistic backlash, because Heaven Forbid We Let Ladies Have Their Own Story, but I have to say, I was not expecting it from a certain quarter. And that quarter is Roger Ebert. I don't read his reviews all the time, but when I do, even when I disagree with him, I mostly find them to be thoughtful and interesting. But not this time. It feels like he barely thought about it at all.
This review says some things about him that I really find disheartening. OK, he didn't find the movie "groundbreaking" or "brightly original". I disagree with him, but everyone has their own opinion. And he doesn't say he thought the movie was awful or anything. But his tone is pretty dismissive and the last paragraph has me baffled and angry.
"Having flatly rejected the three suitors proposed by her family, she is apparently prepared to go through life quite happily without a husband, and we can imagine her in later years, a weathered and indomitable Amazon queen, sort of a Boudica for the Scots. "Brave" seems at a loss to deal with her as a girl and makes her a sort of honorary boy."
Honorary boy? Because she doesn't want an arranged marriage? Because she wants to take some time to decide for herself what she wants? When she's what, all of 15 or something? WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN. It seems like, from this sentence, that Mr. Ebert is telling us that girls don't get to have hero journeys. Girls don't decide things for themselves. Girls don't get to decide to not marry, to be themselves. Girls who do are boys. Women are less than, once again. Women can't possibly have thoughts and feelings that are outside of some arbitrary norm. Women, the almost-man, once again.
What's worse is that the review is not a blatant attack, it's not a giant "Women, EW, go away," diatribe. It's not a movie he thought was fantastic, but was OK. But to have the entire point of the plot brushed off as that Merida is an honorary boy, is a big slap in the face. Did he even pay attention to the movie? Is he aware that statement makes it sound like he was born in the 1850s? Because it's not OK to say that. I don't care what else he said in the review, I don't care about his opinions on whether the dialogue was smart enough. I want him to rethink that last sentence, or rather, think about it at all. I want him to REALLY DISSECT whether that sentence is at all acceptable in any published article in this century. Because it's not.